Orbit Post Sitemap
Trump talks about saving money but is hoarding coins for the US
Just after 5 a.m., Trump dropped a sentence that instantly woke the entire crypto community from their sleep. The president said the US government has discussed plans to accumulate a "large-scale" reserve of Bitcoin and other crypto assets. Note, it's the phrase "large-scale," not just a symbolic small purchase.
The most intriguing part is the contrast. Less than ten minutes before this news, another flash report stated that the US federal debt had just surpassed $40 trillion. Over the past year, US debt increased by a full $3 trillion; excluding the pandemic period, this is the fastest growth in history. The Congressional Budget Office even predicts that the public-held federal debt to GDP ratio will exceed the post-WWII peak of 106% around 2030. On one hand, debt alarms are at full blast; on the other, there's a plan to borrow money to buy crypto. This logic feels surreal.
Trump himself previously vowed to control government spending, but before saving any money, he's already planning to buy Bitcoin for the country. Where the money will come from, when to buy, and how exactly to operate—all remain unclear.
Actually, the US has shown signs of building crypto reserves for some time. Earlier this year, the White House pushed policies to establish a strategic Bitcoin reserve, which stirred the market but seemed more like a gesture without real capital entering. Now with "large-scale accumulation" mentioned, the tone changes, as if crypto assets are about to become a permanent item on the national balance sheet.
The market has long speculated on one thing. The US holds a large amount of Bitcoin seized from past law enforcement actions, most of which were frozen by courts or awaiting auction. If the "strategic reserve" moves from slogan to policy, this existing stock plus new purchases could be larger than anyone imagines. Because of this expectation, every time the White House hints at reserves, Bitcoin tends to shake up first.
Right after the statement, Bitcoin surged past $69,900, and Ethereum jumped over 20%. The market clearly took this as a buy signal. But think carefully, Trump said "discussed," not "decided," and certainly not "buying tomorrow." Between discussion and implementation lies not just money but also Congress members who don’t understand K-line charts.
Even more striking is who he’s about to meet. The news mentioned Trump is expected to meet executives from Coinbase, Payward, and Blockchain.com. On one side, the state is entering the market; on the other, industry giants are entering the White House. This scene looks like paving the way for something big.
But we must stay calm. This president has repeatedly made statements about crypto; the expectations he sets with words often get discounted in reality. He says "large-scale," the market rallies out of respect, but what if this is just a test balloon? What really matters is whether the White House will come up with concrete plans, where the money will come from, and whether Congress will approve. If it stops at "discussed," today's rally might just be a meal the bears served the bulls. What do you think? Is he serious this time, or just flying another beautiful kite?The local coins you sent haven't made anyone rich, but those selling the shovels are already earning tens of millions per month.
Since the beginning of this year, the overall crypto market has been quiet, with altcoins largely underperforming, and the usually lively secondary and airdrop groups have become much quieter. Yet, amid this downturn, a group of people are doing quite well—they don't trade coins themselves, they just sell the shovels.
Looking at the numbers is quite sobering. Pump.fun earned $34.68 million in the past 30 days, with platform trading volume reaching $1.7 billion. This single platform's profitability has already surpassed Hyperliquid. GMGN made nearly $20 million, Axiom over $14 million, and even the socially oriented trading platform fomo brought in $8.79 million. The worse the market gets, the more stable they become.
The profit model of these platforms is very straightforward. Creating tokens on Pump.fun is free, but during the bonding curve phase, every buy or sell transaction incurs a 1.25% fee, nearly 1% of which goes directly into the protocol's pocket, plus an additional 0.015 SOL fee for migration after graduation. GMGN is even simpler: the platform takes 1% from every completed user transaction, and copy trading follows the same standard. Fomo sets a minimum fee of $0.95 per transaction; meme players tend to trade small amounts frequently, so this minimum fee actually becomes a significant revenue source. Axiom is similar, with almost all income coming from Solana, and the effective net fee rate ranging between 0.75% and 0.95%, relying on volume to generate cash flow.
The contrast is the most interesting part. The meme coin myth of getting rich overnight with a $50 million market cap within hours is becoming increasingly rare this year, with many coin issuers themselves complaining about not making money. But the platforms remain unaffected; as long as new coins are launched and people keep trading, they continue to take their cut. When the stock meme MarsCoin was hot on BNB Chain, Flap earned $5.58 million in 30 days, 90% of which came from that chain. Pons issued 15,000 tokens in one day on July 15, collecting over $18 million in fees over 30 days, and it even uses 80% of protocol income to buy back and burn its own platform tokens. On GMGN's side, the largest income actually comes from Robinhood Chain, with over $11 million a month; the meme craze on the US stock chain is clearly fueling trading tools.
Even competitors are poaching talent. Recently, overseas communities have been buzzing that Pump.fun spent money to lure fomo's talent away, offering a $20,000 signing bonus plus a $30,000 monthly salary. A token issuance platform personally trying to intercept trading tool personnel shows that this shovel-selling business has become fiercely competitive.
In short, the most stable winners in a gold rush are always the shovel and water sellers. Ordinary people rush in hoping for a one-in-ten-thousand chance of getting rich, but the platforms bet on the certainty that you will come to gamble. Next time your fingers itch to jump into a new project, ask yourself one question: whose pocket does your transaction fee finally end up in? The veteran stablecoin quietly changed its name, hiding a major move behind it
Berachain's stablecoin called HONEY quietly changed its name a few days ago; it is now called Bera USD, with the symbol changed to BUSD. Many people thought it was just a rebranding to boost visibility, but there’s more to it—behind the scenes, it signals a strategic shift targeting institutional investors.
The official explanation is that this change helps institutional users immediately recognize it as a USD stablecoin. However, there’s a technical catch: because the token name is part of the EIP-712 signature design, all off-chain authorizations previously signed under the name HONEY automatically become invalid and must be re-signed. In other words, every integrator must update accordingly—wallets, protocols, frontends—no one can skip this, or they won’t connect.
This is where it gets interesting. On the surface, it’s a brand upgrade, but in reality, it’s a forced comprehensive audit of the entire ecosystem. For ordinary users, previously authorized interactions might suddenly stop working, requiring re-approval, which is annoying and may lead many to think their wallet is malfunctioning. But for project teams, this is a good opportunity to clear out zombie authorizations and simultaneously check for risks, wiping out old unused permissions all at once.
Stablecoins are the lifeblood of DeFi. Berachain’s chain was built on a liquidity proof mechanism, and HONEY was the fuel for its ecosystem operations. This shake-up will cause short-term fluctuations in TVL and user experience, but in the long run, if BUSD can truly gain traction through institutional narratives, its moat will be stronger than before.
However, to be realistic, the stablecoin space is already a red ocean. USDT and USDC together hold over 80% market share, with PYUSD, EURC, and many native on-chain stablecoins also competing. Berachain can’t expect to capture institutional funds just by changing its name. HONEY’s market cap and circulation scale don’t even rank among mainstream stablecoins. The scale difference is several orders of magnitude, so overtaking on a curve won’t be easy. The rename is at best an entry ticket; to truly convince institutions to move funds over, it depends on whether its liquidity proof mechanism can generate sustainable returns. Otherwise, the rename is just a new signboard with the same product inside. In the short term, don’t panic sell just because of the rename—that’s just scaring yourself; in the long term, whether it can really attract institutional capital is the key to this coin’s fate.
Do you think this rename is a positive upgrade or just unnecessary trouble for users?I believe this wave of Bitcoin breaking through $72,000 is mainly due to the emotional release from the "short squeeze," along with Trump's announcement that the government might hold positions, making it difficult to hold firmly in the short term. It is highly likely that a pullback will confirm support. Look at the data: nearly $3 billion in liquidations in 24 hours shows that a large part of the rally comes from short stop-losses rather than active buying by bulls. Such prices driven up by "passive buying" are often unstable. I opened a bottom position at $68,000, and when it surged to $71,800 today, I decisively reduced my position by 30%. Because experience tells me that after a sharp rise, there is always profit-taking selling pressure. If spot ETFs do not continue to see large net inflows going forward, it will be difficult for leveraged funds alone to hold the 72,000 level. The current strategy should be: don't rush to chase the rally; wait until it stabilizes in the 69,000-70,000 range before reconsidering. For us retail investors, the biggest taboo at this time is to jump in only after the price rises, as that easily leads to being a buyer at a high level. #BTC突破72000美元, can this round of gains continue? The US Dollar Index suddenly plunged, and risk assets collectively rebounded
On the 19th, the US Dollar Index suddenly dropped sharply with a big bearish candle, quietly but solidly. Many people didn't notice that this was actually the flip side of the same event as the crypto surge that night. A weaker dollar means assets priced in dollars become relatively cheaper, so global money naturally flows into risk assets.
That night, BTC surged straight to 69,500, ETH touched 2,100, and one of the driving forces behind this was the dollar's retreat. A more direct trigger was the US Treasury doubling the liquidity repo scale for long-term government bonds, raising the single transaction limit from $2 billion to at least $4 billion, effectively injecting another wave of liquidity into the market. When money flows in, the first to react are often high-beta assets like stocks and crypto, so you saw US stocks and crypto concept stocks also rally strongly that night.
Looking at a longer timeline, a weak dollar and a crypto bull market have always been partners. From 2020 to 2021, the US Dollar Index fell from just over 100 to below 90, while BTC surged from 10,000 to 69,000. The script of that night almost repeated itself, just on a smaller scale. The market is now betting that the Fed will be forced to turn dovish; once rate cut expectations are confirmed, the dollar will weaken further, which is a continuous tailwind for crypto. Conversely, if inflation data rebounds and the dollar strengthens again, this liquidity-driven rally will be the first to be punctured.
Interestingly, a weak dollar not only benefits crypto but also gold, which went crazy as spot gold directly rose above $4,510 that night, gaining over four points intraday. This shows the market is trading not just a single coin but an entire logic line of a weak dollar and ample liquidity. For those of us analyzing the market, the US Dollar Index is an unignorable background sound: when it falls, non-sovereign assets like BTC tend to rise—this is an old rule.
But don't get too excited. This dollar drop is mostly suppressed by US Treasury yields, while the Fed minutes remain hawkish, with several members openly or covertly wanting rate hikes. Trump verbally calls for rate cuts but can't suppress internal divisions. Liquidity is coming, but the tightening rhetoric hasn't eased. In the short term, a weak dollar plus loose liquidity indeed extends crypto's life; in the long term, if the dollar reverses and strengthens, the foundation of this rebound will be unstable. So now is not the time for blind bullishness; don't load your positions too heavily.
Do you think this dollar drop is the start of a trend or just a breather? The reserve company holds 840,000 BTC, accounting for 4% of the total supply
The latest investor briefing from Strategy states a figure: as of August 9, the company has 840,447 BTC on its books, roughly 4% of the total supply. What does this mean? The total circulating coins in the market are just over 20 million, and this one company holds more than four-tenths of that, even more than most sovereign holdings of countries.
This company has long been unsatisfied with simply hoarding coins. The briefing explicitly states that the core strategy is to use the capital market to build a platform called digital credit, with the goal of increasing the BTC backing each share. In plain terms, it wants to turn itself into a perpetual motion machine: issuing shares, issuing bonds, swapping coins; as the coin price rises, the valuation increases, allowing it to issue more shares, and so on in a cycle. Michael Saylor has been playing this game for years, and the market has shifted from mocking to following suit, with many smaller companies copying this model. Just in the first half of this year, more than twenty such coin-hoarding companies have emerged.
Comparing horizontally is even more frightening: the figure of 840,447 BTC far surpasses the holdings of any spot ETF, even BlackRock’s largest IBIT looks like a retail investor in comparison. It relies on an all-weather ATM issuance program, issuing new shares in a dilutive manner whenever the stock price rises, using real money to buy coins on the market. The problem is, this strategy fears not a crash but a sideways market; if the coin price doesn’t move, the BTC per share stagnates, the story can’t continue, and the premium between market cap and holdings slowly leaks away.
On the other hand, more and more people in the market are calling the bear market bottom, but players like Strategy, who hoard coins with high leverage, fear sideways markets the most. If the coin price doesn’t move, their financing costs can’t be suppressed; maintaining a 4% share requires burning a lot of money annually, which outsiders can’t calculate. They claim to be long-term investors, but in reality, they are constantly looking for new money to take over. Their legitimate operating cash flow can’t satisfy this appetite at all; they rely entirely on capital market blood transfusions.
For the market, this whale-level buy order is a support force but also a hidden risk. If it is forced to reduce holdings, the market will instantly have a giant seller, and prices will break through multiple support levels at once. In the short term, its existence provides a buffer below, giving bulls confidence; in the long term, no one dares to guarantee whether this model can survive an entire bear market cycle. Leverage is a double-edged sword that must be repaid sooner or later.
Do you think holding 4% of the coins in one company’s hands is a positive or a ticking time bomb? Everyone says the Fed will cut rates, but three Fed officials want to raise them.
Bitcoin just surged to $69,500 last night in one go, with a single-day increase close to 8%, marking the largest daily gain since March. The entire community is shouting that the bull market is back. But just as everyone was eyeing the $70,000 mark ready to celebrate, the Fed meeting minutes to be released tonight might pour cold water on this enthusiasm. This rally even pushed Bitcoin back above the 100-day and 200-day moving averages, triggering over $1 billion in liquidations within just one hour.
At the July rate-setting meeting, three Fed officials voted against keeping rates unchanged. They explicitly demanded a rate hike, with a strong rationale: core inflation was still at 2.6%, well above the Fed’s own 2% target. It’s rare in recent years for three people inside the central bank to publicly call for a rate increase, showing a notable split.
What’s more subtle is the conflicting data. July’s CPI showed core prices rose only 2.5% year-over-year, the lowest since March 2021, yet the same month’s employment report showed a loss of 23,000 jobs. On one hand, inflation isn’t under control; on the other, employment is dropping. Even Fed insiders are uncertain, which is why the hawks and doves are fiercely debating.
The market had almost firmly expected rate cuts, and much of Bitcoin’s recent rally was built on the assumption of easing liquidity. Ironically, this surge happened right after the U.S. Treasury announced it would at least double its buyback of 10- to 30-year bonds. The money hasn’t been printed yet, but expectations have already driven prices up. However, once the minutes reveal the voices of those three hawkish officials, everyone will realize the Fed isn’t as dovish internally as thought. Analysts from Citi and JPMorgan are already warning that the revealed divisions might be larger than expected.
I actually find this quite intriguing. Bitcoin surged fiercely last night, but the options market is packed with calls above $70,000 and puts below $60,000, indicating neither bulls nor bears are fully convinced. If the minutes lean hawkish, a short-term pullback might wash out those highly leveraged longs, which is what we really need to watch next.
What do you think? Can this rebound survive the Fed’s stance, or will there be another heavy blow before the $70,000 mark?BTC breaks through $72,000, can it hold?
Just this afternoon, Bitcoin surged 11%, surpassing $72,000. Ethereum rose over 19%, SOL increased more than 13%, and HYPE jumped over 26%. According to CoinGlass data, 187,000 people worldwide were liquidated in the past 24 hours. Amid the bulls' celebration, one question stands before everyone: can $72,000 hold?
What is driving this surge?
First, a major move on the macro front. The U.S. Treasury announced it will at least double the scale of long-term bond repurchases, with each operation amount raised to no less than $4 billion, covering 10- to 30-year bonds. The new policy took effect on September 9. After the announcement, long-term U.S. Treasury yields dropped sharply, the dollar weakened, and risk assets rebounded broadly. Large funds shifted from bonds to gold and Bitcoin, becoming the core driver of the rally.
Second, shorts were completely crushed. During this rally, the crypto market saw $1.44 billion worth of short liquidations. The ratio of short to long liquidations was about 8.6:1. As prices rose, the first batch of shorts were forced to buy back BTC to cover, pushing prices higher, causing more shorts to capitulate—creating a self-reinforcing short squeeze cycle.
Third, institutional funds have returned. The U.S. spot Bitcoin ETF recorded a net inflow of $297.6 million on August 17 and another $189.3 million on August 18, totaling about $487 million over two days. Meanwhile, over the past 60 days, large holders ("whales") have increased their net Bitcoin holdings by about 43,000 BTC, equivalent to approximately $2.75 billion at current prices.
Can $72,000 hold?
Reasons to be bullish:
Technical breakout of key resistance. BTC surged from around $64,000 to $72,000, breaking out with volume and opening a larger upside space. Analysts point out BTC has formed an inverse head and shoulders pattern, and after breaking the neckline, it could target $76,000.
Sustained inflows of institutional funds provide a foundation. ETF funds have reversed previous outflows; if net inflows continue, this rally’s foundation will be much more solid than just short covering.
Positive signals from on-chain data. The 30-day apparent spot demand has narrowed significantly from negative 206,000 BTC on July 23 to about negative 5,000 BTC, nearing a positive turnaround. Among 12 "Bitcoin market capitulation" indicators tracked by VanEck, 8 have triggered extreme pessimism signals, with researchers believing the market may complete bottoming between September and November.
Concerns for the bears:
The short squeeze rally is time-sensitive. Short squeezes driven purely by forced liquidations usually fade once buying pressure exhausts. If the price quickly falls back after reaching $72,000, it indicates short-term funds and short covering dominated this surge.
The macro picture is not fully clear. Bond repurchases only indirectly suggest increased rate cut expectations, not actual rate cuts. A true trend reversal requires official rate cut announcements.
Market divergence remains large. Bloomberg Intelligence strategists warn that Bitcoin’s continued weakness below $69,000 strengthens extreme predictions of a drop to $10,000. Fundstrat research notes Bitcoin’s volatility is at historic lows, with a potential 30% swing in the next 60 days—using $64,000 as a base, the upside target is about $83,200, while the downside could reach $44,800.
Key indicators to watch
In the coming days, focus on these three:
Whether ETF fund inflows continue—this directly reflects institutional sentiment
Whether U.S. Treasury yields remain low—this determines the macro environment’s looseness
Whether BTC can hold above $72,000 after a pullback—only by stabilizing and confirming support can it continue higher
Final thoughts
BTC surged over 11% from around $64,000 to surpass $72,000, a significant short-term gain. In the next few days, bulls and bears will likely fiercely contest around $72,000. Whether it can hold depends not on how high it goes today, but whether it can stand firm tomorrow and the day after.
The above content is for reference only and does not constitute investment advice. The market carries risks; please make decisions cautiously.
What do you star friends think? Is $72,000 a new starting point or a temporary peak? Feel free to share your views in the comments. #BTC突破72000美元，本轮上涨能否延续？ Standard Chartered suddenly raised Bitcoin's target to $100,000
Last night, Bitcoin made a straight surge, pulling up close to $70,000, marking the largest single-day gain since March, and finally reclaiming the long-suppressed 100-day and 200-day moving averages.
While everyone was still guessing how far this rebound could go, Standard Chartered analyst Geoff Kendrick dropped a statement: Bitcoin could surge to $100,000 by the end of this year. This is not a hype post on Twitter but an official research view from a global major bank. His key level is $65,500, saying that as long as this level holds, it basically confirms the cycle low for this round has appeared.
His main reason is not the four-year cycle, but a recent announcement from the U.S. Treasury: the scale of long-term Treasury repurchases has doubled, with the single transaction cap raised from $2 billion to at least $4 billion. In his words, the government's liquidity injection into the market is exactly the environment Bitcoin loves the most.
Yet just a few weeks ago, the mainstream market sentiment was still that the bear market wasn't over, institutions were reducing positions, and long-term holders were quietly handing over chips. Overnight, a major bank shouting $100,000 flipped the narrative. Ironically, this rally was largely driven by short covering; in the past 24 hours, about $1.5 billion in liquidations occurred across the network, with the largest single liquidation close to $50 million, instantly wiping out a large number of bearish bets.
The surge also coincided with a major event. As Bitcoin was pushing up, Trump was meeting at the White House with executives from Coinbase, Ripple, Gemini, as well as the chairs of the SEC and CFTC, preparing for a crypto regulatory roundtable. The market movement and the meeting happened almost simultaneously, making it hard to say it was just a coincidence. FalconX market maker Lim also mentioned that in previous weeks the market was suppressed by sell pressure, but Bitcoin held firm at the low $60,000 level, which shifted sentiment.
A major bank turning bullish, a bloodbath for shorts, and a warm breeze in regulation—all three happening on the same day feels somewhat surreal. Options open interest on Deribit is concentrated on $70,000 calls, indicating the market is already pricing in further upside.
Price targets like this are just for reference. Kendrick himself admits this is based on the premise of continued loose liquidity. But if the Fed minutes reveal stronger hawkish tones, or U.S. Treasury yields push higher again, the story could change at any time.
The real question is left to you: when a major bank starts shouting $100,000, is this a signal of a bottom, or just another excuse for a new batch of people to catch the falling knife? Retail investors verbally remain calm but are frantically hoarding crash insurance
Let's start with an unusual scene. Since April this year, retail investors in the US stock market have clearly slowed down their stock purchases, with the total direct buy volume steadily declining. However, the same group has turned around and poured money into put options, which are instruments that bet on the market going down.
According to Vanda Research data, for the 12 most popular stocks favored by retail investors, the volume of put option purchases has nearly doubled compared to the first quarter. Even more striking, the ratio of put option purchases to their net cash purchases has surged from about 26% to 110%. What does this mean? Simply put, the money they are spending on bearish bets has already exceeded the money spent on bullish bets.
This is interesting. On one hand, retail investors are still talking about a bull market and are fixated on holding their positions without selling; on the other hand, they are secretly insuring their accounts, betting on a big correction coming next. Put options essentially serve as crash insurance, giving you the right to sell at an agreed price before a specified date. Normally, no one wants to pay for this insurance, but when people feel uncertain, they scramble to buy it. The current level of buying insurance is rare in recent years.
The strange part is that the underlying market conditions are not actually bad. Research institutions say that although retail investors are taking strong defensive actions, the upward trend in the US stock market itself has not been disrupted; the bullish structure remains intact. In other words, the market's path upward is still open, but investor sentiment has panicked first.
This disconnect between people and the market is worth pondering. Historically, many times when retail investor sentiment is at its most pessimistic and defensive, it is not the end of the market trend. The Fear and Greed Index is currently at 27, still in the fear zone, but if you look at institutions, many are adding positions in the opposite direction. Trader Killa, who previously perfectly predicted this downturn path, said that waiting for a perfect bottom might cause you to miss the subsequent rally; rather than staying out and waiting, it's better to build some positions first.
This logic applies to BTC as well. In the past two days, BTC surged to nearly $70,000, liquidating over a billion dollars of shorts across the network, wiping out many who stubbornly shorted at low levels. Before this, retail sentiment was quite bearish, trading volume shrank, and many were on the sidelines, sharing the same mindset as US stock retail investors hoarding put options—they were all waiting for a worse price, but the price never came, and the rebound arrived first.
Interestingly, the less people believe in the rebound, the more uncomfortable it tends to be. Those who missed out are reluctant to chase, those trapped want to get out quickly, and those holding insurance are still debating whether to cut losses. The market grinds upward amid this tension.
Of course, retail investors collectively buying insurance isn't entirely bad; at least it shows leverage isn't crazy, and people still maintain some caution. The real danger often comes when everyone is unguarded and charging upward together.
So the question is, when most people are quietly buying crash insurance, is this collective caution a sign of wise foresight, or is it another missed opportunity handed away? What do you hold now—an insurance policy or chips? Privacy coins are being besieged worldwide, but Grayscale insists on listing it
In recent years, major exchanges like Binance and OKX have successively delisted Zcash in many regions, with similar reasons: regulators fear its anonymity feature being used for money laundering. Today, when people talk about privacy coins, many immediately think of avoiding or bypassing them, and even wallets quietly hide the shielded address feature.
Yet, in this atmosphere, Grayscale quietly submitted the fourth version of the Zcash Trust registration documents to the SEC this week, specifically aiming to list on NYSE Arca with the ticker ZCSH. This is not just a simple listing; after going public, authorized participants will be able to continuously subscribe and redeem shares, whereas previously this trust could only be traded OTCQX off-exchange, with no redemption allowed. This trust actually has existed since 2018, being one of Grayscale's earliest products, stuck in OTC for nearly eight years before finally getting a chance to go legit.
What’s even more intriguing is the holding structure. As of the end of June, this trust held about 2.3% of ZEC’s circulating supply, with a net asset value of approximately $155 million, which is already a sizable amount among privacy coins. Meanwhile, a subsidiary of Grayscale’s parent company DCG is reportedly negotiating to directly buy nearly 200,000 ZEC trust shares, although no agreement has been finalized yet.
When the news broke, ZEC surged nearly 9% that day, standing out sharply amid a bleak altcoin market. On one hand, exchanges are busy clearing out; on the other, institutions are accumulating. This contradiction is quite thought-provoking. Zcash, with its shielded transactions, naturally treads on the most sensitive regulatory line, yet Grayscale chooses this moment to push it into the mainstream market—what’s the strategy? After all, in an era when Binance is gradually shutting down ZEC trading pairs, it seems Grayscale is the only one daring to bring it to the NYSE.
One theory is that the more suppressed something is, the greater its elasticity once policy restrictions loosen. Grayscale has reaped compliance benefits over the years by converting BTC and ETH trusts into spot ETFs, and it’s clearly betting that the privacy sector will eventually be revalued, so it wants to secure the compliance shell first.
But on the other hand, it’s important to see that this trust is still a relatively niche fund, and the rumors about DCG stepping in to buy shares have yet to materialize. Whether privacy coins can truly make a comeback depends not on Grayscale’s willingness alone, but on how the Washington regulators ultimately classify them and whether Europe’s travel rule will be relaxed.
What do you think? After being shunned for so long, has Grayscale really caught a whiff of opportunity this time, or is this just another lonely contrarian bet?The U.S. is about to bring Bitcoin mining machine hashrate to futures
Last night, a breaking news almost got completely overshadowed by Bitcoin's surge. The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, or CFTC, officially issued a request for public comments on the listing and regulation of hashrate derivative contracts, with a 60-day comment period.
At first glance, this seems like a dry administrative procedure. But when combined with what CFTC Chairman Rostin Behnam said, the meaning changes completely. He stated that without a robust hashrate derivatives market, the U.S. cannot win the AI race.
This is interesting. In recent years, the public perception of cryptocurrency mining has mostly been about high electricity consumption and environmental concerns. Politicians criticize it, environmental groups pursue it, and many inside the industry have been considering transforming into AI hashrate centers to survive. Now, the top regulator of derivatives openly links mining hashrate with the nation's AI destiny. Behnam even compared it to the industrial era, saying that just as the U.S. once set trading standards for bulk commodities to promote the industrial economy, it now needs to establish similar rules for hashrate commodities to promote the intelligent economy.
This request for comments covers a lot. It aims to first understand the scale and liquidity of the spot hashrate market, and also to include market regulation, manipulation risks, and customer protection in the rules. Most notably, the notice explicitly mentions perpetual hashrate futures as a product form. In other words, the hashrate miners hold may no longer be used solely for block production and coin rewards but could be standardized into contracts for trading and hedging, like crude oil or copper.
For miners, once this tool is established, it means they can finally insure the hashrate they hold. When coin prices plunge, they no longer have to just endure or shut down; instead, they can lock in part of their revenue through derivatives. This hedging ability was previously monopolized by traditional bulk commodity players, but now regulators are proactively opening the door, potentially rewriting the accounting logic for mining farms and hashrate providers.
Why now? The answer lies in the macro environment. The U.S. Treasury just announced it will at least double the scale of long-term Treasury repos. With liquidity easing, risk assets collectively rise, and Bitcoin surged close to $70,000 last night. Hashrate, a resource highly correlated with coin prices, naturally lacks a pricing and hedging tool. The CFTC’s move is essentially setting rules in advance for the future hashrate market.
Don't forget, AI training and mining compete for the same batch of high-end chips and electricity. Making hashrate a tradable and hedgeable commodity opens a direct channel for capital to bet on hashrate. When financial markets can freely buy and sell hashrate contracts, real-world mining farms, data centers, and chip orders will all be guided by this price signal.
A deeper signal lies at the strategic level. Defining hashrate as a key commodity related to winning the AI race means regulators no longer see mining as a mere speculative track. Whoever controls the pricing power of hashrate holds the foundation of the intelligent economy. The U.S. clearly does not want to cede this rule-making power to others.
What was once a matter confined to the crypto circle is quietly being elevated to the national-level table. Once these 60 days pass and the rules are implemented, the way hashrate is played could be completely different from today.Circle to launch its self-developed public chain testnet next month, which has already processed 500 million transactions
The stablecoin giant Circle is no longer satisfied with just issuing USDC. It officially announced that its blockchain network Arc mainnet will go live on September 16, positioning itself as the underlying infrastructure for the global financial market, serving settlement and various financial applications.
This is not a PPT chain. The Arc testnet has already processed over 500 million transactions, with nearly 3 million wallet addresses participating, and more than 100 partners active on the private mainnet. The initial validator group is expected to operate the network together with Circle, effectively keeping control of the chain’s lifeline in their own hands.
Circle’s strategy is easy to understand. USDC is currently one of the top stablecoins by global circulation, but the settlement channels have always been controlled by others. When Ethereum is congested, fees are outrageously high; Solana is fast but its ecosystem is not under Circle’s control. Rather than relying on others, it’s better to build a chain optimized specifically for stablecoin settlement, controlling fees, speed, and compliance all by themselves.
If this chain takes off, it means stablecoins will rise from the application layer to the infrastructure layer. Future scenarios like cross-border payments, institutional settlements, and tokenized asset trading can all run directly on Arc. Circle will transform from a coin issuer to a chain operator, a completely different identity. This is why they dare to scale the testnet so large—500 million transactions didn’t come from thin air; there’s real activity on the chain.
For on-chain players, September 16 is a date to remember. The launch of Arc could spark a new narrative around stablecoin settlement. Ecosystem projects related to USDC, teams working on cross-chain bridges and payment infrastructure might be re-evaluated by investors. The 500 million transactions on the testnet prove this is not an empty framework; hype around stablecoin infrastructure may heat up before the mainnet launch.
In the short term, speculative hype before the benefits materialize is hard to gauge, so don’t rush to chase it; in the long term, if Circle’s self-built chain succeeds, the stablecoin competition will shift from who issues more to whose underlying chain is better. This is good for the overall on-chain financial experience. Money on-chain will flow to the most efficient path—that’s an unchanging logic.
With stablecoin issuers entering the chain-building arena themselves, do you think this is a move to compete with Ethereum, or to pave a new road for on-chain finance?Retail investors have finally returned, but the market treats it as bad news
Retail investors are back, yet the market interprets this as bearish, which sounds contradictory but is actually happening.
Well-known KOL Ansem shared an observation: retail investor activity has shown a significant upward inflection point for the first time in years, but most of the market sees this change as a bearish signal. He believes this cognitive dissonance might actually be a key characteristic of a market bottom forming.
In other markets, this might be unbelievable, but in the world of memes and altcoins, retail investors have always been the fuel for rallies. Over the past year, retail investors have been educated by various crashes to retreat into coin-based holdings, on-chain activity has dropped repeatedly, and new wallet creation has fallen to levels no one wants to watch. Now, they are suddenly coming back, indicating that off-exchange money is tentatively entering the market. Although the volume is still small, the direction has changed.
The problem is, mainstream narratives are still debating when the bear market will end, and the return of retail investors is interpreted as bag holders stepping in, making sentiment even more pessimistic. The market is just that contradictory: when institutions buy, it’s called smart money positioning; when retail buys, it’s called retail investors stepping in. The same funds, but a different identity changes their nature.
Ansem’s point is that looking back at Q3 2026, the market might realize that clear bottom signals had already appeared then. He bets on the cognitive dissonance itself—when most people mistake good news for bad, a turning point is often near. This sounds like mysticism, but in an emotion-driven crypto market, sentiment reversals often precede market reversals.
For those playing with altcoins and memes, this signal is worth adding to the watchlist. A warming retail investor activity usually means two things: first, thematic coins will see more turnover; second, the relay buying during rallies will thicken. Conversely, if retail’s return is just a short-term emotional pulse, volatility will be more intense, and those chasing highs should be cautious.
In the short term, whether retail’s return becomes a sustained increase depends on whether new narratives support it; just saying "they’re back" doesn’t resolve trapped positions. In the long term, every cycle bottom has been accompanied by retail investors voting with their feet and re-entering, as seen in 2020 and 2024. Whether this will repeat this time, no one can guarantee.
Retail investors returning is treated as bad news—do you believe this cognitive dissonance, or do you think this return is just bag holders stepping in after all?After three rate cuts and five times holding steady, three members still call for a rate hike
At 2 a.m., the Federal Reserve's July meeting minutes were officially released. The most striking point was not that the interest rate remained unchanged, but that the vote was 9 to 3, with three members voting against on the spot, insisting on a 25 basis point rate hike.
These three are Logan, Harker, and Kashkari. More subtly, two other regional Fed presidents without voting rights in July, Schmidt and Moser, also publicly stated afterward that if they had voting rights at the time, they would have voted for a rate hike. In other words, the number of people who truly believe a rate hike is necessary may be more than three, but they were blocked by the lack of voting rights.
The minutes stated that many officials indicated that if inflation does not continue to decline, monetary policy would need to be further tightened; some officials also believe that financial markets are already bearing part of the tightening policy's effects. Regarding inflation, the minutes acknowledged the outlook is highly uncertain and specifically noted that the renewed escalation of the Iran war casts a shadow over the inflation outlook.
Calculating the timeline makes it even more interesting. This round follows three consecutive rate cuts at the end of 2025, with the fifth consecutive time holding steady and no hikes in between. The interest rate has hovered between 3.5% and 3.75%, but internal fractures are gradually widening. The July dissenting votes increased from sporadic to three, with two more outside voters without voting rights showing support.
What does this minutes mean for the crypto market? Just look at tonight's market. BTC hovered around 69,000 before and after the minutes were released, gold rose slightly by 3.5% to $4,489, and the market did not panic over the three dissenting votes, indicating that expectations for rate cuts are still holding. But note the sentence in the minutes that AI stock market adjustments may pose financial stability risks, which serves as a warning to both the US stock and crypto markets. Risk assets and liquidity have always been linked.
In the short term, whether there will be a rate hike in September depends on inflation data. The situation in Iran could push oil prices back up at any time; when oil prices rise, inflation expectations must be repriced. In the long term, as long as the Fed does not truly shift to rate hikes, liquidity tightening remains at the expectation level. For crypto, an interest rate-sensitive asset, the divergence in the minutes actually puts uncertainty on the table, and each subsequent data release may amplify volatility.
Three members are calling for a rate hike under inflation pressure, and two others without voting rights have also taken sides. Do you think the Fed will hold steady this round, or suddenly pivot at some point?The Bankers Association verbally supports the bill but cuts stablecoin rewards behind the scenes
Rob Nichols, president of the American Bankers Association, recently made a statement that on the surface seems to support the crypto industry, but upon closer examination reveals another layer of meaning. He explicitly stated that the goal is to strengthen, not block, the passage of the CLARITY Act, emphasizing that the digital asset industry needs a clear regulatory framework. Many interpreted this as banks finally softening their stance. However, the key point is in the latter part: the critical provisions regarding stablecoin rewards in the bill must be further tightened.
Here’s the background. The GENIUS Act, set to become law in 2025, already prohibits stablecoin issuers from directly paying interest or yields to holders. The current controversy has shifted to related parties like crypto trading platforms—whether they can issue interest-like rewards to users under the guise of incentives.
Nichols was very straightforward: if stablecoin wallets use such mechanisms to siphon deposits away from banks, the funds banks use for small business loans, mortgages, and agricultural financing will decrease. The American Bankers Association recommends amending the bill’s language to prohibit stablecoin rewards that are essentially similar to paying interest, and to remove ambiguous wording.
They are pushing senators to amend the provisions before the September vote. Nichols also made a diplomatic statement: the U.S. can be both the global banking hub and the global crypto hub, provided clear and consistent rules are established. It sounds like trying not to offend either side, but everyone knows that if the line on stablecoin rewards is cut, the first to be affected won’t be banks but the on-chain projects and users relying on rewards to attract deposits.
This message is a signal worth pondering for holders of USDC and USDT. The interest rewards on stablecoins essentially leave the yield from on-chain deposits to holders. The more banks try to cut off this channel, the harder it will be to sustain the narrative of stablecoins as yield-bearing assets. Conversely, the tighter the regulation, the faster the compliance process for stablecoins will advance—two sides of the same coin.
In the short term, this kind of clause dispute won’t directly crash the market, but it is a real policy risk warning for projects in the stablecoin ecosystem that rely on rewards to attract deposits. In the long term, if the CLARITY Act truly comes into effect, stablecoins will move from a gray area into a licensed system, which will actually solidify the industry’s foundation, though the process will inevitably be contentious.
Banks say they support crypto on one hand, but want to cut stablecoin rewards on the other. Is this really about protecting depositors, or protecting their own deposits? What do you think?Forgotten ZEC is about to be lifted onto the NYSE by Grayscale
Among the forgotten cryptocurrencies, ZEC might be the most aggrieved. Grayscale has revised its registration documents for the fourth time in order to list it on the NYSE.
On August 20, Grayscale submitted the fourth revision of the Grayscale Zcash Trust registration statement to the SEC, proposing to list this trust on the New York Stock Exchange Arca under the ticker ZCSH. Once listed, authorized participants will be able to subscribe and redeem trust shares, whereas previously this trust could only be traded on the OTCQX over-the-counter market and did not support redemption.
As of June 30, this trust held about 2.3% of ZEC's circulating supply, with a net asset value of approximately $155.2 million. More intriguingly, a subsidiary of Grayscale's parent company DCG is negotiating to contribute about 200,000 ZEC to subscribe for trust shares. Although no binding agreement has been signed yet, the direction is clear.
What does 200,000 ZEC mean? At the current price, it's roughly over $30 million, meaning the institution is adding bricks to this pool themselves. Keep in mind, ZEC has plummeted so much in the past two years that even its own supporters barely recognize it. The privacy narrative has been repeatedly challenged by regulators, retail investors have long fled, liquidity is pitifully thin, and daily trading volume is only a fraction of mainstream coins.
Don't underestimate this change. Trading on the OTCQX over-the-counter market is basically private matching between institutions, and retail investors have to jump through many hoops to participate; after moving to NYSE Arca, any U.S. stock account can subscribe and redeem with one click just like buying stocks, making liquidity and exposure on a completely different level. This is why Grayscale is willing to revise documents repeatedly for a niche coin trust, despite the tedious compliance process. Without this step, ZEC would never enter the mainstream capital's view.
Listing the trust also means two things. First, ZEC gains a legitimate capital entry point. Grayscale's repeated document revisions indicate real money is paving the way behind the scenes, not just a whim. Second, U.S. stock accounts can buy ZEC through this channel, effectively opening a new funding pipeline for this niche coin. For ZEC holders still on exchanges, this infrastructure-level move is more worth watching than minor price fluctuations on the charts.
In the short term, the news may not immediately impact the price, as SEC approval is uncertain and document revisions could continue to a fifth or sixth version; but over the long term, being the first privacy coin lifted onto a major exchange board by Grayscale will bring different identity and liquidity premiums. The market's pricing logic for ZEC may need to be recalculated.
Why is Grayscale specifically targeting a forgotten coin like ZEC? Is it because they truly believe in the value of the privacy narrative and want to position at a low point, or simply to fill out their trust product lineup? What do you think?BTC surged sharply late at night, and he went against the trend to increase his short position, becoming the top short seller.
Tonight's market felt like stepping on the gas pedal. BTC rallied from around 65,000 to 69,000, and a large number of short positions across the network were liquidated within half an hour. In the past 24 hours, liquidations surged to $1.905 billion, with short positions accounting for $1.733 billion. Over 120,000 people worldwide were wiped out. Normally, no one dares to go against the trend in such a market, but on-chain monitoring identified someone doing exactly that.
TradingBeats data shows that an address starting with 0x66 increased its short position by 800 BTC right as BTC was rapidly rising. Including previous positions, his 40x leveraged short position has accumulated to 1,200 BTC, with a notional value close to $80 million at current prices, instantly making him the largest BTC short seller on Hyperliquid.
This address is not a novice. On-chain labels mark it as a big winner and a whale, with total historical profits exceeding $1 million. The net value of his perpetual account ranges between $1 million and $5 million, and his completed trades have a 55% win rate. His average entry price is $66,891, essentially betting that BTC’s rally will end here. The problem is the market hasn’t cooperated; this position is currently at an unrealized loss of $2.39 million, with a liquidation price of $70,039, just two or three points away from the current price. A slight further rise will trigger liquidation.
Interestingly, a few hours ago another whale posted a 5x leveraged long position of 3,425 BTC, with an unrealized profit of over $13 million. One is enjoying gains in the car, the other is blocking the way at the front, making them the most prominent opposing players in this rally. The same market is seen by some as the start of a bull run, and by others as the final surge.
This contrarian short position hanging overhead serves as a reference point for short-term traders. If the liquidation price near $70,039 is hit, the short squeeze could fuel the bulls and push prices even higher; conversely, if he holds, the $70,000 barrier will be harder to break in the short term. Grid and swing traders can watch this as a barometer, but definitely don’t copy his position—40x leverage is not for everyone.
In the short term, this rally tonight is driven by short covering and regulatory sentiment, with sentiment-driven trades retreating at a frightening speed. Historically, there are plenty of examples of such sharp rallies followed by pullbacks. Looking longer term, the Federal Reserve’s July minutes have just been released, and the White House will hold a crypto executive meeting tomorrow. Policy variables are more worth watching than technicals; any surprises in these two events could reshuffle the market direction.
Here’s the question: why would a veteran with a 55% historical win rate dare to increase his short position against the market frenzy? Do you think he might be holding something we haven’t seen?After renaming to BUSD, all authorizations of old users became invalid
Berachain renamed its native stablecoin HONEY to a new name, Bera USD, using the symbol BUSD directly.
According to the announcement, this is just a brand makeover. The foundation said the rename is to let institutional users immediately recognize it as a USD stablecoin, making it appear more professional and trustworthy. The contract address did not change, and the token itself remains the same, just a different name, which sounds like a harmless minor change.
HONEY is not a niche token. It is the native USD stablecoin on the Berachain blockchain, heavily relied upon by the lending market, trading pairs, and various vaults on the chain. A single rename affects the entire financial layer that is already operational, not just a simple rebranding.
But the trouble lies in the technical details. In Ethereum's signature standard EIP-712, the token name is part of the domain separator. All permits, off-chain authorizations, and various allowance permissions previously signed based on the name HONEY will automatically become invalid once the name changes. Those who have authorized protocols, vaults, or swap routes to use their stablecoins will suddenly find their authorizations gone after some time and must re-sign. Especially for those who deposited HONEY into lending protocols or opened revolving loans, once the authorization expires, the available credit of their positions will immediately drop to zero, and in severe cases, may trigger unexpected repayments or liquidation processes.
This contrasts sharply with the project team's claim of better serving institutions and being more standardized. Old users' authorizations quietly became void without any prior notice. Many people do not understand what EIP-712 is, nor do they check daily whether their permits are still valid. When they actually need to use it, they find their credit gone, which is truly troublesome. Integrators also have to update their code to adapt again; the so-called quick full launch involves a series of unnoticed manual tasks. For ordinary users, the most realistic risk is not understanding the technology but suddenly finding previously usable functions in their wallets no longer work one day.
More intriguingly are the three letters BUSD. It was once the stablecoin issued by Binance, halted by the New York Department of Financial Services in 2023, and eventually quietly exited the market. Now a chain project picks up this symbol to use—whether because the name sounds catchy or they simply do not mind that regulatory history—is hard for outsiders to judge. At least from the appearance, this move is far more than just a brand upgrade.
The rename sounds light and casual, but on-chain it affects everything. If you hold authorizations for this type of stablecoin, it's time to check whether your permits are still valid. Two century-old banks complete their first on-chain deposit settlement
HSBC and Standard Chartered, two banks with a combined history of over three hundred years, have just completed their first real-time tokenized deposit transaction on Swift's blockchain ledger. The news was reported by CoinDesk, stating that this transaction marks a substantial step for traditional financial institutions in using blockchain to handle deposit tokens. The old money is finally not just discussing in meetings but actually settling transactions.
Let's clarify what this is about. Swift is the messaging and clearing network between international banks, through which most global bank transfers are processed. This time, instead of sending messages, it turned the deposits themselves into tokens, transferring and settling them in real time on a distributed ledger. Previously, cross-border transfers required multiple intermediaries and could take days to complete; now, with on-chain processing, the speed and transparency are entirely different.
For the crypto community, the significance of this news lies in the identities of the participants. HSBC, Standard Chartered, and Swift—any one of these names alone is enough to spark extensive industry discussion, and now the three have come together. This indicates that banks' attitudes toward on-chain settlement have shifted from experimentation to serious implementation. Previously, we often said traditional finance needed to embrace blockchain; this time, banks themselves are moving their core business onto the chain.
On the practical side, tokenized deposits by banks are somewhat similar to the stablecoin logic we use—they are both on-chain accounting certificates—but there are clear differences. Stablecoins are issued by companies like Circle and Tether, whereas bank tokenized deposits are backed by licensed banks themselves, with deposit insurance and regulatory support, making their compliance attributes completely different. In the future, enterprise-level cross-border settlements may first be realized on these bank-affiliated chains.
The short-term direct impact on the market is limited since this does not involve retail funds nor create new buying demand. But in the medium to long term, this is a significant piece in the RWA (Real World Asset) narrative. When banks move deposits, bonds, and settlements onto the chain, the on-chain capital pools and liquidity foundations will grow stronger, opening up more possibilities for stablecoins and on-chain wealth management. The investable pool of RWA assets is being built brick by brick by these major players.
What I personally find more interesting is another angle. Two major banks doing on-chain settlement shows that the compliance path is viable, which reassures other traditional institutions. Once the demonstration effect takes hold, more banks will follow, further blurring the boundaries between on-chain assets and traditional finance. By then, products like on-chain interest rates and on-chain credit may no longer be niche toys.
Finally, a question: if one day your bank deposits can be directly transferred and settled on-chain, would you still keep most of your money in traditional accounts? August 20
Gold Evening
Core Influencing Factors Analysis
The core driver of this round of strong gold price rally comes from the U.S. Treasury's expansion of the long-term bond repurchase program, raising the single repurchase limit for 10–30 year long bonds to 4 billion, effective September 9. This directly suppresses the 30-year U.S. Treasury yield and weakens the dollar simultaneously, pushing gold prices up to 4527.
Key distinction: This tool is a liquidity adjustment measure, not QE, and can only temporarily ease the pressure from long bond sell-offs. It cannot solve the long-term fundamentals of the U.S.'s high deficit and huge debt; caution is needed in the evening for concentrated profit-taking by bulls. Once long bond yields rebound, gold prices are prone to rapid pullback.
On the geopolitical front, the shipping game in the Strait of Hormuz continues, and U.S.-Iran tensions remain, providing inherent safe-haven support. However, oil price volatility will act as a hedge: rising oil prices will lift inflation expectations again, constraining gold's upside.
Tonight, focus on U.S. initial jobless claims data. Strong data will cause U.S. Treasury yields to rebound and pressure gold prices; weak data will continue to support gold holding its high level.
Technical Analysis
4-hour chart: After consecutive bullish candles, there is high-level oscillation correction. RSI has fallen back from the overbought zone, short-term upward momentum is weakening. The preferred approach tonight is oscillation, avoid chasing highs, wait for a pullback to support and stabilization before positioning.
Strategy: Range 4482-4465, defense at 4450, target 4527-4550
Disclaimer: Investment involves risks, enter the market cautiously
#美联储7月FOMC纪要9比3，官员加息分歧仍在 $XAU Revenue surged 62 times, but cash only lasts 9 days
A legendary meme coin on Solana, the listed company behind it only has $214,000 in cash on hand, which at the current burn rate is enough to last just 9 days. This is not a joke; it’s the half-year report just released by the Nasdaq-listed company Bonk, Inc. (ticker BNKK). The BONK coin itself still has a market cap of about $22 million, but the company behind it is on the brink.
First, look at the most contrasting numbers. This company’s revenue in the first half of the year was $5.5 million, a year-on-year surge of 6218%, sounds like it’s about to take off, right? But the net loss for the same period was $7.88 million, and cash on hand burned down from $2.28 million at the end of 2025 to $214,000, a 90% evaporation in half a year. The auditing firm M&K CPAS and management themselves wrote in the report: there are significant doubts about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern. In plain language, at this rate, the company could shut down at any time.
What’s more worth pondering is the revenue structure. Of the $5.5 million, $3.92 million comes from revenue sharing with the affiliated platform LetsBonk.fun, accounting for 71%, and the owner behind this platform and the founder of the listed company is the same person, Mitchell Rudy. He holds about 40.2% of the common shares and all the Series C preferred shares through Lucky Dog Holdings. The Series C preferred shares can independently elect half of the company’s board. The revenue source is him, the board is him, the lifeline is all in one person’s hands.
There are also two very typical transactions. The company used $50 million worth of BONK tokens to buy back its own stock, but what it received was not cash but the same tokens from its own treasury. These tokens are recorded at fair value, and in the first half of the year, an unrealized loss of $8.17 million was recognized, directly hitting the income statement. Paying salaries with its own tokens and buying its own stock with its own tokens—this cycle looks lively but is actually just moving money from one hand to the other.
For holders of BONK, two things need to be distinguished here. BONK is a meme coin that started as a community airdrop and has no corporate entity; the coin’s survival depends on exchanges and community enthusiasm. But BNKK, this shell company, packages the BONK ecosystem’s cash flow into a listed company story. Its financial report reflects the monetization ability of this ecosystem, not the coin price itself. Don’t assume the coin will immediately go to zero just because the company is dying, nor assume the coin will take off just because the company’s revenue surged.
On the operational level, this structure reminds us to first check if there is a real company in the chain before buying meme coins. If the founder-related income accounts for more than 70%, if shares are paid with tokens, or if cash coverage is less than ten days, any one of these should raise a red flag. Hype can deceive, but financial reports won’t.
Finally, a question: if this company really can’t survive, do you think the BONK community will take over and keep it alive, or watch it delist and dissolve?US Treasury's Buyback Doubles, BTC Returns to 11-Week High
BTC's surge overnight isn't rooted in the crypto space. The US Treasury stepped in, doubling the scale of long-term bond buybacks, raising the single buyback cap from $2 billion to at least $4 billion, effective from September 9 to November 4. Once the news broke, the 30-year US Treasury yield fell about 9 basis points from a nearly 20-year high. BTC followed suit, soaring to $69,749, marking a new high since June 2, with a daily gain of about 6%, reclaiming the 11-week peak.
It's worth breaking down the transmission chain here. The Treasury's buyback of long bonds essentially injects liquidity into the bond market, absorbing long bonds that no one wants to buy, easing selling pressure in the bond market. As yields drop, valuation pressure on global risk assets eases, and BTC, as a high-beta asset, naturally reacts most strongly. Even Standard Chartered analysts have commented that this move is exactly the type BTC favors, mentioning $65,500 as a key level.
For swing traders, the key is to grasp the timing window. The Treasury's buyback isn't a one-off action; it will continue from September 9 to November 4, nearly two months, with each buyback announcement potentially acting as a liquidity pulse. In the short term, during the bond market stabilization window, risk assets generally have tailwinds, but be mindful of the rhythm of buying on expectations and selling on facts—rallies before announcements tend to be stronger than after.
Looking deeper, the background of this rally is that long-term rates surged too aggressively. The 30-year Treasury yield once hit a new high since 2007, squeezing the market. The Fed's rate hike expectations and the Treasury's debt issuance pressure combined to weigh on risk assets across the board. Now, with the Treasury actively buying back bonds, it's effectively hedging on the supply side—a move far more concrete than verbal assurances.
From a medium- to long-term perspective, a few more words. Liquidity conditions are the fundamental variable for BTC pricing. The Treasury's willingness to maintain long bond market stability indicates a declining tolerance in policy for economic damage caused by high interest rates. For crypto, as long as the US dollar liquidity tap isn't tightened further, the return of funds to risk assets is just a matter of time. BTC's bull market narrative essentially remains a liquidity story; this underlying logic hasn't changed.
Of course, don't mistake a single bullish candle for everything. The buyback plan starts in September, with variables like Fed minutes and 20-year Treasury auctions in between. The early morning Treasury auction is the first hurdle. Risk management on positions is still necessary; don't forget your original stop-loss just because of one bullish candle.
Finally, a question: with the Treasury deploying such a major buyback move, how long do you think this liquidity spring can last?Two FTX executives banned for 10 years and 8 years respectively
FTX's accounts are still not settled. The U.S. CFTC officially announced an enforcement settlement with former Alameda CEO Caroline Ellison and FTX co-founder Gary Wang. Ellison received a 5-year trading ban plus a 10-year registration ban, while Wang got a 5-year trading ban plus an 8-year registration ban. Both must continue cooperating with the CFTC's investigation. Note, this is a settlement, not a clearance—it's a plea deal in exchange for leniency.
The most striking figure is $11.02 billion. The CFTC explicitly stated it will not pursue recovery, restitution, or fines this time, partly because the related criminal case has already issued a forfeiture order for $11.02 billion, and both individuals have been highly cooperative. In plain terms, the people who needed to be caught have been caught, the money that needed to be pursued has been pursued, and this ban is more like a closing chapter for this saga.
Recall the scale of the FTX collapse. In the week of November 2022, FTX went from the world's second-largest exchange to filing for bankruptcy in just a few days, owing creditors over $3 billion at the time. The liquidators have since pursued about $1.3 billion. SBF himself was sentenced to over twenty years, and now his two key lieutenants have also been given time limits. The legal closure of this case is nearly complete.
For the industry, the value of this news is not in the punishment itself but in the signal it sends: U.S. regulators are completing the liquidation of crypto fraud according to procedure. From the Lehman moment in 2022 until now, the SEC and CFTC have enforced on multiple fronts, targeting exchanges, market makers, and executives alike. This round of regulatory catch-up is good in the long run, clearing out the bad actors and leaving room for compliant players to survive.
But from the perspective of us traders, I want to highlight another layer. What the FTX collapse taught everyone back then is that an exchange’s exposure can’t be seen from candlestick charts; money is safer in your own wallet than anywhere else. Now with increasingly advanced on-chain contracts, platforms like Hyperliquid move matching onto the chain, with cold wallets, self-custody, and on-chain audits. There are many more tools than three years ago, but hundreds of millions in hacks still happen every year. The lesson on security awareness is one we can never graduate from.
The short-term market impact is actually limited; this news is a procedural closure of an old case, with limited emotional shock. What really matters is the capital game behind tonight’s $1.9 billion liquidation wave. From a medium- to long-term perspective, the full closure of the FTX case removes a dark cloud hanging over the industry, giving the compliance narrative new material to talk about.
One last question: It’s been almost four years since the FTX collapse. Do you think retail investors’ trust in exchanges has truly been restored? Fidelity clients have aggressively bought nearly 2,000 BTC in two days
Arkham's monitoring data went viral today. Fidelity's clients have purchased about $134 million worth of BTC in the past two days, which translates to nearly 2,000 BTC at current prices. This is the most active two-day net buying by the institution's clients since early July. When the news came out, many people's first reaction was, aren't institutions all running away? Why the sudden turnaround?
Here is an interesting contrast. Last week, the US spot ETF still saw a net outflow of $390 million, with Fidelity's own FBTC having the largest weekly net outflow of $153 million. In other words, for the same Fidelity, money through the ETF channel is flowing out, while custodial clients' money is flowing in—two completely opposite trends. ETFs involve on-exchange chip rotation, while custodial accounts represent real incremental buying; these two have different natures.
Arkham put it plainly: Fidelity clients' BTC allocation trends have always been used as a reference for traditional financial institutions' capital flows. $134 million may not seem huge, but combined with the timing, it is intriguing. Just in these two days, the US Treasury announced doubling the scale of long-term bond repurchases, long-term yields fell, and BTC surged from around 65,000 to above 69,000. The institutional clients' moves are very likely not a coincidence.
For ordinary players like us, this data can be interpreted on two levels in terms of operations. In the short term, institutional custodial buying is a positive sentiment indicator, showing that large funds are willing to buy in the 60,000 to 65,000 range, which is meaningful for support; but don't take two days of buying as sufficient evidence of a trend reversal. ETF capital flows have fluctuated repeatedly over the past few months, and looking at just one or two days' numbers can lead to misjudgment.
On the long-term level, what is more worth pondering is that the paths for institutional entry are broadening. ETFs have premiums and discounts, management fees, and redemption timing differences, while custodial accounts are closer to traditional large capital's habit of building positions. More paths mean the structural support at the bottom is becoming thicker. This is also why key levels like the 200-day moving average cost line always have large funds willing to hold there.
Let me add a personal view. The fiercest debate in the market now is the bull vs. bear argument, but the data is quietly speaking: volatility is suppressed to historically low percentiles, the profit supply ratio is stuck at 52%, and institutional clients are starting to build positions against the trend. These signals combined resemble characteristics of the late bear market phase rather than the start of a new downtrend. Of course, position judgment is one thing, and position management is another.
Finally, a question: with ETFs flowing out and custodial accounts buying, these two forces are hedging each other. Who do you think the market will listen to first next?A whale with an unrealized profit of 13 million has revealed all their cards
Tonight's market is lively, and on-chain there is no shortage of people showing off their positions. But one whale showed off particularly boldly, openly revealing a 5x leveraged long position of 3,425 BTC, with a margin of about 46.52 million USD. The unrealized profit now exceeds 13.04 million USD, a return of 28%. This user goes by the name "Contract player who sets 10 big goals first," essentially laying all their cards on the table for the entire network to see, causing the comment section to explode.
Don't rush to envy just yet; let's do the math calmly. With 46.52 million USD margin at 5x leverage, the actual nominal position value exceeds 230 million USD. This position size is whale-level on any exchange. The 13.04 million USD unrealized profit sounds large, but the drawdown can be fast too—just a 2% adverse price move means several million USD in paper losses. Behind the thrill of showing off is a ton of risk exposure.
What's interesting is the timing. When this guy added to his long position, the whole network was experiencing a historic short squeeze. In the past 24 hours, liquidations totaled 1.9 billion USD, with short liquidations at 1.733 billion USD, and BTC surged from 65,000 to above 69,000. In other words, he placed a heavy bet at the start of the rally and only dared to show off because the direction was right. Such open position reveals on-chain often carry signaling properties—either genuine confidence or an attempt to influence sentiment. Which it is will depend on how the market unfolds.
For ordinary traders like us, it's best to just observe these whale show-offs without getting carried away. First, their 46.52 million USD margin is just a drop in the bucket; our positions can't withstand 5x leverage volatility. Second, publicly showing positions is itself a game tactic; only the person knows their true intent. The takeaway is that whales willing to heavily long at this level indicate that big money isn't too bearish on the downside, which is a positive sentiment signal.
Looking at the market, tonight's rally is rooted in improved US Treasury liquidity. The Treasury's expanded buyback program pushed down long-term yields, benefiting risk assets collectively. Short-term momentum remains, but above 69,000 lies the 200-day moving average, the bull-bear dividing line. Previously, BTC hit around 69,500 and faced resistance, pulling back once. The battle between bulls and bears will be intense here, so chasing highs requires extra caution.
From a long-term perspective, I lean toward this view: as long as US dollar liquidity does not tighten further, the bottom for risk assets will gradually rise. Ultimately, BTC's pricing power returns to the liquidity narrative. But short-term volatility is unpredictable; whale show-offs don't change the importance of position management. The higher the leverage, the smaller the margin for error—this is ironclad.
One last question: if you had 46.52 million USD, would you dare to go all-in with 5x leverage and publicly show your position?50x Leverage Comes to Coinbase, Retail Traders Are Really Tempted This Time
What Coinbase is doing this time is worth a look for anyone trading contracts: it has directly integrated perpetual contracts into the Base App, offering up to 50x leverage, with over 290 contract markets available, including Bitcoin, Ethereum, and even stocks and commodities.
The executor is Hyperliquid, with Coinbase handling the front-end access, so users don’t have to leave their existing wallets. In other words, Americans can finally trade the crypto market’s most popular derivatives right inside Coinbase’s app—though U.S. domestic users are excluded this time, as are countries that restrict leverage.
Coinbase’s engineering lead said something quite striking: perpetual contracts account for 75% of total crypto market trading volume and are the feature Base App’s high-frequency users want most. To translate, the most active users want exactly this.
The background here is Base App’s transformation. Previously, it bet on social and creator features, which were lukewarm at best, and even the founder admitted it didn’t meet expectations. Now the focus shifts to trading, payments, and AI Agent, with perpetual contracts being the heaviest piece of this transformation puzzle.
For ordinary players, this feature actually opens Pandora’s box. What does 50x leverage mean? Anyone who’s traded contracts knows—if the market moves 2% against you, your principal is gone. Coinbase itself includes a risk warning: losses beyond a threshold will trigger liquidation. But honestly, warnings or not, those tempted won’t stop just because of a small line of text.
I did the math myself: with the same $1000, 10x leverage versus 50x leverage means the stop-loss space differs by five times. High leverage isn’t unplayable, but it cuts the margin for error to zero—if you’re right, it’s great; if you’re wrong, it’s a wipeout overnight.
The current reality is clear: perpetual contracts making up 75% means everyone loves to play, but loving to play and playing wisely are two different things. Base App opening this gateway to tens of millions of users is like handing a gun without a safety lock to beginners.
One more background note: Coinbase clearly states this feature is currently not available to users in the U.S., U.K., Canada, and other regions that restrict leveraged crypto derivatives trading. So, the first to use it won’t be the most experienced players but users in relatively lax regulatory areas. Judging by product rhythm, Base App is playing perpetual contracts as its third card after prediction markets and stablecoins; the first two have proven effective, and whether this one can succeed will determine the ceiling of Base’s current transformation.
Do you think this is Coinbase’s super growth engine, or a new pitfall dug for retail traders? Liquidity is starting to talk.
On August 19, the U.S. Treasury announced a $4B reverse repurchase operation, and the market quickly reacted.
Over the following two days:
$ETH : +20%
$BTC : +10%
$XAU : +2.8%
The bigger question isn’t the move itself. It’s what happens next.
From September 9, increased repurchases of 10–30 year U.S. Treasuries, with a single-transaction limit of $4B, could keep liquidity expectations in focus.
But markets are cruel: once the bullish headline becomes consensus, the trade can start pricing the opposite.
So I’m not chasing the green candles.
Liquidity can fuel the move. Positioning decides who gets trapped.
The bears don’t become exit liquidity that easily.
#BTCBreaks72K #StorageValuationSplit #TreasuryUpsBuybacks Yushu is basically a big toy company with maxed-out administrative and media resources.
Is the person at the front really the boss? They’re just put forward, but all the accusations about Yushu’s exploitation have to be borne by the front person. How could he possibly be smiling?
Some data points:
Yushu’s R&D expenses were 50 million in 2023, 70 million in 2024, and 90 million in the first three quarters of 2025.
Compared to its marketing expenses, this is pitifully low.
Industry comparison:
UBTech 478 million
Xpeng 9.49 billion
And with this level of R&D spending, Yushu claims 22 times in its prospectus that it is fully self-developed. Where does the confidence come from? Do they think everyone is a fool?
Performing at the Spring Festival Gala for three consecutive years— the money spent and the relationships coordinated behind this are not something an ordinary company can achieve.
DJI, a truly powerful player, has revenue of 84 billion but is valued at only so much, while this toy company?
How could Wang Xingxing be smiling? He’s smart, an entrepreneur, and surely knows what real tech peers look like.
But once you’re on someone else’s ship, how can you easily get off?
As @captain_kent said, unlocking gradually over 7 years—if you can’t raise money at a high valuation, you become the scapegoat and can only do some off-balance-sheet operations while the company runs.
Once the founders can’t get the big profits, the real big players behind this party become obvious.
Today Yushu had a big bearish candle, plunging 17%, comparable to a meme stock.
#宇树科技科创板首日开盘暴涨629%，高估值如何兑现？ BTC and ETH suddenly launched a violent surge without any warning, with bulls charging wildly and shorts instantly liquidated. The entire network is searching for excuses in macro policies and liquidity, but if you delve into the core "liquidity lifeline" of the crypto world, you'll discover a shocking truth that leaves everyone dumbfounded — this surge is purely forced by the insane bloodsucking of the US stock token $SNDK (SanDisk)! ⚠️ The bottom line for crypto bigwigs: when "SanDisk" starts provoking BTC and ETH Recently, the TradFi (traditional finance tokenization) sectors on OKX and Binance have gone completely mad. Due to SanDisk's official frequent releases of AI storage chip wafer fabrication benefits, global crypto funds and quant whales have flooded in like sharks smelling blood. According to the latest market data, $SNDK (SanDisk) single-day perpetual contract trading volume on Binance soared to a terrifying $8.479 billion USD, and on OKX it achieved a staggering 28.1 billion RMB turnover. What does this mean? The trading volume of a single US stock token SanDisk has completely surpassed the second brother $ETH, and is even directly approaching and challenging the dominance of the big brother $BTC! For the true power holders, top market makers, and exchange tycoons in the crypto world, this situation is absolutely intolerable. The native liquidity of the crypto market is limited; all funds running to speculate on white-labeled US stock RWA assets is tantamount to tailoring clothes for traditional finance, directly shaking the foundation of BTC and ETH as the industry's faith! ------------------------------ Brothers, I could hear the shorts screaming all the way from the east side of the city last night.
$BTC surged from 64,100 all the way up, rising over 4,700 dollars in one day, up more than 7% in 24 hours, hitting a new high since early June. The most brutal part was that over 1 billion dollars worth of shorts were liquidated within one hour, the largest short squeeze since 2021. In 24 hours, 175,000 people were liquidated across the entire network, and 2.9 billion dollars vanished into thin air. Bloomberg even used the term "epic short squeeze"; shorts had been building positions for months, and overnight they all turned into fuel, delivered right to the doorstep.
1. This rally is not a low-volume short squeeze. BTC spot ETFs saw a net inflow of 486 million dollars in two days, real money buying in.
2. The trigger was the US Treasury stepping in personally: long bond repos doubled to 4 billion dollars per transaction, the 30-year yield plunged 10 basis points intraday, and the dollar index fell below 99. Money is losing value, so assets have to gain value; the logic is that simple and straightforward.
Some traders suggest that a pullback to 66,500-67,000 is a good entry zone, and if it holds, look for 72,000-73,500. My view: the short squeeze is thrilling, but after the short fuel burns out, it needs real buying to take over. Tonight, we’ll see if the 70,000 level is a "milestone" or just a "photo op".
#BTC突破72000美元，本轮上涨能否延续？
#白宫峰会：特朗普称曾讨论购入BTC Everyone says rate cuts are certain, but inside there's debate about whether to raise rates.
The market currently assumes one thing: the Fed's current cycle is nearing its end, and rate cuts are coming next. But some have noticed the noise in the corner—inside the Fed, some want to raise rates.
Tim Duy, Chief U.S. Economist at SGH Macro Advisors, reminds everyone to watch the upcoming meeting minutes—not the conclusions, but the dissenting votes.
He puts it bluntly: in recent years, more Fed officials have voted against rate decisions, especially when economic pressure is high and policy direction is unclear, internal conflicts get fiercer. This time, the disagreement centers on inflation. Inflation was clearly above target, and some officials worried it wouldn't fall obediently. Coupled with a seemingly stable labor market, these people strongly believe inflation should be suppressed through rate hikes.
So what really matters in the minutes is how many officials agree that "inflation is the main threat." If dissenting votes and hawkish statements cluster, the market's "rate cut narrative" will be questioned.
What does this have to do with us? A lot. Crypto assets are among the most sensitive risk assets; when rate expectations change, capital flows follow. Last night, BTC surged to 69,000 partly because the Treasury expanded bond repurchases to ease liquidity—liquidity is water, crypto prices are boats; when water rises, boats rise. Conversely, if the minutes signal rate hikes, this water might be pulled back.
The market is now in a strange state: the bond market bets on easing, but inside the Fed there's debate about tightening. One side must be wrong; we'll see which side backs down after the minutes are released.
My own view is: don't rush to take sides. Volatility around the minutes release is usually significant; rather than betting on direction, better to see if your positions can withstand two-way swings.
Here's a detail worth pondering: Duy especially emphasizes that the market should watch "how widespread officials' concerns about inflation are." Note he uses the word "widespread," not "strong." This means individual hawks calling for hikes aren't scary; what's scary is if hawkish views form a consensus among decision-makers. If the minutes show multiple officials listing inflation as the top risk, that's the real signal. Conversely, if dissenting votes are just a few isolated ones, it's basically noise, and the market will continue as usual.
Do you think the minutes will extend this rally or pour cold water on it? CFTC to Launch Futures on Computing Power, Chairman Gets Anxious
The US regulator's recent statement caught me off guard.
The CFTC issued a request for comments to set rules for "computing power derivative contracts." What are computing power derivatives? Simply put, it's turning mining computing power itself into a tradable futures asset, similar to how futures were introduced for commodities back in the day. This concept itself isn't new; what's new is the CFTC Chairman Selig's exact words: "Without a robust computing power derivatives market, the US cannot win the AI race."
It's rare for the head of a regulatory agency to endorse a new category by saying "we can't win the race" without it. He also added: back then, the US promoted the industrial economy by establishing trading standards for commodities; now it aims to build rules for computing power to drive the "intelligent economy."
In other words: regulators are preparing to introduce trading tools for computing power as a commodity, including perpetual futures on computing power.
The scope of the request for comments is very specific: the size of the computing power spot market, liquidity, market characteristics, manipulation risks, and customer protection are all covered. The comment period is 60 days, starting from the publication in the Federal Register.
The significance of this move lies in its direction. The scale of spending in the AI sector is evident by the numbers—Alphabet has started issuing Australian dollar bonds, and global AI debt reportedly has reached $489 billion. Computing power is the most tangible resource; whoever can price computing power and offer computing power futures controls the pricing power of AI infrastructure. The US is eager to launch this tool essentially to seize financial discourse power in the AI era.
For us crypto traders, is this good news? After computing power derivatives go live, miners will have more hedging tools, theoretically smoothing out computing power price volatility. But new derivatives also mean new leverage and new liquidation risks. Every time a new futures product launches, there's a familiar pattern.
The 60-day comment period gives the market time to digest. What really matters are the follow-up rules: margin ratios, position limits—these will determine whether this market goes wild or not.
Ultimately, regulators willing to establish exchange standards for a new category is an acknowledgment that it's big enough and unavoidable. It took over a hundred years for commodities to evolve from spot to futures; computing power might only take a few years to go from concept to derivatives. This speed difference is what truly makes this AI race frightening.
Do you think the launch of computing power futures will cool down AI infrastructure or just open another casino? Let's discuss in the comments.When will this US debt storm be out of danger? Keep an eye on this number
The alarm bell has rung. Recently, the yield on the US 10-year Treasury has remained above 4.7, which is a very serious signal, sounding the alarm for global asset pricing.
According to economic principles, the long-term US Treasury yield is linked to long-term inflation expectations. If inflation comes down, Treasury yields should decrease. But we see that since the Federal Reserve's July meeting, the US 10-year Treasury yield has been uncontrollable, continuously breaking through 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7.
Why is this happening? This involves what investors are currently worried about—not actually long-term US inflation, but that the long-end yield reflects term premium.
What is term premium? Taking the 10-year Treasury yield as an example, it means that if I buy this bond and hold it for ten years, various risks will occur over the next ten years. The higher the uncertainty, the cheaper I will demand the bond to be sold to me.
What uncertainties is the US facing?
First, the new Fed Chair, Waller, has lost credibility with the market. At the July meeting, Waller verbally signaled rate hikes, although he vocally opposed inflation, in fact, he did not take any rate hike action and even mockingly said the Treasury market was hiking rates for him. This basically angered Treasury investors, who voted with their feet by selling off long-term Treasuries.
Additionally, Waller introduced a so-called "no forward guidance, no signaling" communication mechanism. Under this situation, investors have to blindly guess whether the Fed will be dovish or hawkish on new economic data. This has caused the bond market, dominated by cautious institutional investors, to be insensitive to good news and more pessimistic about bad news. No matter how favorable the nonfarm payroll and inflation data are, bond investors believe that since the Fed does not provide forward guidance, it likely does not care much about short-term data.
We see a very split reaction after data releases—US stocks surge, even gold rises, but only Treasuries fall.
This reflects the increasingly worsening US fiscal situation. The total US debt has exceeded 40 trillion, and the fiscal deficit has surpassed 2 trillion. How will these holes be filled? The market does not want to answer this for Treasury Secretary Yellen. The market uses term premium to represent investors’ true feelings, which translates to: I don’t know if the US fiscal situation will improve in the future or if Fed Chair Waller’s words are reliable. I only know that I want more interest today to buy more Treasuries.
Worse than the 10-year Treasury is the longer 30-year Treasury, whose yield has reached 5.27, significantly surpassing the historically important 5% threshold. Historically, whenever Treasury yields break 5%, investors could buy with eyes closed. But this time, the yield has broken above 5% to 5.27 and shows no signs of stopping. Investors no longer believe US Treasuries will return to a bull market in the short term.
In the recent public statement on US Treasury financing, Yellen changed the wording from "potential future increase in issuance" to "potential future no increase," which can be seen as a small reassurance to the market. What was the effect? It had a slight effect; the 10-year Treasury yield only fell from 4.27 back to about 4.65, while the 30-year Treasury yield remains firmly above 5.2%.
What impact will this have on ordinary investors? The most important is the link between global carry trades and US Treasuries mentioned earlier. If Treasury yields remain high, it will drive up global bond markets including Japanese, European, and UK government bonds. The rise in bonds will cause another problem—the financing difficulties for US AI corporate bonds, which may cause the current cycle of financing, investment, and stock price increases in AI stocks to collapse, thereby transmitting financial liquidity crises from the bond market to US stocks. The tech sectors of US stocks and our A-shares are fully linked, so this will spread from US stocks to A-shares, affecting everyone’s accounts.
Therefore, I suggest everyone closely watch the US 10-year Treasury yield. Only when the 10-year Treasury yield can return below 4.6 or even 4.5 will it represent a release of short-term financial risks, allowing everyone to expect the bull market to go higher and further.
The above is only a personal opinion and does not represent investment advice. Please be aware of risks. Standard Chartered predicts 100,000 by year-end, but the Treasury Department has already taken action
The hottest topic in today's market isn't how much prices have risen, but who's making the calls and who's taking action.
Standard Chartered analyst Geoff Kendrick boldly stated: Bitcoin could reach $100,000 by the end of 2026. His basis isn't technical charts but liquidity—the U.S. Treasury announced it would double the cap on long-term bond repurchases, raising the single transaction limit from $2 billion to at least $4 billion, effective from September 9 to November 4. Once the announcement was made, the 30-year U.S. Treasury yield immediately dropped. He commented: this kind of operation is "exactly the type Bitcoin likes."
Let's break down this statement. The Treasury expanding repurchase scale essentially injects liquidity into the long-term bond market, easing bond sell-off pressure. Historically, once the government intervenes in liquidity, risk assets are often the first beneficiaries. Behind Bitcoin's past major rallies, this pattern has been evident.
Standard Chartered also gave a technical level: $65,500, saying that breaking through would confirm a cycle low. Coincidentally, last night BTC already touched around $69,700, getting closer to his mentioned level. But to be fair, the $100,000 call comes from a bank analyst, not a prophet. Many who predicted $100,000 this year have quietly revised their forecasts.
More intriguingly is the timing. Kendrick says "now is the time to position," yet on-chain data shows long-term holders' wallets haven't moved much—the loudest callers and the most steadfast holders are often not the same group.
Reviewing my own records, every time this combination of "institutional target price calls + liquidity easing" appears, the short-term is often not the most comfortable buying point but rather the start of increased volatility. Because once the target price is announced, some rush to get ahead, and when many rush, the market tends to jump around.
By the way, the most critical variable in Kendrick's logic isn't actually in the crypto space. The U.S. Treasury this time targets the 10- to 20-year and 20- to 30-year long-term bonds, raising the single repurchase limit from $2 billion to at least $4 billion. Lower long-term yields open up the valuation ceiling for risk assets. The key $65,500 level he mentioned was briefly surpassed by BTC last night at $69,749, leaving that line behind, but whether it can hold depends on the upcoming pullback.
So the real question isn't whether BTC hits 100,000 by year-end, but who can catch it after this liquidity ammunition is spent? The Treasury's repurchase round only starts in September; what will support the market during the vacuum period before then?
Leave a comment: do you believe Standard Chartered's 100,000 call, or do you think it's just another analyst painting a pie in the sky? $BTC ETF single-day explosive buying of $517 million! Institutional funds massively entering to boost BTC short squeeze rally
Behind this round of Bitcoin's violent surge, the large inflow of funds into spot ETFs is the solid core driving force. Data shows that on August 19, the US Bitcoin spot ETF saw the strongest single-day net inflow since May, totaling $517.19 million, with BlackRock's IBIT product alone accounting for $285 million. Institutions are continuously increasing their real money investment in Bitcoin.
From a quarterly holding perspective, institutional ETF total holdings continued to grow by 7.5% in Q2, reaching a total of 535,723 BTC. The continuous rise in institutional positions indicates that Wall Street's trend of allocating Bitcoin remains unchanged. This round of price increase is not merely speculative trading; it has formal institutional funds as the underlying support.
Multiple conditions resonate, spawning this epic short squeeze
1. Improvement in US Treasury liquidity
The US Treasury increased long-term bond repurchase scale from $2 billion to $4 billion, directly suppressing long-term Treasury yields and raising market expectations for liquidity easing. Pressure on risk assets is relieved, allowing Bitcoin to break out of a multi-month consolidation range and open up space for the rally.
2. Epic short squeeze liquidation
BTC surged toward the $70,000 mark, triggering unprecedented large-scale short liquidations. Over $1 billion liquidated in one hour, and a total of $2.99 billion liquidated in 24 hours. Massive short positions were closed in a chain reaction, further pushing prices upward, creating a positive feedback loop of "rising prices forcing short covering, which in turn pushes prices higher." Analysts from BlackRock, VanEck, Fidelity, and others simultaneously noted that BTC's long-term volatility compression had accumulated many bullish positions, making the rally extremely explosive once triggered.
3. Continuous expansion of corporate institutional adoption
Institutions are not only buying ETFs; corporate treasuries are also increasing BTC allocations. Zhibao Technology completed a $154.7 million PIPE financing, directly injecting 2,380 BTC into its treasury; MSTR data shows that among the top 15 institutional holders, 12 increased their holdings in Q2, while continuously promoting Bitcoin treasury assets' inclusion in mainstream MSCI indices.
Objective risk reminders
1. Large single-day inflows are positive, but ETF funds can also turn into net outflows at any time. Single-day data should not be linearly extrapolated as a perpetual signal.
2. After concentrated short liquidations, the market now holds a large amount of unrealized long profits, with severe short-term overbought conditions, making a significant pullback possible at any time.
3. Continuous institutional optimism does not mean the market will only rise without falling; macro factors like US Treasury and Federal Reserve policies remain variables hanging overhead.
$BTC #BTC breaks through $69,000, how far can this rally go? The tenant doesn't want to rent anymore; Circle wants to build its own chain
In the past few years, when we used USDC, we hardly ever thought about which blockchain it was running on. It was on Ethereum, Solana, Base—anywhere you could pay and transfer. Circle, the issuer of USDC, has always been like a tenant, running a thriving business by renting someone else's property.
But this tenant no longer wants to keep renting. Circle announced that their own blockchain network, Arc, will officially launch its mainnet on September 16. This is not just a concept stuck in a PPT; the testnet has already processed over 500 million transactions, nearly 3 million wallet addresses have participated, and more than 100 partners have been actively involved on the private mainnet. The road isn’t officially open yet, but the vehicle has been running for a long time.
The move from tenant to landlord is intriguing. USDC’s growth to its current scale relied precisely on neutrality—not being tied to any single chain, going wherever the chain is popular. Now Circle is building the road itself, effectively taking back the most lucrative layer of settlement. In the future, when you transfer USDC on Arc, both the money and the road belong to the same owner, and the fees and experience are controlled by them.
Arc is positioned as foundational infrastructure for the global financial market, focusing on asset settlement scenarios. Circle has already declared its intention to continuously promote Arc as the underlying road for financial markets. But the problem is, this narrative conflicts with the multi-chain neutrality logic that USDC’s growth depends on.
Behind this lies an anxiety that is rarely mentioned. Stablecoin issuers earn interest on reserves, but once transfers and settlements happen on someone else’s chain, the rule-making power, user access, and even the rhythm of life and death are not in their hands. Circle clearly does not want to be just the money printer. Interestingly, the biggest competitor, Tether, has no plans to build its own chain, but Circle insists on being the one to build the road.
The timing is also noteworthy. After the US GENIUS Act was enacted, stablecoin issuance gained a clearer compliance framework, and the battle for the moat among giants has just begun. Building their own chain means preemptively securing territory, bringing issuance, transfer, and settlement all under one roof.
But trouble comes with it. Once Arc officially launches, will USDC’s weight on Ethereum and Solana quietly be shifted away? Will those public chains that rely on USDC liquidity be happy to watch the issuer move the business back to their own yard? They claim to be building public infrastructure, but the underlying layer has never been claimed just by shouting.
A coin-issuing company starting to build a chain looks like just adding another public chain on the surface. What’s really worth pondering is that power is flowing from the chain to the issuer. Once the road is built right at their doorstep, who can still afford to leave, it’s hard to say.Coinbase's social dream shattered, starting with high-leverage contracts
Remember when Base just launched? Jesse Pollak described the Base App as a space for creators and social players, where everyone could issue tokens and interact—sounding like a crypto version of a social circle. His story was that on-chain social would bring in the next billion users. But more than a year later, the buzz never took off, user growth fell short of expectations, and that beautiful social narrative gradually faded away.
Just these past couple of days, Coinbase quietly inserted perpetual contracts into the Base App. They partnered with Hyperliquid for the underlying execution, allowing users to open long and short positions directly within Base without leaving their wallets. This launch included over 290 perpetual markets covering Bitcoin, Ethereum, as well as stock- and commodity-linked products, with leverage up to 50x. In other words, you originally came to browse a social circle, but now you can easily jump into high-leverage contracts.
The contrast is striking. Previously, Base repeatedly emphasized social and creator tokens, with posters highlighting community, interaction, and belonging. Now, it has turned to embrace high-frequency trading and derivatives. Pollak himself admitted that the social approach didn’t bring the desired growth; instead, prediction markets, perpetual contracts, and stablecoins became more practical adoption drivers. The promised community story was ultimately convinced by trading data.
Choosing Hyperliquid instead of their own system also says a lot. Hyperliquid is a leading on-chain derivatives platform, with matching and clearing running on its own chain. Coinbase outsourced execution, only handling the entry point and traffic, effectively admitting that for perpetuals, they still need to borrow someone else’s blade. A major exchange giant preferring to be a traffic gateway rather than building its own wheel is quite telling.
For ordinary users, being able to tap a few buttons in the wallet to access 50x leverage is a bit scary due to the low threshold. Coinbase left a loophole, saying this feature is not available in restricted regions like the US, UK, and Canada. But on-chain products are naturally cross-border, and those who really want to use it will find a way around. When trading and social are mixed into the same entry point, you might not even be sure if you came to chat or to place orders.
I’m actually more curious about another layer. Base has always wanted to be the super gateway of the crypto world, an app that integrates payments, social, and trading. But if the only reason people remember it is leverage and contracts, then how is it different from a regular exchange app? What do you think—after the social dream is shattered, can Coinbase’s bet really keep people around? Or will it ultimately just become another exchange disguised in social skin?The team that helps write the Ethereum client quietly dismantled this bridge
On Wednesday, Nethermind posted a brief announcement saying it has ceased operating LayerZero's DVN, migrating the entire cross-chain infrastructure to Chainlink, while joining the latter's network as a node operator and strategic technology provider.
The announcement itself was polite and uncontroversial, only mentioning that this was a decision made after a comprehensive review.
But you need to know who Nethermind is. It is one of the main developers of Ethereum's execution clients and one of the core technical contributors to this chain. When such a team chooses infrastructure, it’s usually not a snap decision and rarely changes. Publicly withdrawing from a cross-chain protocol's validation network is like putting their technical judgment on display for everyone to see.
What’s even more worth pondering is the acronym DVN. It is the trust source for LayerZero’s cross-chain messages—who validates and how reliable the validation is all depends on this layer. Nethermind was originally one of the most influential names in this layer, and now it has stepped away.
The timeline is also delicate. In April this year, Kelp DAO’s rsETH cross-chain bridge was attacked, losing about 116,500 rsETH, which was roughly $292 million at the time. After that, several companies gradually moved their cross-chain operations from LayerZero to Chainlink. Just a few days ago, Wyoming’s official stablecoin FRNT made the same move, citing security concerns quite frankly.
Nethermind didn’t mention any of this. No mention of Kelp DAO, no specific technical issues with LayerZero, nor any changes in commercial terms. They only said the review was complete, then they left. The more silent this is, the more it invites speculation.
When we usually look at cross-chain bridges, we check TVL, fees, and how many chains are supported. But what truly determines a bridge’s security is how many teams are willing to stake their names on the validation layer. Whether this list is shrinking or growing reveals more than any TVL chart ever could.
What’s even more unsettling for most people is that when you click to cross-chain in your wallet, the screen only shows a progress bar. Which channel is being used, who is validating, whether the validators have recently changed—this information is never presented to you. Only when something goes wrong will someone tell you how that bridge was actually built.
There’s another uncomfortable issue. The migration wave is also concentrating. Everyone is moving in the same direction, so the multi-validator architecture originally designed to avoid single points of trust might ironically be circling back to a single point again.
What do you think Nethermind’s phrase "comprehensive review" really hides—something it’s unwilling to openly disclose?#BTC broke through $72,000, can this rally continue?
$BTC has been going crazy these past two days, shooting up from 69,000 all the way to 72,000. Many are shouting "bull comeback." But guys, don’t get carried away. We've seen this kind of straight-line surge before, and it doesn’t always end well.
A 12% rebound in a bear market is very normal. Looking back at history: in April 2018, it rose 17%, then dropped 60% before bottoming out; in February 2022, it rose 10.5%, then fell 63%; from June to July 2022, it rebounded 40%, only to drop 37% before hitting bottom. Every wave looked like a reversal, but in the end, they were all fakeouts. I’m not saying this will definitely happen again, but at least don’t go all in just because you see a few green candles. I was too impulsive before, made 60x in a week and lost it all back, now I’ve learned my lesson. When managing clients’ funds, the biggest fear is emotional chasing of highs. It’s fine to play small with your own account, but big positions must wait for confirmation.
$BTC is now around 72,000 with significant resistance above. Whether it can hold depends on whether ETF funds follow. I’ll keep a small position and watch the show, not guessing tops or bottoms. Did you chase this wave? Let’s talk in the comments, don’t get carried away.
#美联储7月FOMC纪要9比3，官员加息分歧仍在
#白宫峰会：特朗普称曾讨论购入BTC Banks supporting crypto legislation suddenly target the small interest on stablecoins
Last night, a statement from the American Bankers Association (ABA) was quite thought-provoking. Their President and CEO Rob Nichols publicly said the goal is to strengthen, not block, the passage of the CLARITY Act, emphasizing that the digital asset industry indeed needs clear rules. However, he then singled out a key provision in the bill regarding stablecoin rewards, saying it must be tightened further.
The issue is actually quite clear. The GENIUS Act passed last year already prohibits stablecoin issuers from paying interest or yields to holders. The current debate is whether related parties like crypto exchanges can provide similar interest-like rewards indirectly. Nichols’ concern is straightforward: if stablecoin wallets use this mechanism to siphon deposits away from banks, how will banks fund small business loans, mortgages, and agricultural financing?
So the ABA came up with a solution to amend the relevant wording to prohibit stablecoin rewards that are essentially similar to interest payments, and to remove a few potentially ambiguous phrases. They emphasize they are not trying to block crypto companies from offering other types of rewards, just that they don’t want rewards to gradually become disguised deposit interest.
Behind this is a naked turf war. Banks verbally welcome regulatory clarity but are very honest in their stance—they fear that the small yields on stablecoins will really pull depositor money away. As stablecoin scale grows, it increasingly resembles bank demand deposits: users can transfer anytime and earn some rewards, which raises banks’ cost of deposit funding. When USDC and USDT were discussed as cash equivalents by institutions before, traditional banks were already uneasy. Now with the bill voting scheduled for September, the ABA is pushing senators to amend the provisions before the vote.
Interestingly, Nichols ended by saying that the U.S. can be both the global banking center and the global crypto center, provided the rules are clear and consistent. This sounds respectable, but combined with the earlier stance, it reads like "let crypto comply first, then secure our own moat." The September vote will be a critical juncture. Crypto lobbying has grown stronger over the past two years, and banks are no pushovers either. The final version will likely be a compromise, but such compromises often end up being least friendly to ordinary token holders.
For those of us holding stablecoins, this matter concerns our wallets. If the reward provisions are truly cut, the extra yield from stablecoins on platforms might disappear, and whether funds will flow back to banks or push up on-chain capital costs remains unknown. HSBC and Standard Chartered have moved deposits onto the blockchain
There’s something quite worth pondering these days. HSBC and Standard Chartered, two long-established British banks, quietly completed the first real-time tokenized deposit transaction on Swift’s blockchain ledger. This wasn’t a concept demo in a PPT, but real tokenized deposits, transferred and settled in real time between the two banks.
Many people still associate Swift with that old network that sent telegram-style messages for most of its life. But now it has built its own distributed ledger, allowing member banks to handle the transfer and clearing of tokenized deposits on-chain. This validation by HSBC and Standard Chartered shows that traditional finance using blockchain to handle tokenized assets has stepped out of the lab and found the most practical path to implementation.
The most striking contrast is here. In the past, crypto traders often said banks are conservative and Web3 is the future, with neither side respecting the other. But now, the most compliance-focused and risk-averse players have moved deposits onto the chain. For them, this is not about chasing trends but a calculated move: cross-border and institutional fund transfers with real-time on-chain settlement can cut out many intermediaries and waiting times, so money no longer gets stuck overnight in layers of correspondent banks.
Thinking deeper, this development is actually in sync with stablecoins and RWA (Real World Assets). When major banks seriously start tokenizing deposits, the clearing logic on-chain ceases to be a secret code exclusive to the crypto world and gradually becomes part of the financial infrastructure. Behind Swift is a global network of banks; once it opens up its ledger capabilities, the speed of adoption could far outpace that of a few niche public chains. We often say decentralization will disrupt banks, but now it seems banks are incorporating this technology in their own way.
What’s even more intriguing is the mindset. Blockchain has been shouting disruption for years, yet the first to actually move core business onto the chain are those institutions least likely to take risks. They don’t issue tokens or call for revolution; they quietly improve efficiency. This reminds us: the winning move of technology isn’t necessarily who shouts the loudest, but who truly balances the books.
Of course, this is just the first transaction, and the scale is small, far from putting ordinary people’s accounts on-chain. But the signal is clear: traditional finance, often seen as the opponent by many, is incorporating blockchain in its own way. What we really need to watch next is whether other major banks follow suit, and whether this on-chain ledger will grow beyond deposits to more use cases.Trump says SEC is pushing Hyperliquid into the US: The era of DeFi derivatives amnesty, what is Wall Street eyeing?
A piece of news just exploded on social media, shaking the entire DeFi circle profoundly: Trump publicly stated that the chairman of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is actively promoting the introduction of the on-chain perpetual contract leader Hyperliquid into the US domestic market.
Once the news broke, the entire crypto secondary market and derivatives trader community instantly erupted.
It should be noted that in recent years, almost all top on-chain derivatives protocols, including Hyperliquid, have implemented extremely strict physical blocks on US domestic IPs at the front end to avoid the overwhelming regulatory crackdown from the SEC and CFTC.
Now, the plot has taken a 180-degree turn; regulators are no longer hostile but are instead proactively reaching out for amnesty.
Many find it unbelievable: why would the traditionally conservative and strict US financial regulatory system suddenly extend an olive branch to a purely on-chain high-performance decentralized exchange?
The answer lies in Wall Street’s battle for the pricing power of the "next-generation on-chain CME (Chicago Mercantile Exchange)."
First, it’s about domestically consolidating trillions in offshore liquidity.
Over the past year, Hyperliquid, leveraging its self-developed high-performance dedicated L1 public chain and millisecond-level pure on-chain order book architecture, has repeatedly approached or even surpassed the daily trading volume and liquidity depth of leading centralized exchanges (CEX). Top think tanks in Washington and Wall Street clearly understand that the rise of on-chain derivatives trading is unstoppable. Continuing to use old strategies of blocking and expelling will only hand over this trillion-dollar financial cake to offshore gray markets. Rather than letting it run wild, it’s better to bring it in through compliant channels and directly build it into a US-led on-chain Nasdaq.
Second, it’s the rigid demand from traditional quant giants for transparent on-chain clearing.
Top traditional market makers like Jane Street, Citadel, and Jump have long been secretly heavily invested in on-chain high-frequency market making. The black-box operations, asset misappropriation, and single-point failure risks of centralized exchanges have left Wall Street wary after the FTX collapse. Hyperliquid’s entire ledger, clearing engine, and collateralization ratios are all verifiable on-chain in real time. Once paired with a compliant front-end access framework, traditional trillion-dollar pension funds and compliant hedge funds can enter the market en masse under institutional protection.
This means DeFi derivatives are transforming from marginalized gray-area revelry into sought-after mainstream financial infrastructure assets.
However, as investors cheer for compliant amnesty, we must also face an underlying native conflict:
Once decentralized protocols are incorporated into the US regulatory system, they will inevitably face real compromises such as front-end KYC tiering, specific asset reviews, and token listing compliance. How to embrace Wall Street’s trillion-dollar incremental capital while preserving the native permissionless and high-efficiency nature of the chain will be the core issue determining Hyperliquid’s long-term valuation ceiling.
From resisting regulation to being embraced by regulators, the power structure of on-chain finance is being completely rewritten.
Trump says the SEC is pushing Hyperliquid into the US. Do you think this will usher in a new era of full compliance for DeFi derivatives? Facing the scrutiny compromises and institutional liquidity influx that compliance may bring, are you more optimistic about its token value explosion or worried about losing its fundamental spirit?
---
The above content represents personal views only and does not constitute any investment advice. DYOR, NFA.
#白宫峰会：特朗普称曾讨论购入BTC A platform specializing in lending to crypto institutions suddenly lost over ten million this quarter
Antalpha, which usually quietly does funding business for crypto whales, released its Q2 report tonight. The numbers don't look good: a net loss of $12.5 million, revenue down 28% year-over-year, only $12.2 million left. A company that makes money by providing crypto asset financing and liquidity services to institutional clients has itself fallen into losses.
Many may not have heard of Antalpha, but its business is actually quite typical: lending money to institutional players to help them maintain liquidity in volatile markets, earning interest spreads and service fees. In a bull market, this business is rock solid; as long as the collateral coins don't crash, it’s almost guaranteed income. Platforms like Antalpha profit from institutions' willingness to pay high interest to maintain positions during bull and bear transitions—the bigger the scale, the better. But this quarter, the problem came from its own books.
The company said its performance was dragged down by one thing: a fair value loss on tokenized gold it holds. Tokenized gold is usually treated as a safe-haven asset, pegged to physical gold prices, with volatility far less than Bitcoin or Ethereum. Products like PAXG and XAUT, which bring physical gold on-chain, are inherently stable. Yet even this most stable reserve dealt it a blow this quarter. A platform specializing in managing crypto liquidity for others was itself bitten by floating losses on reserve assets—somewhat ironic. Simply put, it manages risk for others but couldn’t avoid reserve volatility itself.
What’s more worth pondering is the overall atmosphere in the crypto institutional circle in Q2. ETFs saw continuous net inflows, Wall Street banks kept increasing positions, and money seemed to be everywhere on the surface. Yet lending platforms at the end of the chain saw revenue shrink and turned from profit to loss. The market’s sense of division is growing stronger: top institutions are buying up assets, while service providers at the bottom are under pressure in the shadows.
Zooming out a bit, the heat or cold of the lending business is often a lagging indicator of market sentiment. When the market is hot, institutions scramble to leverage up, and platforms collect interest; when the market cools, collateral shrinks, demand contracts, and the books look bad. Antalpha’s loss feels like a cold splash of water on those still partying.
Why would a funding intermediary platform hoard tokenized gold? Ultimately, it’s to keep some maneuvering room for itself; when gold prices move, its books fluctuate accordingly. This quarterly report serves as a reminder that when lending scale doesn’t keep up and reserves suffer floating losses, the supposedly sure-thing interest spread business can turn sour. And Antalpha is not alone—several CeFi lending and asset management institutions slowed growth in Q2.
What do you think? Is a company doing funding business for institutions a bottom-fishing opportunity or a warning sign? The White House is giving crypto the green light, but public opinion is voting in the opposite direction
Reuters and Ipsos just released a poll with some striking numbers. 69% of American respondents believe that Trump's private business interests will influence his decisions while in office. Another 63% think it is inappropriate for him and his family to profit from crypto business after returning to the White House.
These two figures are especially interesting when viewed in the context of this year's policy environment.
The past few months have probably been the friendliest regulatory period in crypto industry memory. The new CFTC chairman openly criticized the anti-crypto camp, the SEC just proposed a new set of regulations for crypto assets that provide a safe harbor exemption for small startup projects to raise funds, and the Treasury Department is also laying out implementation details for stablecoin legislation. The White House even organized a meeting inviting tech and crypto leaders. Things the industry has waited two years for have almost all been implemented in this half-year.
But at the same time, public opinion is moving in the opposite direction.
The reason is not hard to guess. This presidential family has a very strong presence in crypto, from issuing coins to stablecoins to mining companies, with names in almost every sector. Every policy benefit the industry receives can be interpreted by ordinary voters as something else: Is this deregulation for the industry, or a path paved for insiders?
I know many people are not interested in polls and think they have nothing to do with their positions. But what really matters is not the moral judgment, but the timeline. November is the midterm election. This kind of sentiment in polls is the easiest material for campaign ads and the easiest reason for opposing parties in Congress to stall bills.
The signals have actually appeared. The CLARITY Act, which the industry has been waiting for, has long since dropped to about a 20% chance of passing this year, while the SEC is moving faster on its own exemption rules. The regulators' preference to bypass the legislature itself shows how blocked the legislative path is. What the executive branch provides comes quickly and is withdrawn quickly, without needing Congress's approval.
The industry has been used to a simple logic in the past two years: as long as the White House is friendly, everything else is manageable. But policy is not an asset; it is more like a lease. Rules obtained today through administrative preference can be put back on the table with a change of government or even just a change in the seat structure after the midterm elections.
More subtly, friendliness itself is being labeled. When 60% of people believe this friendliness is driven by private interests, the industry will have to endure a motivation audit every time it gets good news in the future. This cost is not reflected in the market but will be reflected in the difficulty of the next round of legislation.
So, do you think this current regulatory warm breeze is a win the industry earned itself, or just a temporary loan?Cantor is about to put prediction markets into the pockets of Wall Street institutions
Yesterday afternoon, there was a piece of news that not many people noticed. Bloomberg reported that Cantor Fitzgerald plans to directly offer Kalshi's prediction markets to its roughly three thousand institutional clients, including family offices and hedge funds. You probably know Kalshi as the U.S. prediction market platform licensed by the CFTC to legally operate event contracts.
Cantor is not an ordinary brokerage. Behind it stands Howard Lutnick, now the U.S. Secretary of Commerce. More importantly, Cantor has long been a key partner in USDT reserves and has deep roots in the crypto space. It's quite interesting to see an old Wall Street firm so tightly linked to stablecoins turning around to sell prediction markets to institutions. Over the past few years, Cantor has been active in crypto, from facilitating Bitcoin financing to managing stablecoin reserves, making it one of the most daring traditional institutions to dive into crypto.
How does it work specifically? Clients will be able to trade event contracts on weather, commodities, and even the performance of certain companies. Susquehanna, a veteran market maker, will provide quotes and liquidity. What's most intriguing is that some hedge funds have said they prefer trading contracts linked directly to iPhone sales rather than indirectly betting through Apple’s stock price; family offices focus on weather, crop yields, and oil prices to hedge risks. In short, people want to bet not on stock price movements but on whether specific events happen or not.
Susquehanna also added that AI supply chain risks and computing power prices could become new contracts on the prediction market in the future, and institutions might even propose themes they want the platform to list. You see, even computing power and AI are about to become bettable events.
Kalshi has recently been aggressively targeting institutional clients, having just completed its first large trade and partnered with Interactive Brokers. Now, bringing Cantor’s three thousand institutional clients onboard means turning prediction markets from a crypto toy for retail investors into a tool in the hands of traditional asset managers.
This contrasts with the crypto space’s Polymarket. Polymarket is extremely popular overseas but has been blocked from the U.S. market; Kalshi, by relying on regulatory compliance, has captured institutional benefits. The same prediction market story is taking two paths: one towards decentralization, the other towards regulation, but they may ultimately converge.
We need to think clearly about one thing. When Wall Street starts seriously selling event contracts, is the prediction market truly a tool for information discovery, or just another form of packaged gambling? After three thousand institutions enter, will this market become more price-efficient, or just another legal betting venue? DeFi star Fluid's active users dropped by 40%
A few months ago, Fluid was still the new darling of DeFi insiders. Backed by the Instadapp team, it focused on blending lending and trading liquidity, with its TVL once soaring very high, often compared alongside Aave and Maker. At that time, whenever the community talked about DeFi revival, Fluid was almost always mentioned, with many in the community calling for it to take over from the old protocols.
But the latest Q2 report shows a sudden change in tone. Fluid's average TVL dropped to $3.4 billion, down 21% quarter-over-quarter. Although it still rose nearly 85% compared to the same period last year, the upward momentum clearly faded. More importantly, its profitability took a hit: protocol revenue fell to only $1.8 million, nearly a 30% drop in one quarter, marking the first significant decline of this kind for Fluid.
The most striking is the user base. Monthly active users fell directly by 43.8% from the previous quarter, meaning about four out of every ten old users did not return. Trading volume was $18.1 billion, down 37% quarter-over-quarter; fee income dropped 21.5%, and the protocol’s own revenue was even worse, down nearly 30%. These numbers together show that it’s not just one weak area, but both user activity and trading income are retreating.
The money hasn’t disappeared; it just moved elsewhere. The report points out that capital is increasingly flowing toward Jupiter Lend. This is a lending deployment on Solana, which already accounts for nearly half of Fluid’s TVL and is still growing quarter-over-quarter, becoming the largest lending pool. In short, users and funds are voting with their feet, moving from Ethereum’s old line to Solana. The fact that one chain is poaching users from another is quite intriguing.
There was actually an outflow early on, triggered by third-party incidents like Resolv, but Fluid’s contracts themselves were not hacked, and bad debts were covered by the treasury, so users didn’t lose money. Yet even with no security issues, users still left, which actually highlights the problem more. People aren’t running away out of fear of losing money; they just found a more attractive place to go.
The team says they plan to push institutional-grade deployments, integrate Jupiter DEX, expand onto Sui, and have included moves like Bitwise managing USDe and onboarding about $100 million in sUSDai liquidity in their report. That’s what they say, but when a protocol’s strongest growth story starts to falter, no one can be sure if just a roadmap can bring users back. Whether institutions can fill the gap left by retail users is also a big question.
Our community is too used to hyping a project to the skies and then quickly forgetting it. Fluid is not the first, nor will it be the last. The real question is, when DeFi traffic starts to follow chains instead of products, who will be the next quietly siphoned off?Japan's 10-year government bond yield surges to a 30-year high
On Tuesday, Japan's 10-year government bond yield once surged to 2.945%, reaching the highest level since the mid-1990s. Although it slightly retreated on Wednesday, it still hovered around 2.89% without dropping. For a market long accustomed to zero interest rates, this figure is quite striking.
What’s even more painful is the underlying debt. The Japanese government currently has a debt repayment plan of about ¥31 trillion, and every bit the yield rises, the future interest bill thickens. The Ministry of Finance itself has estimated that if the 10-year yield climbs to 3.6%, the annual debt servicing cost alone could soar to ¥41 trillion by fiscal year 2029. This is not a small amount; it’s the lifeline of Japan’s finances. Japan is also the world’s largest creditor nation, so if its interest rates falter, the spillover effects will spread through capital flows to every corner.
The contrast appears in policy. The Kishida administration wants to stimulate the economy through tax cuts and investment, but the reduction in food taxes has already shrunk fiscal revenue. The market is beginning to worry that the government will have to keep issuing bonds to fill the gap, and the more bonds issued, the harder it is to suppress yields—a tightening noose. If the central bank steps in to buy heavily to rescue the market, it will undermine the tightening credibility it just established; neither option is good.
The Bank of Japan is also under pressure. Inflation is rising, the yen is weakening, and traders now bet the central bank will raise rates twice more around January next year, each by 25 basis points, potentially pushing the policy rate to 1.5%. Some former board members have even suggested this rate hike cycle could end at 1.75%, with more aggressive views nearing 2%.
What chills global markets is the 2027 window. The board members supporting rate hikes will gradually leave by summer 2027, and the central bank wants to complete the main rate hikes before this personnel change. In other words, tightening is not a question of if, but a race against the clock.
Japan’s situation is not isolated. Long-term yields in the US and Europe are also approaching multi-decade highs, and the global bond market is quietly cracking like a wall. When borrowing costs rise simultaneously in major economies, risk assets propped up by cheap money, including Bitcoin, must reassess their levels. The yen carry trade has been one of the sources of global liquidity in recent years, borrowing yen to buy high-yield assets. Now that source is tightening, can the crypto market’s limited liquidity really withstand several rounds of shocks?#交易之声：你的经验值得被听到 Over the years in the crypto space, since the ICO frenzy of 2017 until now, I've seen too many people liquidated and forced out just because they only looked at data or only at the K-line. If I have to answer this question, my answer is that data determines which direction I look at, and price trends determine when I take action. These two are not a choice but a dual-factor authentication for trend initiation, both indispensable. First, let's talk about data. Although the crypto market operates 24/7 globally, the power of macro data is no less than that of the US stock market. Non-farm payroll data, CPI, Federal Reserve interest rate decisions—these events are the hammer that breaks market equilibrium. Especially in a bear market with low volatility, Bitcoin can grind within a range for months, with all technical indicators dulled. Without macro catalysts at this time, any breakout could be a false breakout. I remember when Silicon Valley Bank collapsed in 2023, the market was already lifeless, but once the expectation of emergency liquidity from the Fed came out, BTC surged 40% in three days. That is the power of data. It answers the question of why to act now and gives me a reason to take a position. Data has a fatal trap: the market may have already priced it in. If the data only meets expectations, the price often spikes up and then falls back, trapping all the long-chasers. I've seen too many beginners who, once the non-farm data comes out positive, immediately chase longs at market price, only to be stopped out by a reverse sweep within three minutes. Why? Because data is just the ignition, the fire canI believe this US market correction is nearing its end. The storage sector’s resilience confirmed my view, so I was preparing to buy $SNDK when the Treasury announced plans to at least double long-term bond buybacks.
To me, this looks like “hidden QE”: more buybacks → lower yields → easing real rates → liquidity flowing back into gold, BTC, and stocks. All three rallied after the news, reinforcing my conviction.
I’m staying bullish rather than shorting.
#BTCBreaks72K
#FOMC9To3Split