Orbit Post Sitemap
Key points about $ZEC first explained
August 25 is just Grayscale's own estimated listing date, not the official deadline for the SEC's approval result.
The SEC will not announce in advance when the result will be released; there is no fixed alarm time.
Three scenarios, when the result can be confirmed
1. ✅ Direct approval and effectiveness
The SEC issues an "effectiveness order" document, and Grayscale can immediately start the listing. It might just go live on 8-25, or it could be a few days later.
It does not mean the result will definitely come out on 8-25.
2. ⏳ SEC issues inquiries or delays (most likely)
The SEC sends a supplementary inquiry letter, requiring Grayscale to answer questions related to privacy coin AML and custody.
The result is that the 8-25 date will be postponed directly, and the listing will be delayed by a few weeks or even 1-2 months.
This will not be a direct "rejection," just an extension of the review period.
3. ❌ Direct rejection
The SEC issues an official rejection announcement, and the ZCSH application fails completely.
How do you know the result immediately?
1. The real confirmation signal: The SEC EDGAR system shows the official effectiveness/rejection document corresponding to ZCSH, or top crypto media like CoinDesk sends a pop-up alert.
2. Grayscale unilaterally tweeting "about to go live" does not count as approval; there must be an official SEC document to be valid.
Summary of the time window
- Short-term window: August 23 to August 30, the market is speculating on the 8-25 expectation. News can break anytime, day or night, before or after US stock market hours.
- If there is no effectiveness announcement by August 30, it is basically confirmed to be delayed; do not keep betting on the 8-25 date.
A very realistic pitfall on the trading side
The price has already priced in the ETF positive news in advance:
- Even if it is really approved, it is very easy to "dump on landing" (buy the rumor, sell the fact)
- If it is delayed, it will directly and quickly crash.
Additionally, combined with the NU7 governance snapshot on the evening of August 24, volatility will be extremely wild these days. 210,000 Retail Investors Liquidated, Yet That Cat Coin Defied the Trend with a 48% Surge
This morning, while checking the market, a piece of breaking news caught my eye. In the past 24 hours, nearly $1 billion worth of liquidations occurred across the entire network, with over 210,000 people forcibly liquidated. Long positions alone accounted for more than $700 million. While most accounts were being wiped out, a cat meme coin called CATE on the Solana chain quietly surpassed a market cap of $80 million, surging over 48% in 24 hours.
On one side, retail investors were being wiped out root and branch; on the other, a cat-themed coin reversed the trend with nearly a 50% gain. This contrast is already surreal on a normal day, but today it’s especially striking.
Many people are probably hearing the name CATE for the first time. It has no technical whitepaper, no so-called ecosystem roadmap—just a cat image and community sentiment. According to GMGN’s on-chain monitoring, its market cap surged to $80.26 million in the early morning, rising more than 48% within a day. In the meme coin world, such gains aren’t rare, but to rally against the trend on a day of massive liquidations across the network definitely means someone is fueling the fire behind the scenes.
What’s truly interesting is the choice of capital. Bitcoin barely moved today; on the macro front, the probability of a Fed rate hike in September still hovers around 40%, and the market’s fear and greed index dropped from 71 to 66. Logically, funds should be more cautious in this environment, yet someone decided to put bullets into a completely illogical cat coin. Is this a quick pump exploiting the liquidity vacuum after liquidations, or is there genuinely a community pushing it together? The chain data isn’t clear yet.
I prefer to see it as a signal. Meme coin explosions usually happen at two moments: one is at the tail end of the wildest market phases, when everyone FOMOs recklessly; the other is in the messiest gaps of the market, where whales use small-cap coins to quickly create profit effects. CATE’s timing today hits right between these two, riding the rebound sentiment while avoiding Bitcoin’s directional battles.
But to be honest, meme coins have always been zero-sum or even negative-sum games. BlockBeats also reminded in their newsflash that these coins mostly lack real use cases and have extreme price volatility. A coin that jumps 48% today could be halved tomorrow. The profits made by those pumping the price often come from the losses of those who buy in later.
How far that cat can run, no one can say for sure. What’s really worth thinking about is that while 210,000 people were wiped out in liquidations, some capital quietly pushed a cat coin to $80 million. Is this a smart move to pick up cheap chips, or the start of another game of hot potato? What do you think?Both longs and shorts exploded together, 210,000 people wiped out nearly 1 billion in one night
Did your account turn green this week? Last night, both long and short sides were taken out together. Coinglass data shows that in the past 24 hours, the entire network liquidated $995 million, with over 210,000 people forcibly liquidated. Interestingly, $721 million in long positions and $274 million in short positions were liquidated, indicating this was not a one-sided market clearing the opposing side, but rather a pinning move that swept leverage on both sides.
Anyone trading futures knows the worst is when both sides get hit. You think the price has dropped enough to bottom-fish, but it suddenly rallies and stops out your long. You think the price is crazily rising so you chase shorts, but it dips back and clears your short as well. This kind of movement usually happens during low liquidity periods, where the main players can clear stop losses with minimal chips. It looks like a violent surge and drop, but it’s actually a precise harvest.
Looking at a longer timeframe makes it clearer. Just this week, the total network liquidations went from $1.675 billion to $1.238 billion and now nearly $1 billion. The numbers are decreasing, but each round sees tens of thousands of people wiped out simultaneously. This shows that trapped longs above and chasing shorts below still exist, and every market move takes people out. It’s far from a time to sleep peacefully.
From the market perspective, BTC’s recent rally from lows has already eaten up many shorts, but the retracement spikes are getting denser. For swing traders, this means don’t over-leverage your positions and always set stop losses on the exchange instead of relying on memory. Positions with liquidation prices too close to the current price can be wiped out by a small spike, and other coins in your account might get affected as well.
In the short term, the Fear & Greed Index is still stuck at 66 in the greed zone, indicating market sentiment hasn’t cooled and leverage is still building. This is when accidents are most likely because everyone is betting on direction. Once funding rates hit the ceiling, the crowded longs can break at the slightest touch. In the long term, this rebound is supported by continuous ETF inflows and easing macro conditions, so the logic remains intact, but the process will be turbulent.
Regarding trading strategy, what I fear most in the greed zone is people turning profitable trades into heavy positions, thinking they understand the market and ramping up leverage. If you want to participate in this rebound, scaling in is much safer than going all-in, and locking in the worst-case loss per trade within an acceptable range is far more effective than guessing tops and bottoms every day.
I prefer to treat my position like rowing a boat in a storm, not sprinting on flat ground. Have you set your stop losses tonight, or are you planning to hold until dawn again? Everyone is debating the stablecoin track, but Coinbase has quietly taken position
Your next automatic payment might not go through Alipay or a bank, but through an exchange. Recently, the community has been arguing about which track will win between stablecoins and card payments, but ChainCatcher published an article revealing an overlooked fact: Coinbase has quietly become the largest actual operator of AI agent payments by simply issuing a wallet to each Agent.
This is quite counterintuitive upon reflection. People assume the winner of the payment war would be an established clearing network like Visa or a stablecoin protocol starting from scratch. But the fastest mover is an exchange that originally only dealt with buying and selling coins. It equipped AI agents with wallets and payment interfaces; when Agents need to buy data, call APIs, or pay for computing power, they use its chain directly, sending money out in USDC, which flows back to it.
What does this mean for us? Crypto payments have been talked about for years, but the real scalable scenario might not be you and me scanning codes at supermarkets, but machines automatically settling accounts with each other. Agents booking flights, buying research reports, calling APIs—once these small, high-frequency transactions are running smoothly, the exchange’s revenue won’t come from trading fees but from becoming the cashier of the future machine economy.
In the short term, this is still narrative; Coinbase’s stock and coin prices won’t move immediately because of one analysis. But in the long run, whoever controls the Agent’s default wallet holds the first gateway to machine payments. The stablecoin race isn’t just about who is cheaper, but who gets their interface installed first in the Agent’s default settings.
What do you think? In the future, when Agents spend money on your behalf, will the first stop be Coinbase, a public chain, or will stablecoins not be used at all? Trump's June frenzy of over a thousand stock trades while hyping crypto
Those still holding positions in their wallets should pause for a moment. A detail in the financial documents disclosed by the U.S. Office of Government Ethics this weekend reveals that Trump made more than 1,000 securities transactions in June, with a total value ranging from $78.1 million to $263.1 million. The buy and sell list includes Berkshire, Visa, Mastercard, and also Coinbase. Publicly, he shouts "All Crypto," but behind the scenes, most of his money is still in stocks.
This contrast is quite intriguing. A person who brought crypto onto the political stage has an account activity consisting entirely of traditional stocks, with Coinbase only making up a small portion. Between June 12 and 23, he sold crypto assets worth tens of thousands to $300,000, then bought back $50,000 to $100,000 on the 24th. In other words, he verbally supports the industry, but his wallet doesn’t hold significant crypto positions.
Digging deeper, the disclosures show he made over 21,000 transactions in 2025, with a total value between $600 million and $1.86 billion. The White House says these are managed by independent entities and there is no conflict of interest. This means it’s not occasional impulse trading but a routine high-frequency operation, and the thousand trades in June just happened to coincide with the busiest week for crypto.
From a market perspective, this is a classic case of expectation versus reality. Much of the recent crypto rally from the bottom is driven by expectations of policy shifts and regulatory easing, with the core narrative being that Washington is backing it. But the fact that the leading voice himself holds little position shows that the confidence behind this rally is more about narrative and liquidity than insiders’ real money.
In the short term, this disclosure itself won’t affect the market; the trading volume of Coinbase is negligible for the stock price. But in the long term, it throws cold water on the fervent crypto narrative, reminding us not to treat politicians’ hype as a signal to build positions. What really determines the market is the real weekly inflows of billions into ETFs and when the Federal Reserve truly releases liquidity.
For those of us watching the market closely, the takeaway is simple: don’t take someone else’s microphone as your own trading plan. The gap between fully priced-in good news and dashed expectations often lies in this contrast between words and account activity. For the market to truly improve, we need to see sustained money flowing on-chain and into ETFs, not just another tweet.
Do you trust what he says or the thousand trades in his account? #特朗普披露千笔证券交易，透明度受关注 Our market context index, is 57/100: Balanced, up 15 from yesterday.
$BTC is still around $77.5K.
US Bitcoin ETFs took in $1.918B last week, with inflows on all five trading days. But BTC open interest is down 0.43% over 24 hours, while CryptoQuant now shows 2,549 BTC moving onto exchanges.
The ETF bid is real. The question now is whether it can continue absorbing fresh exchange supply without leverage doing the work.
Our $72K weekly level settles at 00:00 UTC.五分钟6505万枚迷因币被清算七个钱包归零
还觉得迷因币只能亏时间不能亏本金的人看这条。ChainCatcher监测到，FARTCOIN在五分钟之内有6505万枚被清算，涉及七个钱包，按当时价格算价值约1293万美元。不是慢慢阴跌，是五分钟，一眨眼，一千三百万美元没了。
FARTCOIN是Solana上的老牌迷因之一，之前跟着迷因季涨过一波，社区基础不算小。正因为它有流动性、有人气，才有人敢在上面开高倍多单，也才会在回踩时死得最惨。越是熟悉的币，越容易让人放松警惕去加仓。
迷因币本来波动就大，但这回被清的不是散户小仓，是七个钱包合计六千多万枚的集中爆仓。能在一个这么短窗口里被抬走，基本说明这些仓位都是高倍杠杆的多单，挂在某个点位上，价格一碰就连环触发。做迷因的人最爱的就是它的暴利，最坑的也正是这种暴利背后的高杠杆。
放到盘面看，FARTCOIN这种算是迷因板块的情绪温度计。它五分钟被清一千三百万，说明这轮反弹里冲进迷因的多头已经堆得很挤，一点回踩就有人扛不住。对咱们做主流的也有参考，迷因先跳水往往是大盘要震荡的前兆，因为最激进的钱最敏感。
短期看，这种插针不代表趋势反转，但提醒咱们别在贪婪区去碰高倍迷因。长期看，迷因币的价值逻辑从来不在基本面，而在叙事和流量，哪天热度过了，杠杆有多高就死多快。
说到底迷因不是不能碰，是得想清楚自己赚的是哪一层的钱。赚叙事就得在热度还在时走，赚波动就得把止损卡死，最忌的就是用主力的仓位习惯去博迷因的波动。这一千三百万清零的七个人，大概率昨晚睡前还觉得自己拿的是金狗。
你们手里有没有那种一觉醒来可能归零的迷因仓，还是已经提前跑了。The TRUMP team moved $9 million, family hurried to distance themselves
Just after 8 a.m., an on-chain movement caught many people's attention for a long time. The TRUMP token team's address transferred 3.837 million TRUMP tokens via BitGo to OKX an hour ago. Based on the price at that time, this batch of tokens was worth about $9.33 million.
On the same morning, Eric Trump, Donald Trump's second son, did the opposite in public. When rumors surfaced that Trump was launching a new token, Eric immediately denied it, calling the claim false and even using the word "fraud" to describe the rumor.
On one side, the team is moving real tokens into an exchange, while on the other, family members are rushing to distance themselves from token rumors. Both events happening within the same hour seem quite delicate.
Transferring tokens into an exchange usually has two interpretations in the community. One is that the team is preparing to cash out, since moving tokens from their own wallet to a centralized platform most straightforwardly means selling. The other possibility is just portfolio rebalancing or market-making needs. But regardless, a large transfer into an exchange always makes holders uneasy; no one wants to be the one whose tokens get dumped.
More intriguing is Eric's denial. He denied the new token, not the existing TRUMP. The family is publicly distancing themselves from a non-existent matter, while the existing TRUMP team is actively moving tokens. This mismatch between statements and actions easily fuels market speculation.
Worth noting is the intermediary. The tokens were not transferred directly from the team wallet to OKX but went through BitGo first. BitGo is a regulated custodian, so this step means it’s not a casual wallet-to-wallet transfer but a planned move through a compliant intermediary to send chips to a place where they can be cashed out. The more orderly the route, the higher the probability the tokens will eventually be sold on the exchange.
Zooming out a bit: today the crypto fear and greed index stands at 66, down from 71 yesterday but still in the greed zone. In a market where greed still prevails, the team quietly moving nearly $10 million worth of tokens into an exchange contrasts sharply with retail investors' persistent bullish sentiment.
Looking back at the TRUMP token, it has carried a strong family association since its inception, with the community hyping it during rises and controversies during falls. Now, with the price relatively stable, the team choosing this moment to move nine-figure tokens is itself noteworthy.
For ordinary people, the most important caution when seeing such news is not the price movement but the narrative. When one side publicly denies and the other moves tokens on-chain, retail investors often learn the truth last. If your position is still tied to this story, it’s time to seriously consider which version you are actually betting on. #特朗普披露千笔证券交易，透明度受关注 How to choose between STX and CORE? Understand the fundamental differences between the two BTCFi leaders in one chart
⚠️ Risk Warning: This is only a discussion of sector logic and does not constitute investment advice.
1. Underlying Positioning and Chain Attributes (The Most Fundamental Difference)
$STX (Stacks): Bitcoin Layer 2 (L2/Settlement Anchor Chain)
Relies on PoX transfer proof, all block hashes are anchored and written into the Bitcoin mainnet; essentially an independent execution layer dependent on Bitcoin, without independent computing power security, security ultimately relies on Bitcoin ledger anchoring.
Smart contracts use the Clarity exclusive language, incompatible with EVM, Ethereum ecosystem DApps cannot be migrated with one click.
$CORE (Core DAO): Independent L1 public chain, Satoshi Plus hybrid consensus
A native independent underlying chain, fully compatible with EVM, Ethereum developers can migrate contracts at low cost.
Consensus merges three forces: Bitcoin delegated computing power DPoW + BTC holders’ timelock staking + CORE staking DPoS; the network has an independent validator node system.
In simple terms:
Stacks = Bitcoin-dependent Layer 2 application layer;
Core = Independent Layer 1 public chain with Bitcoin computing power as security base and built-in EVM.
2. BTC Staking Mechanism and Security Model (The Most Controversial Market Aspect)
Stacks (STX)
1. PoX5 upgrade enables native BTC staking, BTC locked in Bitcoin L1 timelock, no cross-chain relay needed;
2. Staking rewards are paid directly in BTC, no risk of secondary token reward volatility;
3. Rules: BTC staking must be paired with locked STX (about 5% of BTC value, mandatory), lock-up period fixed at 6 months;
4. Advantages: extremely simple architecture, no relay nodes, favored by many native Bitcoin minimalists;
5. Drawbacks: rigid lock-up period, poor liquidity; high migration threshold for Clarity ecosystem developers.
Core (CORE)
1. BTC also remains in Bitcoin mainnet CLTV timelock, principal does not cross chains;
2. Staking status and reward settlement rely on relay nodes synchronizing information to Core chain (main market concern);
3. Dual staking mechanism: staking BTC alone yields low returns, higher returns require staking CORE; rewards mainly in CORE;
4. Advantages: flexible lock-up periods chosen by users; launched lstBTC targeting custodial institutions (BitGo/HexTrust), focusing on institutional BTCFi market;
5. Drawbacks: an additional relay component, architecture complexity higher than Stacks, long-term need to continuously prove relay decentralization and security.
3. Token Value Capture Logic
STX
Early stage: stake STX to earn BTC paid by miners;
New version: BTC staking becomes mainline, STX is mandatory collateral for staking participation; on-chain gas and governance rely on STX.
Value source: network staking demand, sBTC ecosystem transaction fees.
CORE
Complete revenue flywheel plan: SatPay debit card, lstBTC institutional business, on-chain fee aggregation for buyback and burn;
Dual staking model continuously creates long-term CORE lock-up demand; goal to build a "Bitcoin power grid" covering retail + custodial institutional BTC financial scenarios.
4. Ecosystem Route and Developer Ecosystem Differences
Stacks
Deeply rooted in native Bitcoin community, focusing on native Bitcoin narratives, Ordinals, native Bitcoin DeFi;
Ecosystem mainly native Bitcoin builders, does not attract Ethereum migrating developers; flagship asset: sBTC.
Core
Adopts compatibility route: attracts both Ethereum developers + BTC holders;
Broader sector layout: retail staking, institutional custody lstBTC, SatPay payment debit card, RWA lending; aims to build complete BTCFi financial infrastructure.
5. Intuitive Summary of Advantages and Drawbacks
✅Stacks Advantages
Minimalist architecture, no relay risk; staking rewards settled in BTC; strong native Bitcoin community consensus; Nakamoto upgrade achieves Bitcoin-level finality.
❌Drawbacks: not EVM compatible, slow developer ecosystem expansion; rigid staking lock-up period; product scenarios relatively single.
✅CORE Advantages
Fully EVM compatible, low development threshold; flexible retail staking periods; rich institutional cooperation resources (top custodians); richer ecosystem scenarios (payments, lending, offline SatPay); 2026 strategy shifts to real revenue.
❌Drawbacks: architecture includes relay component, ongoing security concerns; staking rewards mainly CORE, token price volatility risk; validator node fluctuations may cause community sentiment disturbances.
6. Summary of Sector Competition Landscape
The two are not zero-sum competitors and can coexist:
1. Large holders who prioritize simplicity and principal security and only want BTC-denominated returns prefer Stacks;
2. Those optimistic about EVM ecosystem expansion, value institutional funds, and need diversified BTCFi applications (payments, lending, wealth management) prefer Core;
The BTCFi grand narrative can accommodate multiple routes, core competition:
Stacks relies on minimalist security narrative; Core relies on ecosystem richness + institutional market implementation.
$CORE $STX #BTCFi #BitcoinEcosystem It's Sunday night, not many people are watching the market, everyone thinks it's a trash time with no direction.
As a result, BTC dropped to a low of 75,546, now it has pulled back to 77,488.
A trading volume of 1.111 billion on a Sunday is not small.
The fact that it dropped to 75,546 and then recovered shows there is capital buying at the bottom.
RSI recovered from the oversold area to 46, not strong, but the direction is upward.
MACD short-term golden cross just appeared.
MA5 is at 76,800, MA20 at 75,900, price is above both.
Most short positions were stopped out, which is why the rebound is so smooth.
The daily chart is not so optimistic, the high of 77,766 has been a resistance all day and hasn't been broken.
There are buyers below and sellers above, with consolidation in between.
75,546 is today's panic low and the most solid support in my view.
77,766 is today's high; no trend reversal can be claimed before breaking this.
My own positions: bought near 76,800, sold half at 77,766, stop loss for the rest at 75,400.
ETH is stronger than BTC today, pulled back from 2,356 to 2,459, up 1.20%.
Trading volume is 774 million; compared to BTC, ETH has stronger buying support.
AAVE is the brightest spot, surged 12.92%, volume of 39 million is not large but enough to push the price up.
Such sharp rallies are most common when liquidity is thin; tomorrow we'll see if it can hold 140.
Lesson for today: big bullish or bearish candles on Sunday are fake, liquidity is too thin, don't rush to trust them. Four hundred million fled the week before last, and twenty-six hundred million flowed back this week
Just last week, the US Bitcoin and Ethereum spot ETFs were still bleeding money, with a net outflow of $392 million. This week, the scene completely changed, with the two products combined net inflow of $2.6 billion, marking the largest single-week capital inflow since October 2025.
For Bitcoin alone, the spot ETF absorbed $1.9 billion in one week, and Ethereum also saw nearly $700 million in inflows, both marking the strongest week since 2026. The trading volume was even more outrageous, surging from over $9 billion last week to $29 billion, more than tripling. Bitcoin ETF’s own trading volume jumped from $6.9 billion to $22.1 billion, an increase of over 219%. Looking at the timeline, the week before last still saw an outflow of $392 million, but this week it turned into an inflow of $2.6 billion, a difference of nearly $3 billion. This is also the largest single-week net inflow recorded by the Ethereum ETF since the week of October 3, 2025.
The driving force behind this inflow is clear institutional action. Since the Bitcoin ETF was launched, cumulative net inflows have reached $53.7 billion, and total net assets have risen from $76.6 billion back up to $96.1 billion. The head of digital asset research at Standard Chartered recently lowered the year-end target from 150,000 to 100,000, but in the past few days changed his tone, saying 100,000 might be an underestimate and is now looking toward 126,000 by year-end. His reasoning is that the recent rise was mainly driven by short liquidations, but ETF capital flows have begun to recover, and the current open interest is low, leaving room for more investors to re-enter during the rally. Not only ETFs are entering; real estate investment company Cardone Capital also increased its Bitcoin holdings by 350 coins this week, worth $26.9 million, showing traditional capital is also squeezing into this track.
But the on-chain picture is completely different. In these days, the whole network is still experiencing massive liquidations, with over 200,000 people wiped out overnight. A certain whale just transferred over 2,000 Bitcoins to Binance, and the TRUMP team also deposited tokens worth over $9 million into OKX. Institutions are quietly accumulating through compliant channels, while leveraged players are repeatedly getting harvested on contracts. In the past 24 hours alone, the total liquidation scale on the entire network approached $1 billion, with long positions accounting for more than 70%.
On one side, compliant funds are steadily entering; on the other, retail investors are being washed out at high levels. More intriguingly, the sentiment indicator shows that today’s crypto fear and greed index dropped from 71 to 66, meaning the market is clearly in the greed zone, but the funds are not as frenzied as expected. This $2.6 billion inflow— is it smart money paving the way in advance, or just another emotional rebound? How long do you think this wave can last? $CAP CAP price today (August 23) is 0.06859, down 2.92% in 24h, with a 24h high of 0.07288 and a low of 0.06475. SAR 0.06544 is being trampled, SUPERTREND 0.05939 is also being trampled — the daily-level bullish trend is intact. Bollinger Bands upper band at 0.07195, lower band at 0.06475, with a band width of less than $0.0072, indicating the Bollinger Bands are sharply narrowing. RSI6 is 44.75, RSI12 is 49.43, RSI24 is 52.81 — all three periods are near 50, showing balanced bullish and bearish forces with no clear direction. STOCHRSI K is 46.95, D is 51.12, neutral with no extreme signals. Trading volume is 3.00M USDT, slightly shrunk compared to yesterday.
Key levels: Resistance at 0.07195 (Bollinger upper band) → 0.075-0.078 (previous highs); Support at 0.068 (current) → 0.06544 (SAR) → 0.06475 (Bollinger lower band). New Wall Street rookies afraid of AI stealing their jobs are secretly using it every day
Morgan Stanley's equity research team sends a questionnaire to their interns every summer. This year, they received over 500 responses, mostly from people under 21, the new faces who might be sitting in the trading floor and research department next year.
Two numbers in the results, when seen together, feel very strange.
One is 61%. More than 60% of the interns said they worry AI will replace jobs in the financial industry. If asked about other industries, this proportion rises to 74%. In other words, these young people who haven't officially started working yet are already worried that the door they are about to enter might be blocked by machines.
The other is 68%. Nearly 70% of the same group said they use AI tools every day. This number was 35% last year and only 14% the year before, nearly a fivefold increase in two years. Even more striking, about 70% pay for AI tools themselves, compared to 52% last summer.
On one hand, they say they fear AI will take their jobs; on the other, they pay for it and use it daily. These two things aren't contradictory, but together they typify human nature—fear spoken with the mouth and actions taken with the hands are never synchronized. What really caught my attention is that they aren't required by their company to use AI; they are paying for it themselves.
The questionnaire also has a set of data closer to our circle.
More than a quarter of the interns said they used betting or prediction market apps in the past year. The two most common names are Kalshi and Polymarket. Among those who used these, 55% used more than one platform, comparing odds across two or three markets.
This proportion is not surprising for their age group. Another nationwide survey shows 21% of American adults have used prediction market platforms, with 37% among the 18 to 34 age group. For young people, betting on whether an event will happen on a screen is as natural as buying stocks.
But it gets interesting when you consider their identity. These people are currently or will soon be entering the research department of a top global investment bank. Morgan Stanley's employee code of conduct covers trading and investment matters, including prediction markets. The report's insiders did not elaborate on details or mention whether these interns' usage crossed any lines.
At the same time, prediction markets in the U.S. are increasingly under scrutiny. Several states have taken legal or regulatory actions against related platforms. Committees in Washington are still debating how to classify these markets, and the tug-of-war between traditional exchanges and new platforms continues.
On one hand, regulators are still figuring out whether this counts as gambling; on the other, the youngest batch of financial professionals already treat it as a daily tool. No one can say how big the time gap is between these two.
There's a small detail at the end of the questionnaire I quite like. Over 60% expressed interest in using humanoid robots at home, with 10% saying they might be early adopters. The same group fears robots taking jobs but also wants to bring them home.
My direct impression after reading this questionnaire is that the heated debates in the industry don't really apply to this group. They don't fuss over whether AI is a bubble or whether prediction markets count as legitimate finance; if it works, they use it, whoever's tool is handy.
So the question arises. When this group really starts managing money, writing research reports, and deciding positions, what kind of market will their habitual tools push the market into? Do you think they are a generation replaced by machines, or the first generation naturally going to work with machines?Mining pool bigwigs quietly unloaded over a hundred million in leverage during the rebound
Over the past three days, Bitcoin climbed steadily from 77,000, with altcoins and meme coins soaring alongside, sparking cheers of "bullish comeback speed" in the group chat. But while everyone was busy leveraging up to jump in, the founder of a veteran mining pool quietly reduced the leverage in his position.
According to on-chain analyst Yu Jin's monitoring, Wang Chun, co-founder of F2Pool, transferred over 12,700 ETH to Binance during this recent rally, worth about $28.7 million at the time. The moves didn’t stop there; he then withdrew over 87 million USDC from the exchange to repay his loan on Spark.
The loan he took was from Spark, a lending market built on a decentralized stablecoin system, where ETH is used as collateral to borrow stablecoins—a standard leverage tactic for many whales. Now, he’s doing the reverse: liquidating collateral to stablecoins to cover the debt, effectively reducing his risk exposure bit by bit.
Wang Chun is no ordinary retail investor. As co-founder of F2Pool and one of the earliest veterans in the mining circle, he has experienced every rollercoaster of Bitcoin—from a few thousand dollars to 60,000 and then a halving. For someone like him to choose to repay debt rather than add positions at the peak of a rebound carries more weight than any buy signal on screen.
Interestingly, his remaining holdings are still substantial. Even after this reduction, his address still holds about 65,000 ETH, valued at approximately $159 million, plus 1,000 WBTC worth over $77 million. In other words, he’s not bearish; he’s just taking advantage of the market’s generosity to pay down debt and reduce leverage.
This sharply contrasts with the buy signals flooding the screen. During a rebound, novices leverage up chasing gains, while seasoned players deleverage and repay debts. Who’s more afraid of being left behind is clear at a glance.
Wang Chun’s move is not abrupt. The recent price swings between 75,000 and 77,000 wiped out many traders. For veteran miners who have weathered multiple bull and bear cycles, the strongest rebounds are often the best times to lock in profits and reduce risk.
So next time you see a big player’s address activity, don’t just focus on whether they bought or sold. What really matters is what they’re doing with the money—whether they’re doubling down or quietly leaving themselves an exit. In this rebound, do you follow the rush or learn from Wang Chun and reduce your leverage first? The grassland where mining machines were cleared out back then is now crowded with AI computing power
Ulanqab in Inner Mongolia, this name should be familiar to many veteran crypto miners. A few years ago, it was a mining hub with rows of machines roaring; later, the mining machines were cleared out, packed into containers and shipped overseas.
Now, on the same grassland, AI computing power has moved in.
According to Goldman Sachs statistics: the total promised capacity of data centers in Ulanqab that are operational, under construction, and planned is about 12.5GW. OpenAI initially set a target of 10GW for the StarGate project. In other words, a prefecture-level city in Inner Mongolia already has a paper capacity exceeding that globally recognized AI landmark project.
But the actual operational capacity is only about 1.2GW.
12.5 versus 1.2, a full tenfold difference. The remaining 11-plus GW are still just promises, agreements, filings, and planning maps.
What’s more notable is the timeline. Over 70% of Ulanqab’s capacity commitments have emerged only in the past year. DeepSeek plans to build about 1GW of data centers, Xiaohongshu is reportedly considering a project around 600MW, and both ByteDance and Alibaba have entered the scene. Within a year, a place once known for wind power and cattle and sheep has suddenly become a battleground for domestic AI companies competing for land and electricity.
The reason is actually very simple, almost identical to the logic behind mining site selection back then. Cheap land, cheap electricity, cold weather which saves on cooling costs, and close enough to Beijing. Dedicated fiber optics have already reduced the average latency from Ulanqab to Beijing to under 5 milliseconds, which is basically negligible for most training and inference tasks.
Our circle is very familiar with this story. Cheap electricity, cold air, idle land, plus a growing narrative, can build a city-scale data center in two or three years. The last wave built mining machines; this wave is building GPUs.
The difference is that mining machines can be packed up and moved anytime, but AI data centers cannot. Substations, water cooling, fiber optics—all are heavy assets sunk into the ground. So the real test isn’t how many GW are signed, but whether the grid can deliver power on time, whether equipment can arrive on schedule, and how many companies will still be willing to pay for these racks a year from now.
There’s one detail I’ve been thinking about. Almost all these capacity commitments are concentrated in the last twelve months, a curve familiar to people in the crypto world. It could mean the industry is really taking off, or it could mean everyone is scrambling for a spot that hasn’t yet been validated.
So I’m quite curious: of the 12.5GW of paper capacity, how much do you think will actually be powered on in the end? The last wave left behind empty factories and moved-out containers; what will this wave leave behind on this grassland?Six thousand corporate accounts in South Korea flood into crypto, 90% still unverified
This week, the Financial Supervisory Service of South Korea presented data to the National Assembly that is quite striking. As of the end of July, the five major exchanges in South Korea had a combined total of 6,590 corporate accounts. Bithumb alone accounted for 3,280, and Upbit’s operator Dunamu had over 2,080, together making up more than 80% of the total.
It sounds like South Korean companies are collectively rushing into the crypto market. But looking at another set of numbers, the picture changes. Of these 6,590 corporate accounts, only 711 have completed customer identity verification, just over 10%. In other words, nearly 90% of companies opened accounts but haven’t even completed the most basic identity checks. Put simply, most of these accounts are currently empty shells, doors open but no one inside.
Not much money has come in either. The regulatory disclosure shows corporate account holdings totaling about 43.3 billion KRW, which is just over 31 million USD. Spread across more than 6,000 accounts, that averages less than 50,000 KRW per account. Upbit alone holds over 60% of these assets, with the rest split among the other exchanges. Compared to the tens of billions KRW daily trading volume by South Korean retail investors, this amount is negligible.
Breaking down the numbers gives a clearer picture. Among the five major exchanges, Gopax has only 65 corporate accounts, Korbit 620, Coinone 539, which are on a completely different scale compared to the top two. The total deposit size is just over 90 billion KRW, which is barely a ripple in the crypto market where tens of billions of dollars flow in and out regularly.
Looking back at how aggressive South Korean retail investors have been recently: Upbit’s daily trading volume once surged more than twofold, with retail investors pushing old coins like BCH, XRP, and ADA to collective rallies. South Korean retail investors have always been the most frenzied group in the crypto market, while institutions have lagged behind. Institutions have opened thousands of accounts, but the money hasn’t appeared yet; it’s more like retail investors are charging ahead while companies line up behind to get their numbers.
The regulator’s attitude is also intriguing. The surge in corporate accounts happened while South Korea’s legislature is discussing formally incorporating virtual assets into the regulatory framework, showing a strong sense of loosening and tightening simultaneously. For those companies that haven’t completed verification, it’s unclear whether they are waiting for the rules to be finalized before acting or betting on regulatory easing first. No one can predict. On one hand, there’s a call to regulate the market; on the other, corporate accounts are opening rapidly. This rhythm itself indicates everyone is betting on a turning point.
What do you think? Will this wave of corporate account openings truly convert into buying power, or will it be all noise, many accounts, but little money? It has risen for three days, but he secretly transferred away 12,765 ETH
This morning, an on-chain monitoring alert popped up, and I stared at it for several seconds. The address of Wang Chun, co-founder of F2Pool, transferred 12,765 ETH to Binance during the past three days of the rising market.
What does this number mean? At the current price, it’s roughly 28.73 million USD. After transferring in, he withdrew 87.68 million USDC and then repaid a loan on Spark. Look closely at this operation chain: what he did in these three days was not increasing his position, but deleveraging.
The market is still debating whether the bear market has ended, with bullish voices growing louder and louder. Yet the first thing this mining pool co-founder did during the rally was to repay debt. This contrast is quite interesting; the mining circle bosses’ market sentiment differs from ordinary players. They have heavy cash flow, and no matter how good the unrealized gains are, they prefer to reduce leverage to sleep more soundly.
Currently, his address still holds about 65,000 ETH, equivalent to 159 million USD, plus 1,000 WBTC, about 77.18 million USD. In other words, this is not a full exit or run; it’s a precise deleveraging operation, keeping most of the position while only handling the most capital-intensive part.
For context, Wang Chun is not a newcomer in the circle. F2Pool is a leading domestic mining pool, and co-founder level position moves are always regarded as indicators by on-chain analysis. This time, it was caught by Ember’s on-chain monitoring, which rarely issues alerts unless there is a large abnormal movement. Spark, simply put, is a decentralized lending platform where borrowing requires ETH collateral. The more the market rises, the more the collateral price fluctuations test the holders.
More importantly, the timing. His actions over these three days coincided with BTC reclaiming 79,000 USD, and market sentiment shifting from fear back to greed, with liquidation data fluctuating and bulls and bears refusing to concede. At such a time, a mining pool co-founder choosing to repay debt and deleverage is like pouring cold water on the "everyone bullish" market.
Such moves have reference value for short-term market analysis. Large transfers to exchanges are always potential sell signals, especially with ETH rebounding to this level. On-chain, this kind of sell-while-rising behavior is not unique to him. Traders doing swing trades can treat large transfer alerts as auxiliary indicators, combined with intraday volume. The timing of taking profits is often harder to predict than direction; even if the direction is right, others may convert unrealized gains to cash before you while you wait for a higher point.
Some also think this actually shows the mining boss still has confidence in the market since he didn’t exit fully but just reduced leverage. After repaying debt, the chips in hand are cleaner, and if a correction comes, he has more ammunition to buy.
From an operational perspective, such large holder moves provide reference for timing rather than direction. Those chasing highs should think further: if even the mining circle experts are deleveraging during a rally, maybe you should also consider your take-profit levels; those holding ETH swing positions should pay more attention to large transfer alerts in the coming days, as concentrated sell pressure often realizes during the highest emotional spikes. Don’t compete with large holders in patience; their chip volume is on a different scale than yours.
The question is, do you think the mining boss’s move genuinely reflects a short-term bearish view, or is it simply repaying interest at a high point to keep options open? Share your judgment in the comments.Market maker transfers $57 million, suspected to be fleeing
This morning someone in the group shared a screenshot from the blockchain with a comment: The market maker is moving again. I clicked to check, and the numbers were quite striking.
Onchain Lens monitoring shows Wintermute transferred 129,500 SOL to Binance, worth about $12.42 million, along with 169.5 BTC, about $13.11 million, with the monitor labeling it as suspected for sale. The third transfer is even more complicated: 407.47 BTC, equivalent to about $31.36 million, first moved to an intermediate wallet, then after a shuffle, entered Coinbase. The three transfers total $57 million, all going into exchanges.
The name Wintermute is familiar to anyone who’s been in the circle for a while; it’s one of the most active market makers, providing buy and sell depth to exchanges and profiting from the spread. Such players usually hold a large amount of spot assets and moving funds in and out is routine. But the problem is, for two consecutive days, it has been called out by on-chain analysts. This batch was just spotted this morning, and yesterday there was also a record of BTC transfers to Binance. With such frequent moves, the market’s first reaction is basically the same word: is it selling?
Looking at the timeline more broadly, this institution’s recent overall stance is cautious. A couple of days ago, it was monitored holding over 90% short positions on Hyperliquid, with holdings worth over $100 million. On one hand, it’s heavily shorting in the derivatives market; on the other, it’s moving spot assets to exchanges. These two lines together don’t look like simple bullish accumulation.
To be fair, a market maker’s position is not the same as retail investors’ bullish or bearish views. Sometimes they transfer coins to exchanges to stock new trading pairs or adjust inventory, not necessarily to sell. But from another perspective, if it were just routine portfolio adjustment, why always choose the most liquid periods and the largest transfer routes? This is hard not to overthink.
From a market perspective, this kind of signal has some reference value for short-term traders. Large capital moving to centralized exchanges increases short-term selling pressure, especially for relatively concentrated assets like SOL. Swing traders can use this as an auxiliary indicator; don’t panic immediately when seeing large transfer alerts, but combine with the day’s trading volume for a more reliable judgment than just a single on-chain message. Directionally, don’t dismiss the whole trend just because a market maker moves coins, but also don’t overcommit to chasing highs. Signs of loosening positions often hide in these inconspicuous on-chain moves.
Another detail worth noting is the timing of these transfer alerts. Transferring coins to exchanges at night when liquidity is thin means something very different from doing so during active daytime trading. Large transfers during low liquidity can cause deep price drops, while daytime transfers usually mean a slow, steady selling pressure. Today’s batch concentrated in the morning’s high-volume period, so short-term impact is relatively limited. What really matters is how the market absorbs these coins in the next few hours.
Now the question is for everyone in the group: when a market maker transfers coins to exchanges, do you think it’s a sign of selling, or just routine operations where they don’t care about this position? Share your thoughts in the comments.$BTC’s move from $64K to $80K was impressive, but the picture isn’t clean.
$ETH is still lagging, while many altcoins remain risky after sharp pumps and weak rebounds.
$OKB and $BNB continue to show relative strength, while the storage sector may need a healthy correction before the next leg higher.
$NEAR around $7.12–$7.13 also looks uncertain near the top.
When the market lacks clear direction, protecting capital can be smarter than forcing trade
#BTCETFInflowsSurge #ETHTests2500 Only about 10% of the 6,590 corporate accounts have completed identity verification
Today, the Financial Supervisory Service of South Korea submitted data to the National Assembly's Policy Committee. The biggest takeaway after reading it is that institutionalization in this sector is being picked up by Koreans but hasn't fully materialized yet.
As of the end of July, the five major virtual asset exchanges in South Korea had a total of 6,590 registered corporate accounts. Bithumb alone accounted for 3,280, nearly half. Dunamu, behind Upbit, had 2,086. Together, these two accounted for 5,366 accounts, or 81.4% of the total. The rest were Korbit with 620, Coinone with 539, and Gopax with 65, which are basically minor shares.
But the key point comes next: out of these 6,590 corporate accounts, only 711 have completed KYC identity verification, accounting for 10.8%. More than six thousand accounts were opened, but only just over 10% have gone through compliance processes and can be properly used. The asset scale also reflects this issue: corporate accounts hold a total of about 43.377 billion KRW, roughly 31.2 million USD, with Upbit alone holding over 60%, and the other exchanges basically trailing behind.
There is a contrast here worth pondering. Previously, South Korea hinted at opening virtual asset accounts to about 3,500 companies, which was widely welcomed by the market, expecting institutional funds to arrive. Now that regulators have revealed the actual situation, corporate accounts are indeed growing rapidly, but compliance progress is far behind the account opening speed. Accounts can be opened easily, but whether the funds can be moved or whether companies dare to move them is another matter.
Ultimately, this market in South Korea has had a long-standing issue: the threshold for corporate participation in virtual assets has been tightly controlled for years. It used to be dominated by individual players, with retail investors accounting for an absurdly high proportion. Now that the number of accounts has increased, it shows the gate is loosening, but the 90% stuck at KYC is precisely the inertia left by past policies. Regulatory relaxation is one thing; whether companies are willing to put real money in is another. This mismatch in timing is the operational space we can observe.
For our market perspective, this data should not be used as a short-term market catalyst. South Korean retail investors are famously influential in driving altcoins, but institutional funds and retail investors are completely different. Money entering through compliance channels involves long processes and slow actions, representing liquidity benefits on a large cycle level, not reasons for intraday volatility. If you want to use "institutional entry" as a trading reference, focus on whether it can sustain volume growth, not just the number of accounts.
Looking at the bigger picture, this trend is worth noting. South Korea is one of the most active crypto markets globally. Corporate accounts have grown from single digits to 6,590 now, and the channel is gradually opening. Although currently stuck at the KYC stage, the direction is clear. Every batch of compliant accounts admitted later represents real incremental funds. Long-term investors can observe this within the macro framework, alongside ETF inflows and stablecoin market cap indicators, which is far more useful than focusing on daily market moves.
Finally, a question: do you think the institutional funds entering the market is a benefit already realized, or is it still too early for it to truly take off? Share your thoughts in the comments.Nearly $200 million worth of Bitcoin moved into Binance — is the whale escaping the top?
13 hours ago, a wallet address codenamed 3NVeXm deposited 2,555 BTC into Binance, which is roughly $197 million at current market prices. No announcement was made, and it didn’t trend anywhere; it was just casually noted by on-chain monitoring. But looking at this in the context of the recent rally, it takes on a different meaning.
Bitcoin has surged from lows to nearly $80,000 this week, and many are already proclaiming the bull market’s return in chat rooms. At the peak of this enthusiasm, someone silently moved nearly $200 million worth of coins onto an exchange. Experienced traders know that depositing large amounts of Bitcoin into Binance usually isn’t for holding—it’s likely preparing to sell or to facilitate OTC trades. A single transfer of 2,555 BTC is significant for any mid-sized exchange’s daily inflow, especially at a market high.
And this isn’t an isolated case. Reviewing recent on-chain records, the stronger the rebound, the more frequent large transfers to exchanges become. A couple of days ago, an anonymous whale moved 1,727 BTC into Binance, and earlier, another address dumped a total of 7,700 BTC over three days. While everyone is shouting about the bottom forming and institutions accumulating, these on-chain actors seem to be moving in the opposite direction. Historically, such large transfers to exchanges at highs often precede short-term profit-taking, so it’s worth paying close attention.
What’s even more concerning is the holding structure. Data shows that in the past three days, 53,000 BTC entered exchanges, almost entirely from short-term holders, while long-term holders (those holding over a year) barely moved. When prices rise, short-term traders exit, and long-term holders hold tight. This kind of structure usually signals that the market isn’t yet stable.
For us, watching whales move coins isn’t about paranoia, but it is a signal. The more coins on exchanges, the heavier the potential selling pressure. If they want to sell, they won’t dump all at once but will do so gradually in batches. So, in the coming days, monitoring net inflows on these exchanges is far more useful than just watching price fluctuations.
On one side, institutions like BlackRock and Cardone are publicly increasing their positions, with U.S. spot ETFs seeing net inflows for five consecutive trading days; on the other side, whales are moving coins onto exchanges. Which side do you think better indicates the market top? Ordinary traders like us are most vulnerable at this point—fear of missing out makes us buy into others’ profit-taking.
No one has confirmed whether the 2,555 BTC transfer was for selling or repositioning, but the move alone is enough to make those fully invested uneasy. The busiest market moments are often when coins change hands the most fiercely. What the whale’s intention is now, no one can say for sure. Have you thought through your own position?Those who were bullish on altcoins got hit hard by the altcoin crash
Just two days ago, the group was still hyping bullish life, with Bitcoin once surging to 79,000, and various altcoins following the excitement. But this morning, the scene suddenly changed; Bitcoin quietly fell below 77,000, and altcoins were immediately crushed.
According to HTX market data, as Bitcoin dropped below 77,000, altcoins generally came under pressure. TAC is currently quoted at $0.00167, down over 40% in 24 hours; FHE dropped 30%; SQD, PTB, INX, BASED and others fell between 20% to nearly 30%. In just one day, accounts turned from green to red, and many who just added positions got stuck before warming up.
Interestingly, this correction came quite suddenly. A few days ago, everyone was still discussing whether Bitcoin had bottomed and if institutions were quietly accumulating, with ETF funds flowing in continuously. On one hand, there was an overwhelming positive narrative, while on the other, altcoins silently slipped downward. This pattern of shouting bullishness while dumping is something we've seen quite often recently.
What’s more worth pondering is the quality of this rebound. The surge of Bitcoin to 79,000 was largely a short squeeze forced by closing short positions, a height built by passive buying. Once the short squeeze power is exhausted, those altcoins without real income, purely driven by sentiment, immediately become the first chips to be discarded. Bitcoin itself had limited decline, but altcoins were cut to shreds; this seesaw often indicates the market’s risk appetite is cooling down.
Looking back, this rebound was always selective. Bitcoin and a few top coins could still hold the scene, but many altcoins never really kept up from the start. Now with a slight retreat, the ones swimming naked are fully exposed.
What really makes people uneasy is that such widespread corrections often happen when everyone is most relaxed. One day you’re showing off profits and shouting about cycle turns, the next day your account shrinks significantly. Those coins in your hand that didn’t rise much but fell along with the market—whether they truly have value or are just riding the hype—are easiest to see now.
The market story never lacks reversals. Today’s beating is meant to douse the enthusiasm of those still high on it. As for whether the market will continue to bottom out or drop further, no one can decide for you. Those altcoins in your hand—this time, are they falling with the market or holding strong?Why has the US buy-side been dead silent during 97 days of negative premium?
With nothing to do over the weekend, I reviewed the market trends from this period and increasingly felt something was off.
BTC surged from $64,000 all the way to above $78,000, with breaking news constantly reporting breakthroughs and liquidations, the screen full of bullish vibes. But CoinGlass has an indicator that keeps pouring cold water: the Coinbase Bitcoin premium index has been negative for 97 consecutive days from May 19 to today, setting a new record for the longest continuous negative premium since the indicator was launched.
Let's put this indicator into plain language. It measures the BTC price difference between Coinbase and Binance. When Coinbase quotes lower than Binance, the premium is negative, meaning the US buy-side is weak and selling pressure is high. What does 97 days mean? The previous longest stretch was from January 16 to February 24 this year, only 40 days, and during the crash in October 2021, it was just over 30 days. This time it has doubled and even turned a corner.
The most intriguing part is the timing. During those 40 days in January and February, the price was still at the bottom, so it made sense that buyers were reluctant. But now, with the price having climbed about 20% from the bottom, the US spot buy-side still hasn’t caught up, which is hard to explain. The price rises, yet US funds are more hesitant—this contrast is quite surreal.
Looking at how this rally actually started: Standard Chartered’s review gave a figure—between August 19 and 21, BTC short liquidations reached nearly $1.44 billion, the largest scale recorded by CoinGlass since June 2021. In other words, the first half of this rally looks more like shorts in the futures market being crushed and forced to push prices up, rather than real US spot money buying in.
On one hand, ETFs have had net inflows for five consecutive days, indicating institutions are slowly building positions; on the other hand, Coinbase buy-side has been dead silent for 97 days, showing US funds on this channel are still on the sidelines. Whether this round is a trend reversal or purely a short squeeze, the market itself hasn’t given a clear answer.
For those of us trading swings, this indicator can serve as a reference weather vane. Chasing highs during negative premium means betting against US funds’ hesitation—winning is luck, losing is the norm. The day we see the premium turn positive and US buy-side start picking up, that will be the real signal that spot funds are entering, and the market’s sustainability will have a foundation. The current state feels like everyone is waiting for something—waiting for next week’s Jackson Hole, Nvidia’s earnings report, or the Fed to clarify its stance.
Anyway, I think with the price having risen so much and the negative premium still hanging at a historic record, this divergence can’t last forever; sooner or later one side will have to give in. What do you think US funds are really waiting for? Or is this whole move from start to finish just a futures market play, completely unrelated to spot?Over 800 million new stablecoin bullets waiting for someone in just over a week
Official data from Circle has been released. In the 7 days ending August 20, 7.5 billion USDC were issued, and 6.7 billion were redeemed, a net increase of 800 million, bringing the total circulation to 72.7 billion.
This number alone doesn’t seem large, but in the current market environment, it’s quite interesting. BTC has been hovering around 78,000 recently, altcoins are broadly down, and the market feels sluggish. Many accounts have seen little activity for several consecutive days. At such times, the stablecoin pools are quietly filling up.
Let’s explain what issuance and redemption mean. Stablecoins essentially act as gateways for money flow. When someone exchanges their fiat for USDC, they’re preparing to enter the market; when they convert USDC back to fiat, they’re exiting. The fact that issuance of 7.5 billion exceeds redemption of 6.7 billion means that, on net, money is flowing in—someone is accumulating in this pool.
Looking at the reserve structure, out of the $72.9 billion reserves, $48.1 billion is in overnight reverse repos, $12.7 billion in short-term government bonds maturing within three months, and some is held in systemically important institutions. In other words, these newly issued USDC are not just numbers floating around; they are backed by real assets and can be converted into buying power at any time.
There’s an old pattern from the past two years: expansions in stablecoin supply often precede market rallies. Remember the end of 2024? The stablecoin market cap quietly climbed first, then BTC started to surge. The reason is simple: stablecoins are ammunition. The ammo is loaded first; when to pull the trigger is another matter. Currently, USDC’s net increase of 800 million this week, combined with the entire stablecoin market surpassing $303 billion, shows this ammunition stockpile is truly expanding.
For those of us trading in waves, this data can serve as a sentiment gauge. A net increase in stablecoins means the existing market funds haven’t fled; they’re still waiting to buy the dip or add positions. This is not a signal of an impending crash. But having ample ammo doesn’t mean firing immediately; when the money actually moves depends on catalysts—next week’s Jackson Hole symposium, Nvidia’s earnings report, or the Fed’s statements. Whichever comes first could trigger the first move.
Personally, I think money is usually quiet when it’s gathering strength. By the time you see big moves, half the bullets have already been fired. What do you think about these 800 million new bullets? Are they smart money waiting to bottom-fish, or the main force ready to enter the market at any moment?While denying issuing new coins, the wallet is actually offloading
The Trump family just denied plans to issue new coins, but on-chain data immediately contradicted that: the team address of the TRUMP token transferred 3,837,000 SOL to an exchange.
On-chain analyst Yu Jin spotted this transfer, which happened this morning. The TRUMP token team address (2RH...FSK) moved out 3,837,000 SOL about an hour ago, worth approximately $9.33 million, passing through BitGo as an intermediary before finally reaching OKX. This whole operation looks like preparation for cashing out.
The timing is the most interesting part. Just yesterday, rumors spread that Trump was launching a new token, claiming a newly created Robinhood Chain wallet received 290 ETH and interacted with a contract called Truth Coin. As soon as the rumor surfaced, Trump's second son Eric Trump quickly denied it, calling it a joke and completely false, stating no one is launching any type of token and implying it was a scam.
Before the denial even settled, the team wallet started moving SOL to exchanges. Putting these two events together creates a stark contrast. Of course, transferring coins to an exchange doesn't necessarily mean selling; it could be portfolio rebalancing or handling old assets. But anyone who's dealt with meme coins knows that when the team address moves funds into an exchange, retail investors' first reaction is: is this a sign they're about to dump?
Back to the TRUMP token itself, it was a star in this recent rebound, surging over 93% in a day and reaching a market cap of $1.9 billion, with popularity and controversy both high. Now that the team wallet suddenly makes a move, holders can't help but feel uneasy. After all, the pricing power of meme coins largely rests with the whales and the team, and on-chain activity often speaks louder than official announcements.
For us, this transfer serves as a reminder to all meme coin players: when evaluating a project, don't just listen to official statements; watch what the wallets are doing. Saying no issuance and no sell-off while wallets are moving funds to exchanges is a time to be extra cautious.
One more detail worth noting is that the transfer was in SOL, not TRUMP itself. If the team really wanted to dump TRUMP, they would sell TRUMP directly. Moving SOL now could mean cashing out into stablecoins or adjusting asset allocation. Either way, this $9.33 million on-chain move carries more weight than any announcement.
What do you think? Is this SOL transfer just portfolio rebalancing or a prelude to dumping? Will you still hold the Trump family's coin over the weekend?1. ETF Expectations, the Biggest Trigger Grayscale is pushing for the conversion application of ZEC spot ETF, with the market betting that US regulators might approve it; there are also rumors that institutions plan to enter with hundreds of millions of dollars to buy, and institutional narratives have directly ignited capital enthusiasm. If privacy coins can pass the ETF, it means compliant funds can enter on a large scale, which is the core story of this round of speculation. 2. Supply Contraction, Fewer Circulating Chips ZEC has shielded privacy pools, with a large amount of coins transferred to privacy shielded addresses, effectively "locking up" coins from the exchange's tradable circulating supply, reducing the coins available for sale on the market; combined with the previous halving, fewer new coins are produced, and the market is hyping the "supply squeeze" logic. 3. Privacy Sector Theme Rotation + Big Names Calling Recently, market hotspots have rotated, and the privacy coin sector has been rediscovered by capital. Industry leaders like DCG and Hayes publicly express bullish views and call target prices, spreading on social media, causing retail FOMO to follow in, further pushing prices higher. 4. Leverage and Short Squeeze Amplify Gains ZEC's market cap is not particularly large, and liquidity is thin. Once the market starts, a large number of short positions get liquidated, causing a short squeeze, which further boosts short-term surges; such coins rise sharply but also fall very quickly.#BTC fluctuates after a surge, ETF funds continue to flow in
#ETH fluctuates after reaching $2500
The impact of geopolitical conflicts on Bitcoin cannot be simply understood as "rising as a safe haven"
Many traders have the misconception that Bitcoin will rise once a geopolitical crisis occurs. The reality is quite the opposite: at the initial outbreak of a conflict, the market's first reaction is to sell off all risk assets in exchange for US dollar cash, and Bitcoin will be sold off along with the broader market. Only when the conflict persists long-term, and the market begins to worry about fiat currency credit devaluation and loss of purchasing power, does the narrative of Bitcoin as "digital gold" gradually take effect. Therefore, when encountering sudden international news, do not immediately go long; first distinguish whether the current phase is liquidity panic or long-term credit concern to avoid being whipsawed by breaking news.
$ETH $BTC $SNDK previously experienced a violent market surge driven by concentrated funds rapidly pushing it up in the short term, but from its historical peak, it directly entered a cliff-like crash with zero support, with an overall retracement exceeding 99%. The market was continuously suppressed by relentless early-stage chip distribution selling pressure, unable to hold up for more than a few hours before being smashed through.
Peers in the same sector like $BICO, $BEAT, $ALLO, $KAITO, and $APR all precisely captured the active buying brought by the loose liquidity released in this market cycle. The rhythm was clear, but $SNDK didn’t benefit at all from the sector rotation dividends, completely detached from the entire sector’s upward momentum. Instead, it remains trapped in its own independent downtrend channel, steadily declining along the short-term moving averages. Currently, the market has not undergone multiple rounds of sufficient turnover, and the risk of blindly entering to bet on a reversal has already reached an extremely high level Voting against crypto bills while holding tightly to Bitcoin ETFs
U.S. Democratic Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib recently filed her annual financial disclosure, revealing Bitcoin and Ethereum ETF holdings in her retirement account, totaling up to $30,000. The amount isn't large, but the contrast is striking.
Tlaib is known as a crypto skeptic among the progressive wing of Congress, always wary of financial capital, and one of the loudest voices in that camp. She previously voted against the CLARITY Act, a key piece of legislation currently being pushed to support the crypto industry. The core of the bill is to classify Bitcoin as a commodity and clarify whether Ethereum and others fall under SEC or CFTC jurisdiction, providing certainty to the industry. The bill is set for Senate vote after the session ends this month. She also supported a resolution to halt so-called crypto corruption. In other words, legislatively she acts as a blocker for crypto, yet in her personal account she has invested real money in crypto ETFs.
To be precise, both holdings are ETFs, not coins held with her own private keys. U.S. lawmakers disclose asset ranges, not exact amounts, with a single holding capped at $15,000. Her retirement account has 41 investments in total, and these two crypto ETFs are at most a small fraction, with Grayscale Ethereum ETF and Bitcoin ETF each occupying one slot.
But the contrast is clear. Publicly opposing, privately buying in—she is far from alone. Just this week, U.S. spot Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs recorded a $2.6 billion net inflow in a single week, the highest since last October, with institutions buying aggressively, while in Washington some still block the door, their words and accounts at odds. The disconnect between rhetoric and wallet is nothing new in Washington. Looking back, Trump's June holdings disclosure also included Coinbase stock; politicians' public stances and account actions have always been two different scripts.
This caused an uproar in the crypto community. Many shared screenshots, joking that anyone who still trusts politicians' public positions is naive. Some defended her, saying lawmakers are ordinary people and diversifying retirement accounts is understandable. But the problem is, her vote affects not her own wallet but the regulatory direction of the entire industry, and this misalignment is the most intriguing. After all, those shouting opposition publicly have quietly positioned themselves in their accounts, so which side should ordinary people trust?
Even more intriguing is the timing. Whether the CLARITY Act passes in September will directly determine the next steps for U.S. crypto regulation. A person who buys crypto ETFs herself voting against the bill—was that vote about principles, or something else? You decide.South Korean retail investors lost $38.7 billion chasing AI with leverage
A psychiatrist in Seoul has recently been overwhelmed. The number of patients he sees with stock investment-related issues has risen from seven or eight daily last year to an average of eleven per day since June this year. Behind these numbers is a group of South Korean retail investors who maxed out leverage betting on the AI market, experiencing a sharp turn from frenzy to despair.
The turning point came in May this year. South Korean regulators then allowed single-stock leveraged ETFs to be listed, with ridiculously low entry barriers: after completing one hour of training and depositing at least 10 million KRW, anyone could participate. A large number of retail investors borrowed frantically to chase the AI craze. The KOSPI margin balance grew about 75% year-to-date, hitting a record 29.8 trillion KRW on June 24. Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix each reached a market cap of one trillion USD, driving the index to double from last October and surpass 8,000 points, and everyone thought this was just the beginning.
The South Korean government originally aimed to eliminate the so-called Korean discount and mature the market by introducing more investment tools and improving corporate governance. Unexpectedly, once leverage was introduced, more aggressive speculation entered. After severe market fluctuations, both policy effectiveness and investors' risk tolerance were re-examined. June 19 became a watershed moment, with the KOSPI dropping 30% from that peak, the AI narrative fading, and leveraged products amplifying volatility several times over. Citibank estimated on July 28 that retail investors lost $38.7 billion on leveraged ETFs. In early July, South Korea's panic index VKOSPI rose to 97.99, the highest since records began in 2009.
What’s worse is concentration. Samsung and SK Hynix together account for over 53% of KOSPI’s total market cap, and related leveraged products further tied retail investors’ fate. In Busan, an extreme case occurred where a man in his twenties blamed a YouTuber for his stock losses and was arrested by police after allegedly stabbing him. The market correction brought not only account shrinkage but also real social trauma.
This is essentially the same as our circle’s brothers borrowing USDT to increase positions and opening 100x contracts. Different tools, same human nature. Everyone thinks they can stay ahead when prices rise, but when they fall, leverage clears you out first. South Korean authorities have tightened restrictions on individual investors’ leveraged ETFs, but this tuition cost hundreds of billions of dollars. South Korean retail investors have always been among the most aggressive speculative funds globally; their behavior in the stock market closely mirrors what we see in the contract market. Analysts even worry that such excessive volatility could affect South Korea’s goal of inclusion in the MSCI developed markets index.
If you in front of the screen are also using leverage to make a bet, it’s worth asking yourself: when it really comes down to the wire, can you hold on?The banks most afraid of stablecoins are now asking regulators for on-chain real-name verification
This week, the American Bank Policy Institute, representing established banks like JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Citibank, submitted a letter to FinCEN. Their request is straightforward: extend the customer identity verification requirements for stablecoins from the issuers all the way to the secondary market, meaning the exchanges where we usually trade USDT and USDC, including decentralized exchanges.
In other words, wherever you trade your stablecoins in the future, the platform must first collect your real identity. BPI’s reasoning is also straightforward—they say most illegal activities linked to stablecoins actually occur during secondary market circulation, not at the issuance stage.
The contrast is fascinating. In recent years, traditional banks feared stablecoins would take over clearing and cross-border business. Now, they have become the most active promoters, pushing regulators to enforce real-name verification on every on-chain transaction. Even more critically, these banks are quietly developing their own tokens—JPMorgan Chase has a deposit token, and Citibank is researching theirs. What they want may not be to shut down stablecoins but to embed the rules within the familiar framework of banking secrecy laws, forcing later players to play by their rules.
Actually, this letter is very calculated. The compliance cost of identity verification will fall on exchanges and DeFi protocols, while banks leverage their existing compliance advantages on the issuance side to bring stablecoin business into the established system. They claim to be preventing risks while shaping the playing field to their strengths.
FinCEN itself has left some wiggle room. The proposed rules explicitly acknowledge that pushing identity collection to the secondary market is practically challenging—on-chain transactions are inherently anonymous or pseudonymous, there is no centralized collection point, and issuers cannot obtain buyer information from the secondary market. Regulators admit this is difficult.
This is what we should really be concerned about. The reason stablecoins are widely used is their speed and relative freedom. Once identity verification is extended to every corner of the secondary market, even the slight pseudonymity on DEXs might disappear, and the boundary between on-chain and off-chain will be completely erased. The question is, when you have to upload your ID to trade USDC on a decentralized exchange, will you still consider it decentralized? Or will open finance ultimately revert to the old system of banks and licenses?3.1 billion USD short positions liquidated, but retail investors stepped in to catch the falling knife
This afternoon, BTC fell below 76,000 again, with Gate's real-time price at 75,990, down 1.55% in 24 hours, basically erasing the morning's upper shadow candle. ETH also couldn't hold, at 2,374, down 2.21%, with both major coins weakening simultaneously, making the weekend market suddenly quiet.
No one expected this rally to be so sharp. Five days ago, BTC was still at 62,900; this morning it peaked at 79,500, a 26% increase in just over a hundred hours. The direct fuel for this surge was the liquidation of 3.1 billion USD in short positions. Trader MARMOT said this was one of the largest liquidation events he has seen. In his words, this was not driven by natural demand but a typical short squeeze.
The problem lies in the timing of retail investors entering the market. Crypto Kit summed it up: a week ago, everyone was waiting for a golden dip between 45,000 and 50,000, but after BTC rose to 77,000, suddenly everyone accepted this price. FOMO works like this—those who thought it was expensive before now fear missing out and are the most eager to chase the highs.
Meanwhile, institutional moves and retail sentiment are exactly opposite. The US spot BTC ETF saw a net inflow of 1.62 billion USD over four consecutive trading days through August 21, which is real money supporting the bottom. But analyst David Goldstein also warned that 80,000 is the first major resistance. This rally might top out between 85,000 and 90,000, then either pull back or consolidate between 70,000 and 75,000. Geoff Kendrick from Standard Chartered also stated that his year-end target of 100,000 USD might be too low, citing short liquidations combined with ETF inflows, and he is eyeing the historical high of 126,000. The same market has voices saying it could drop 10% anytime and others saying the target is underestimated—such a huge divergence.
From a swing trading perspective, the data clearly outlines the path. A short squeeze rally burns out its fuel and then stops. To know when the fuel is spent, just look at the liquidation charts—there are over a billion USD in cumulative short orders above 80,000, and every time the price approaches, it triggers a round of forced liquidations accelerating the move; below, 70,000 to 75,000 is the platform for this rise and the bulls' psychological defense line. The past two days have seen billion-dollar-level liquidations back and forth across the network, with both longs and shorts being cleared, indicating intense chip rotation and no clear direction yet. Weekend liquidity is thin, and funding rates remain high, so chasing longs here is costlier than expected. The short-term approach is not to bet on direction but to wait for the market to give an answer: either break above 80,000 with volume or pull back near 75,000 to test if support holds.
Finally, to be honest, those who were waiting for 45,000 last week are now chasing in at 77,000, and the difference is the market sentiment itself. Here's the question: if BTC really pulls back below 75,000 as analysts say, would you see it as a buying opportunity or a signal to exit? Let's discuss in the comments.Anti-crypto lawmakers secretly buying crypto ETFs themselves
There is an interesting scene in the U.S.: lawmakers who vote against crypto in Congress and try to crush the crypto industry have crypto ETFs sitting in their own retirement accounts. The New York Post just uncovered that Democratic Representative Rashida Tlaib’s latest financial disclosure shows her $1.2 million retirement investment account holds up to $15,000 in Grayscale Ethereum ETF and up to $15,000 in Bitcoin ETF.
This contrast is striking because Tlaib’s stance on crypto issues has always been textbook tough. She voted against the CLARITY Act, which the crypto industry views as a major positive, and also supported a resolution claiming to ban crypto corruption. The CLARITY Act is expected to be reviewed by the Senate in September; once passed, it will completely rewrite the definition and regulatory jurisdiction of crypto assets, forcing many projects to redraw their compliance paths.
According to the New York Post, her account has a total of 41 investments, with crypto ETFs being only a small part, and held indirectly through funds rather than directly holding coins. This detail is important: lawmakers only need to disclose asset ranges by amount, so the exact holdings are unknown; the disclosure document only states a $15,000 upper limit. In short, this is a position small enough to be almost nonexistent, yet large enough to ignite public opinion.
But the key to the story is not these tens of thousands of dollars, but the subtle mismatch when looking at her stance and holdings together. Someone who verbally calls crypto a hotbed of corruption is physically honest enough to let professional institutions hold a bit of crypto exposure for her. If she really believed in Bitcoin, this position is just for a sense of participation; if she really thought it should be banned, this position shouldn’t exist. Politics is politics, wallets are wallets—this phrase has never been a joke in Washington.
Actually, there have been many similar scenes these days. Trump’s June holdings disclosure just came out; among over a thousand transactions, crypto-related ones are not many, but Coinbase, Strategy, Robinhood were all involved, buying and selling actively. Politicians argue about policy verbally, but their hands move real money. Looking at the market, the September CLARITY Act review will determine institutional capital’s willingness to enter more than any KOL’s shout calls; this week BTC ETF net inflows exceeded 14,700 coins, showing institutions are entering faster than the public hype.
Finally, a question: if lawmakers vote to ban crypto but buy crypto ETFs themselves, do you think this industry will eventually be co-opted by them, or do you think even they are secretly getting on board? Share your thoughts in the comments.BTC rose more than 23% this week.
But today, I actually don't really want to keep talking about the gains.
I just saw another number:
The US BTC spot ETF had a net inflow of about $1.6 billion this week.
I think this is more interesting than "hitting 80,000 soon."
A few days ago, the rise could still be explained as shorts being squeezed and forced to buy back.
But now, money is indeed flowing into ETFs as well.
So what I want to watch most next is not whether 80,000 can be touched.
It's whether this money will keep coming in next week.
$BTCThe secondary market for stablecoins is about to be targeted by real-name verification.
Real-name verification for buying coins has long been the norm. But now some want to extend real-name verification to the stablecoin secondary market, meaning the stage in exchanges where USDT and USDC are traded back and forth. This proposal comes from the Bank Policy Institute (BPI), a group representing major banks like JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Citibank. They suggest that FinCEN expand customer identification programs to cover the stablecoin secondary market, requiring all exchanges and other platforms that establish direct account relationships with retail investors to be included.
Their reasoning is straightforward: most illegal activities related to stablecoins occur in the secondary market. Platforms play a major role in buying and selling within this ecosystem, and not collecting customer information is essentially leaving a backdoor open for money laundering. According to their plan, if this proposal is implemented, relevant platforms would have to collect customer information under the Bank Secrecy Act, and even decentralized exchanges (DEXs) might fall under regulatory oversight.
Interestingly, FinCEN itself admits that on-chain stablecoin secondary market transactions usually use anonymous or pseudonymous identities, and there is no centralized node collecting identity information. Issuers have limited ability to collect customer data from the secondary market. In other words: regulators want to control it, but on-chain there is naturally no one identifiable to regulate. Implementing these rules would be technically much more difficult than imagined.
There is also a more subtle contradiction here. While BPI advocates for stricter real-name verification in the stablecoin secondary market, it also opposes the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, legislation that aims to clarify regulatory jurisdiction over crypto assets. On one hand, they say they want regulation; on the other, they oppose clear rules. Everyone knows what they really want. The total market cap of stablecoins has now reached $300 billion, a lucrative prize that whoever controls the customer information gateway controls the market’s pricing power and influence.
From a market perspective, these regulatory moves won’t directly crash prices in the short term, but they are a long-term variable. If real-name verification is fully implemented, the cost and barriers for retail investors to move stablecoins around exchanges will increase, on-chain fund flows will become more transparent, and some anonymous-dependent schemes will accelerate their exit. For traders, just watch two key moments: whether FinCEN’s rules enter the public comment phase, and the progress of the CLARITY Act in the Senate this September. Until these two milestones, stablecoin-related narratives are likely just emotional disturbances and don’t require overreaction.
Finally, a question: if every USDT transfer in the future requires identity verification, do you think this will stop bad actors, or will it only hinder ordinary people? Share your thoughts in the comments.Everyone who bought coins more than five months ago has made a profit
Bitcoin surged from 62,900 to nearly 80,000 in this round, rising 26% in five days. Many people's first reaction was that another round of leveraged bull run was coming, with retail investors crazily chasing contracts. But Bitfinex's analysis released today breaks down the market, and the conclusion is quite counterintuitive. We thought retail investors were speculating wildly, but the data says otherwise.
They say the main force behind this rally is not new leveraged funds, but spot buying plus short covering. One figure is very telling: while the price rose by 10 to 11%, the total open interest in the market only increased by about 4%. In a typical leveraged short squeeze, open interest would surge along with the price, but this time it did not. In other words, this wave of money looks more like real cash buying, not borrowed money gambling. The rally started with some shorts being liquidated, with over $3 billion in short positions liquidated in these five days, a rare large-scale cleanup in recent years, but the real follow-up was not leverage but off-exchange spot funds.
They also pointed out a key support level, $68,000 to $69,000, which happens to be the average cost line for buyers over the past five months. As long as Bitcoin stays above this, those buyers keep making money and have no incentive to sell on every rebound. Bitfinex's point is that because this rally is not built on leverage, it is more sustainable than typical short squeezes. The problem is, those who can hold for five months are often the ones most easily scared by a big bearish candle.
But the flip side of the story is here too. They named the biggest current risk: profit-taking. Everyone who bought in the past five months is now in profit, and if these people move their coins to exchanges, it could trigger the largest profit-taking since 2026. Money in the pocket and money on the exchange have completely different mindsets; moving coins to exchanges usually means selling. Previous fast bull runs built on leverage often rose sharply and fell hard; this round has a different structure.
There was a real catalyst at the start of this rally. On August 19, the U.S. Treasury announced an expansion of long-term bond repurchase operations. On the same day, spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded inflows of $297.6 million, and on August 20, a single-day inflow surged to $606 million, the largest single-day inflow since May 1, with BlackRock's IBIT alone accounting for about 82%. Spot demand is real, and institutional buying is real too. The inflow recovery is not a one-day event; by August 21, cumulative inflows over four trading days reached $1.62 billion, reversing the net outflow trend from the previous week.
On the other hand, retail FOMO is also heating up. Bitcoin rose a quarter in five days, and more people are chasing the rally. Analysts warn that 80,000 is the first major resistance level, and short-term overheating risks are accumulating. Bitfinex also left a caveat: if the actual yield climbs back to the level that previously pushed Bitcoin below 65,000, macro factors could drag the market back down at any time.
What I care about more is that group who held on for five months. They finally broke even and made money. Next is whether to keep holding or take profits. If you also bought during this period, whether to hold or exit now might be a more worthwhile question than guessing tomorrow's price movement. The market now has real institutional cash buying on one side and five-year trapped holders finally breaking even on the other. The upcoming trend will be interesting as these two forces collide.Tokenized stocks are replaying the paper crisis from sixty years ago
The hottest thing on-chain recently is no longer some meme coin, but stocks being tokenized one by one. From Robinhood to various exchanges, turning shares of listed companies like Tesla and Apple into tokens has become the most attractive story this year. But just as everyone is rushing to get on board, someone who has been deeply involved in this field for years poured cold water on it.
Joris Delanoue, CEO of Fairmint, recently publicly warned that the craze for tokenized stocks is very likely replicating the paper crisis on Wall Street in the late 1960s in the digital world. Back then, the US stock market trading volume surged, but the backend still relied on paper stock certificates, and the settlement system was directly overwhelmed, with failed trades piling up. The New York Stock Exchange even had to close every Wednesday to clear the backlog, eventually forcing infrastructure reforms like central depositories.
He said today's problem is just a new skin on the same essence. Exchanges, special purpose vehicles, token packaging, private ledgers—these links in the tokenized stock expansion process may sever the true ownership records. More critically, many products only give investors economic exposure to the underlying stocks, not legal ownership. If the issuer or that vehicle runs into trouble, voting rights, dividends, and asset claims all become hanging questions.
The data is also quite striking. The global market size of tokenized stocks has grown from less than $500 million at the end of Q1 to about $2 billion now, quadrupling in a few months, growing faster than that grassroots crisis back then. That crisis dragged on for years before infrastructure reforms resolved it, whereas today's version is cross-timezone and fully automated, and a breakdown could transmit to ordinary people's accounts within hours. More subtly, this trend coincides with a regulatory relaxation window, lowering issuance thresholds so anyone can wrap a layer of tokens and issue them outward; the faster the speed, the tighter the backend line is stretched.
We always think that going on-chain means more transparency and security, but Delanoue reveals a different story. When ownership is layered and packaged, when things really go wrong, no one can guarantee that the tokens in your hand can be exchanged for the company shares you think you own.
In this craze, whether you treat it as a convenient trading tool or truly believe you have become a shareholder of a company, the answer may be completely different from what you think. A week ago, those waiting for 50,000 missed out, and now they're chasing 77,000
Bitcoin has risen somewhat irrationally over the past five days. From 62,900 all the way up to 79,500, it surged 26% in five trading days, marking the most eye-catching bullish candle in this rebound.
What's even more exciting is the shorts. In the past few days, short positions exceeding $3.1 billion have been liquidated wave after wave. Some traders say this is one of the largest liquidations they've ever seen. Many were forced to close positions, not voluntarily exiting, and such a stampede often reveals more than the rise itself.
The most contrasting is retail investors' mentality. A week ago, the group was still waiting for a bottom-buying opportunity between 45,000 and 50,000, thinking that was a reasonable price. Once the price surged, the same group suddenly accepted 77,000 as the new level, as if the lower price never existed. From waiting for 50,000 to chasing 77,000, only five bullish candles passed; people's patience is thinner than imagined. The fear of missing out runs faster than the market itself.
The capital flow is indeed warming up. The US spot Bitcoin ETF saw a cumulative inflow of $1.62 billion over four trading days ending August 21, completely reversing the net outflow trend from the previous week. Institutions are buying rhythmically, unlike the emotional retail investors.
But amid the excitement, some pour cold water. Some traders believe this rally is not entirely driven by real demand but more like a short squeeze; the $3.1 billion liquidation is proof. 80,000 will be the first strong resistance, and this wave might peak between 85,000 and 90,000 before turning back. On the other hand, Standard Chartered is optimistic, thinking the year-end target of 100,000 might be underestimated and even believes Bitcoin will retest the historical high of 126,000, with the recovery truly accelerating after October 6.
Crypto Kit said something I strongly agree with. He said a week ago, people were still waiting for 45,000, and now that it has risen to 77,000, they dare to chase it, which itself shows the sentiment is overheated. Forbes called this a typical retail investor chasing the rally; market FOMO is written all over the face. He won't recklessly enter just out of fear of missing out because the market can drop 10% at any time, and nothing can stop that.
The more the market surges with such a bullish candle, the easier it is to forget how hard it fell before. I've been thinking, the most important question in this rally isn't whether it can keep rising, but whether you've really thought through your position or are simply afraid others are profiting while you are not. When the group starts showing off profits and urging you not to hesitate, that's often the moment you should calm down the most. In this rebound, are you the one who planned ahead, or the one who chased in at the end? #BTC fluctuates after a surge, ETF funds continue to flow in
1. Macro liquidity is the fundamental backdrop for Bitcoin's major market trends
Although Bitcoin is called digital gold, for the vast majority of the time, its nature leans more towards a highly elastic risk asset, with its price movement closely tied to global US dollar liquidity. When the Federal Reserve's rate cut expectations heat up and overall market liquidity is loose, it creates a sustained upward environment for Bitcoin; conversely, if inflation rebounds and the market re-prices rate hike expectations, even if the market shows short-term strength, it is prone to deep corrections later. Many people only look at candlestick price changes and ignore the macro long-term cycle, which easily leads to misjudgments at major turning points. At the same time, the US dollar index and US Treasury real yields are complementary indicators: when real interest rates decline, the returns on holding cash and bonds decrease, prompting funds to flow into alternative assets; when real interest rates continue to rise, funds return to the fixed income market, and Bitcoin remains under pressure. Do not view the crypto market in isolation; the risk appetite of the US Nasdaq index is strongly correlated with BTC. When the US stock market panics and crashes, Bitcoin rarely manages to buck the trend independently. $BTC $ETH #ETH触及2500美元后震荡 On-chain contract made a staggering $16 million in a single week
With the market warming up this week, a fully on-chain contract exchange quietly pulled off a big feat. Data platforms show that Hyperliquid's fee revenue this week has surged to $16.93 million, compared to just $5.72 million in the same week last month—nearly tripling. Many people previously didn't take it seriously, thinking an on-chain order book couldn't support large capital, but the ledger speaks for itself. A protocol that only emerged in 2023 is now making weekly net profits comparable to many long-established exchanges.
Even more eye-catching is its platform token. Market data shows HYPE rose over 37% this week, now trading around $78.66. With revenue doubling and token price soaring, these two factors combined have suddenly made the market re-evaluate this on-chain protocol that many once considered niche.
Hyperliquid's model is completely different from traditional ones. Its order book is directly written on-chain, with no company in the middle taking a cut; fees ultimately flow back to the protocol and its holders. In other words, the crazier the trading, the more money flows back into the token, which explains why revenue spikes immediately reflect in the token price.
Where does the money come from? Simply put, more traders are participating. As the market heats up, demand for perpetual contracts ignites, with everyone rushing in to go long or short, paying fees on every transaction. The busier the market, the faster the platform's fee engine spins. Data confirms that trading volume and fees rise in sync. Looking back, this isn't the first time it's been this strong; over the past six months, thanks to a smooth order experience and transparent on-chain ledger, it has quietly captured a significant share of the global perpetual contract market.
A horizontal comparison is even more intuitive. Many established centralized exchanges fight for quarterly profits that this on-chain protocol nearly matches in just one week. When trading truly moves on-chain, who would want to lock their tokens in someone else's wallet and endure opaque ledgers?
Interestingly, this momentum is out of sync with the broader market. In the same week, Bitcoin fluctuated between $76,000 and $79,000, altcoins generally pulled back, and many called for a cooling of risk appetite. Yet its ledger keeps getting busier and busier, completely indifferent to outside market heat. A protocol that lives off real fee income and a token market priced by sentiment have charted two very different paths.
Of course, some are skeptical. On-chain income heavily depends on trading volume, which follows market trends. Once the market cools, fewer orders will be placed, and this week's $16 million could be halved next week. HYPE's sharp rise relies precisely on this volatile temperament.
So the question arises: Is this $16 million just a short-term bonus fueled by market hype, or has on-chain trading genuinely taken a slice of the traditional exchanges' pie? When the market cools next month, will this flywheel keep spinning? Many are watching the price trend, hoping to read the answer from the token price. But token prices can deceive; fees cannot. What we really need to watch is whether the ledger remains as red-hot next week.Going 20x long on SOL is not about betting on the direction, it's about betting on how fast your hands are and how clear your mind is.
Opening a long on SOL with 20x leverage, entry price 95.10, position size $49,395, quantity 519.42.
If the direction is right, the returns get massively amplified by leverage, catching a good trend feels really rewarding.
But 20x is not an amplifier, it's a risk-amplifying meat grinder; even a slight pullback can wreck your mindset with floating losses.
The worst thing about this kind of trade isn't the market dropping, but when people stubbornly hold on emotionally, pretending it's a logical decision.
Experienced traders seeing this kind of trade don't admire it first; they ask: how many sharp shocks can you endure, how many rebounds before you get crushed?
Don't mistake high leverage for skill; first figure out your stop loss. Preserve your capital, don't wait for the market to force liquidate you.【OKB is Historically Undervalued】
$OKB current market cap is about $2.3 billion, only 1/40 of $BNB. Core undervaluation logic:
1. Extremely scarce supply: Like $BTC, capped at 21 million fully circulating, smallest circulating supply among similar platform tokens, highest unit demand elasticity.
2. Dual value capture: OKX CEX fee discounts + cash flow + the only Gas for X Layer (zkEVM, 5k TPS, already integrated with Aave/Uniswap), moving beyond the pure buyback old model.
3. Deep discount space: Market cap/TVL is on par with BNB, but X Layer is still in early stages, technology aligned with top L2s, repair potential greater than most platform tokens. A single week surge of 26 points has only happened twice in history
One week ago today, BTC was still hovering around 62,700, with the comment section full of voices waiting to buy the dip at 45,000 or 50,000. Looking again today, the price has already touched 79,500, a 26-point increase in one week. Crypto analyst Ali made it clear: this level of weekly reversal has only appeared twice in history, and each time it was followed by a new major cycle.
He calculated the details carefully. At the end of the 2019 bear market, BTC surged 31.98 points in a single week, then started the big bull run from 2020 to 2021. In January 2023, after the FTX collapse, the market was pessimistic, but a 24.90-point weekly surge broke bearish expectations, leading to the main uptrend in 2024. This week, from 62,700 to 79,500, the increase is 26.81 points, right within the range of the two historical reversals. He emphasized that the engine of this rally is a short squeeze: the stronger the rise, the more shorts have to cover, and covering shorts pushes the price even higher.
Interestingly, many people betting on the four-year cycle theory expected a bottom in October, but the price stood up two months early. On one side is the textbook historical rule, on the other is the reality unfolding on the charts— which do you believe? My view is that theory can be verified later, but position management must follow reality; don’t use a static judgment to fight a market that has already started.
Looking at the charts with this mindset, several data points align. Forbes reported that over $3.1 billion in short positions were liquidated during this rally, with traders saying this is one of the largest liquidations they've seen. On the ETF side, from August 21 over four trading days, there was a net inflow of $1.62 billion, showing institutions are putting real money in. But note a detail: when BTC price rose 10 to 11 points, open interest only rose about 4 points, indicating this rally is mainly driven by spot buying and short covering, with little new leverage entering. This differs from past rallies inflated by futures, theoretically making it more solid, but caution is still needed.
In the short term, profit-taking could emerge at any time. Buyers from the past five months are all in floating profits now, and some are moving coins to exchanges. Bitfinex warned this could trigger the largest profit-taking since the start of the year. Their reference range is 68,000 to 69,000, close to the average cost of buyers in the past five months. As long as the price holds above this, the pressure from trapped holders selling on rallies is limited. The mid-term structure is relatively bullish, with the 50-day and 200-day moving averages both trending upward. Analysts say a golden cross may be on the way, a signal traditionally seen as confirming a strengthening trend.
The most striking contrast this week is here: the whole network’s liquidations once exceeded $1 billion in a single day, with over 210,000 people liquidated, a double kill of longs and shorts, yet the price still hit a five-month high. The more liquidations, the further the market goes. This twisted situation has refuted the bear market narrative shouted by retail investors for half a year with a single weekly candle.
I won’t predict how far it will go next, just want to say: the historical data is here. After the two weekly reversals in 2019 and 2023, the market moved far. Whether this is the third time, the market itself will give the answer. Are your positions already riding this wave, or are you like those waiting at 45,000, still watching from the sidelines? The money from AI-driven wealth quietly starts flowing into ETH
The biggest profits from this AI rally were first made in Nvidia and a bunch of semiconductors; the crypto circle basically didn’t get a share. Fundstrat’s co-founder Tom Lee recently made a statement: the first phase of AI trading is over, and capital is moving to the next stop, which is called ETH.
His logic isn’t complicated. The money in the first phase piled up upstream—in chips, memory, infrastructure—these assets have already surged significantly and are now entering a correction. The market’s focus is shifting downstream, to software, application layers, and then to the underlying rails that carry these applications. ETH’s position on this chain is like the train tracks themselves; no matter what applications run on top, it always collects the toll. Tom Lee’s exact words were that capital might be shifting from building infrastructure to holding the underlying rails where the next wave of activity happens.
The key point he made is a harsh truth: ETH’s price has already started to show movement, but market positions haven’t caught up; most portfolios still don’t hold ETH. Translated, this means money is already probing this direction, but most people’s accounts remain empty. This is often the most conflicted time—prices move first, positions lag behind, and by the time everyone reacts, the rally might already be halfway done.
There are actually signs on the charts. Data from CoinGlass shows that the funding rates on mainstream CEX and DEX for ETH have entered a bullish zone, with weighted rates between 0.0111 and 0.0123, surpassing the 0.01 baseline, while BTC is still hovering in a neutral zone. Funding rates basically represent the fees exchanged between longs and shorts; higher rates indicate more people in the contract market are willing to pay to go long. More interestingly, ETH spot prices have actually fallen more than BTC in recent days, but the contract market’s bullish sentiment is stronger. This divergence itself is very telling—weak spot, strong contracts often means someone is quietly building positions at low prices.
Going deeper, the fundamental narrative for ETH this round has been repeatedly told: stablecoin issuance is rising, asset tokenization is advancing, institutional adoption is landing, plus the future imagination of AI agents completing transactions directly on-chain. Tom Lee believes these are slow variables, but the direction is continuously strengthening.
In the short term, this "weak price, strong sentiment" divergence in ETH means chasing highs is definitely not a good choice, but at least it shows smart money in the contract market is positioning early. From a mid-term logic perspective, if AI capital really migrates from infrastructure to application layers, ETH, as the underlying settlement rail for applications, is an unavoidable link. Of course, I’ll stop here—I’m not judging how high it can go, just stating this observation of capital flow.
Finally, a straightforward question: did you profit from this AI rally? What percentage of your portfolio is allocated to ETH?85 million USD stolen in seconds again due to a governance vulnerability
This afternoon, on-chain security company CertiK issued an alert that a project called Term Labs was drained, losing about 8.5 million USD. We've seen quite a few news like this recently, but this one is a bit different: the attacker didn't crack any passwords nor phish anyone. Instead, they exploited the project's own governance mechanism to empty the treasury. The attacker’s address still holds 2,843 ETH, worth about 7.1 million USD, plus 1.6 million DAI.
First, let's explain what a governance attack is. Many DeFi projects keep their funds in a place called a treasury, whose keys are usually not held by a single person but distributed among several key holders—this is the commonly known multisig. In theory, to move the funds, enough keys must approve simultaneously. However, some projects use on-chain governance voting for operational efficiency: whoever controls enough voting power can command the treasury. Term Labs’ vulnerability lies in this mechanism; the attacker exploited the governance flaw to directly instruct the treasury to transfer funds to themselves. The project team only confirmed that a governance vulnerability affecting Term Vaults was found and is under further investigation. Term Vaults is their flagship treasury product.
There is a detail worth pondering. After the attacker got the 8.5 million USD, they didn’t immediately launder it; the 2,843 ETH still sits in that address. Normally, such illicit funds would be quickly sent to a mixer overnight, but they haven’t moved. Maybe they are waiting for the heat to die down, or they feel the money isn’t truly safe yet. On-chain data is transparent, and every movement of these funds is being watched, so spending it quietly is not easy.
Back to us. Such news genuinely hurts market sentiment. Every time a governance vulnerability is exposed, people re-examine the protocols they’ve deposited in, questioning whether the funds in the treasury are really safe. But from another perspective, this is exactly the tuition DeFi keeps paying. Historically, projects that have been attacked either patch the vulnerabilities and continue or go to zero and exit, a very harsh differentiation.
In the short term, such a security incident in a single project has limited impact on the overall market, mainly affecting trust within its own ecosystem, and related tokens inevitably get hit by sentiment. In the long term, the value of security audits will be re-evaluated by the market. As on-chain assets accumulate, those with better risk control will retain funds. Over the past two years, security incidents have come one after another—from cross-chain bridges to treasuries, attack surfaces have been thoroughly explored. The lesson for us is simple: before entrusting money to a protocol, first find out exactly who holds the keys and how extensive the governance permissions are.
I’d like to hear from everyone: before you put money into a DeFi protocol, do you specifically check its governance structure, or do you just look at whether the yield is high enough? Cat Coin with a Market Cap of 9 Million Air-Dropped on Coinbase
The market shook over the weekend, and all the money ran into the meme sector, with cats as the main players this round. A cat coin called Basecat was issued just a week ago with a market cap of only 9 million USD, yet it was directly listed on Coinbase. According to the unspoken rules of exchanges, a new coin usually needs a market cap of tens or hundreds of millions to get listed, but this time Coinbase broke the norm, prompting many veteran players to joke that they finally got enlightened. After listing, Basecat's market cap once surged to 41 million USD, now it has fallen back to around 28.8 million, with nearly 20,000 holding addresses.
This cat also sparked a series of relatives. Bicat in the BSC ecosystem had a lowest market cap of less than 1 million USD yesterday, surged to 7.4 million within a day, and now dropped back to about 1.2 million. There's a scary detail here: Bicat's developer has issued 168 tokens alone, known in the community as a serial entrepreneur on-chain, meaning this person holds more coins than many retail projects combined. BNBCAT also joined the hype, directly piggybacking on an old tweet from Binance's founder in 2023. Its peak market cap didn't exceed 2 million and now remains at 800,000, with a lukewarm market response.
Robinhood's chain also has a cat: CashCat is the first native meme coin on that chain, once reaching a market cap of 234 million USD, now halved to 110 million, but a dying camel is still bigger than a horse—it remains the leader on Robinhood's chain. Solana's CATE story is even more complicated. The concept is that the owner of the DOGE prototype Shiba Inu raised a new cat. Its market cap once broke 91 million USD, but someone found a magazine saying the new cat's name isn't actually that. No one can verify the authenticity of the news, and some in the community angrily claim it was AI-generated, but the price had already crashed first, with the market cap nearly halved to 44 million.
Behind this cat coin battle lies an industry change. Previously, issuing coins was the project team's job; now it has become an assembly line: coins are issued in the ecosystem, hyped by the community, picked up by exchanges for listing, and after the process completes, wealth creation stories emerge. Binance tried Alpha plus wallet gameplay, Robinhood relies on its brokerage main site plus its own chain, and Coinbase is now starting to learn this. Only Solana is a bit awkward; although the ecosystem is lively, without its own trading platform as a backstop, profits hardly flow back to the chain, essentially making wedding dresses for others after all the hard work.
To be practical: in this market, rises and falls are measured in halves. Basecat dropping from 41 million to 28.8 million happened in one day; Bicat's drop from 7.4 million to 1.2 million was just after one night's sleep. Especially watch out for projects where developers hold a large amount of coins themselves—if they get in a bad mood and dump, your unrealized gains become their ATM. Meme plays on emotion and speed, profiting from others' FOMO. Only those who can hold discipline have a chance; those chasing highs and catching falling knives mostly just send traffic to the few at the top.
Finally, I want to ask: who got on board the cat coin trend these days? Did you make a quick profit and run, or are you holding on waiting for the next cat?【$LIT Surge is Just the Surface, the Real Bullish Factor is Entering the Rule-Making Circle】
Lighter surged over 40% in a week, breaking the $3 mark, but this rally is more than just price speculation.
Founder Vladimir Novakovski has become a member of the CFTC Innovation Advisory Committee, discussing perpetual contracts, prediction markets, and AI trading alongside institutions like Coinbase, CME, Nasdaq, Robinhood, Kraken, and Uniswap.
This does not mean the CFTC endorses Lighter, and the platform is not yet open to U.S. users. But as regulators begin to decide how on-chain derivatives enter the U.S. market, Lighter is already at the table, not outside guessing the rules.
Add to that Robinhood Chain’s AI Agent Kit, Kraken listing, and protocol revenue buying back $LIT, the market is starting to trade not just on DEX growth but on its potential to become compliant on-chain trading infrastructure.
However, it’s still too early to value $LIT directly as the next HYPE. The seat is a signal; trading volume, revenue, and token value capture are the real report card.
Do you think the market is pricing in Lighter’s fundamentals early, or is it another case of overhyping regulatory relations?Everyone says the bear market isn't over, but Bitcoin is quietly approaching a golden cross.
On August 23, CoinDesk analyst James Van Straten posted that Bitcoin's two key moving averages are both turning upward simultaneously, and the market is getting closer to a pattern called the golden cross. When the news came out, Bitcoin had just bounced from $62,700 to $79,500, a weekly increase of over 26%.
The so-called golden cross refers to the 50-day moving average crossing above the 200-day moving average. Simply put, it means short-term costs and long-term costs have finally aligned. This pattern is usually seen as a signal of a strengthening medium- to long-term trend. But Van Straten specifically mentioned that during the 2022 cycle, Bitcoin's price never truly stood above the 200-day moving average, whereas this time it has climbed back above it, showing a clear structural difference from two years ago. His exact words were that this seems to be a new market phase.
Glassnode's data also provides some support. Historically, several times Bitcoin had already risen before the 50-day moving average crossed above the 200-day moving average. In other words, the golden cross of moving averages is often a result, not a cause. Now that both lines are turning up, it looks more like the trace left by the rebound over the past few weeks.
However, there's a detail that's easy to overlook. The golden cross itself is a lagging indicator; it excels at confirming trends but is not good at predicting short-term movements. And on the same day, others were still shouting that the bear market isn't over. Retail investors' FOMO was triggered by the rapid rise, with over $3.1 billion in short positions liquidated in just the past few days, a scale rarely seen in recent years. Market sentiment is actually very divided—some believe the bull market has arrived, while others fear this is just a rebound.
What’s more worth pondering is that this rally is mainly driven by spot buying and short covering, not by new leverage. Bitfinex analysts have warned that those who bought in the past five months are now in profit, and the biggest risk is these profit-taking chips flowing back to exchanges. On August 20, U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs saw a single-day inflow of $606 million, the largest since May 1, with BlackRock's IBIT accounting for over 80%. The funds have returned, but no matter how good the moving averages look, they can't stop a wave of collective profit-taking.
So the question is left to us. When the moving averages turn, is it really the start of a new cycle, or is it precisely the point where retail investors are most likely to let their guard down and chase halfway up the mountain? The lessons from 2022 are still fresh, when Bitcoin didn’t even touch the 200-day moving average. Is this time different, or are we just starting the same story with a new beginning?Institutions have scooped up 1.55 million bitcoins in two years
A number has been particularly striking these past couple of days. Bitfinex, citing Bitwise data, says that since the launch of the US spot Bitcoin ETP in January 2024, publicly listed companies and US spot ETPs combined have bought 1.55 million BTC, while during the same period, the entire network has only mined 455,000 new bitcoins. The amount bought is more than three times the amount produced, and this gap continues to widen. At this rate, the annual institutional purchase volume roughly equals the miners’ output over four years.
In simple terms, miners have been laboriously releasing 450,000 coins to the market over two years, while institutions have swallowed 1.55 million coins with a single move. We usually think coins are gradually released, halving every year, a four-year cycle, sounding like a slow trickle from a faucet. But the reality is, on the other side of the pool stands a group of players with real money who don’t follow the production rhythm.
The most thought-provoking aspect is that those buying these coins are not retail investors. Behind listed companies and spot ETPs are pension funds, asset management, and wealth management accounts—money locked in for the long term. This means once a coin enters these pockets, it basically won’t return to the market for short-term circulation. Supply is shrinking while demand is accelerating, which is why every rebound feels tight on available coins. The gap will only widen further.
Some might ask, why hasn’t the price skyrocketed? This reveals another layer of contrast. The market hasn’t been smooth over the past six months, experiencing a deep correction in between. Many cut losses and exited, and the more volatile the market, the more institutions quietly accumulate at a discount. But it’s precisely at these times that institutions keep buying silently. By the time retail investors react and want to chase, the price has long moved from its original position.
More subtly, this 3.6x gap didn’t form overnight; it’s an upward curve. Each month, the scissors gap between institutional holdings and new production widens a bit more. At some critical point, whether freely tradable coins in the market become increasingly scarce is uncertain. But one thing is clear: the fate of the coins is no longer decided by miners or short-term traders, but by the institutional balance sheets written in financial reports.
Looking back, this rally from 62,000 to nearly 80,000 may not just be a short squeeze story. When the buying comes from money that must be held long-term, the narrative changes. The pool is only so big; whoever occupies the position first forces latecomers to buy at a premium from others. What do you think—when all retail investors come to their senses, how many coins will be left in the pool for them to fight over? Over 100 million in sell orders hanging at the 80,000 mark, untouched for a hundred days, really makes you want to sell
Bitcoin has surged from 62,000 all the way up to nearly 80,000 in this round, and many people watching the market are waiting for a key level: $80,000. This is not just any barrier; on-chain data shows over 100 million in sell orders stacked around 80,000, looking like a wall that discourages further upward movement.
HODL15Capital has recently analyzed order books from several exchanges. On Binance alone, there are about $31.98 million in sell orders around $79,945, another $13.2 million near the $80,000 round number, and $33.27 million stacked near $82,500. Coinbase is no less significant, with roughly $38.74 million piled up near $80,000. Adding these together, there is over $100 million in sell pressure just around the 80,000 area.
But here’s the interesting part: many of these sell orders have been hanging there for a long time. The batch near $80,000 on Binance has been there for about 99 days; the ones near $82,500 have been there for about 108 days—over three months without being withdrawn or filled. In other words, this wall has stood there since spring, while Bitcoin has moved up and down several times, yet it hasn’t budged.
This raises some doubts. If someone was really determined to sell at 80,000, they would have dumped when the price touched that area multiple times already; there’s no reason to wait a hundred days. A more reasonable explanation is that these orders are more like a display, hanging there to intimidate. When the price actually approaches, the sellers might even move their orders higher themselves.
Looking at this rally, you can see how old this wall is. Bitcoin surged from just over 62,000 to nearly 80,000, a weekly increase of over 20%, the strongest stretch recently. Those sell orders that have been hanging for a hundred days were clearly placed much earlier, not by the new money chasing this rally. There’s a market theory that old money likes to use such sell walls to create a false sense of resistance, forcing the chasing buyers to hesitate below, while they quietly sell at other prices. Whether true or not, the fact that these orders haven’t moved for a hundred days is unusual enough.
Looking back, the 80,000 round number is naturally a psychological barrier for retail investors, so a dense wall of orders is not surprising. What’s strange is the age of the wall—orders from three months ago are still intact, suggesting the people who placed them either forgot about them or never intended to actually sell.
HODL15Capital’s own judgment is cautious: the current sell wall may not be as solid as it looks. We need to wait until Bitcoin really approaches 80,000 to see whether these orders are genuine sell intentions or just a bluff.
Anyone who trades knows that walls on the order book can both block and deceive. Those who really want to sell quietly withdraw orders and find other ways out; it’s the orders that have stayed unmoved for a hundred days that seem more like a performance. Whether 80,000 is a real iron gate or just a paper-thin scare tactic, the next few days of Bitcoin’s movement will provide the answer. What do you think— is this wall real resistance or just an illusion?