Orbit Post Sitemap
Robinhood Chain TVL rose 45%, and the headline sounds like on-chain activity is back. But looking closer, most of the 640 million stablecoins are USDe, which isn’t there to do anything but to earn yield.
USDe, this synthetic dollar, stays as long as incentives exist and leaves once incentives are gone. It just sits on the chain doing nothing, yet it props up the TVL. Using this number as a recovery signal is easy to fool yourself.
What’s more ironic is that tokenized RWA is losing ground. The real story was supposed to be real assets on-chain, but it couldn’t compete with a synthetic dollar that pays yield. On-chain funds aren’t chasing assets; they’re chasing interest rates.
Robinhood might want to attract its own stock users, but what came first was a batch of yield hunters. Whether this chain is actually useful depends on whether USDe is really doing something, not just lying there collecting interest. Right now, all I see is it lying there.Bitmine is further shifting its balance sheet focus toward Ethereum. According to PRNewswire, Bitmine Immersion Technologies disclosed that it increased its holdings by 9,926 ETH last week, currently holding 5.815164 million ETH, 210 BTC, $73 million worth of Eightco Holdings shares, and $180 million worth of Beast Industries shares, of which 5.067309 million ETH have been staked. Data Interpretation ETH Holdings: 5.815 million ETH — approaching Strategy's Bitcoin holdings (about 840,000 BTC, worth approximately $54 billion). Although the value of a single ETH is lower than BTC, it ranks among the world's largest enterprise-grade ETH holders by magnitude. Based on an ETH price of about $1,900, the value of its ETH holdings is approximately $11 billion. Staking ratio as high as 87%: 5.067 million ETH have been staked, meaning over 80% of ETH holdings are locked, continuously generating returns through staking. This strategy differs from the "buy and hold" model of hoarding ETH; it views ETH as an asset that can continuously generate cash flow rather than a speculative tool waiting for price increases. Diversified asset structure: In addition to crypto assets, Bitmine also holds significant holdings in Eightco Holdings and Beast IndustriesGood morning, BTC has finally stood above 64,000.
As of this morning, BTC is at 64,288, up 2.13% in 24 hours. ETH is at 1,906, up 1.68%.
This rise was mainly driven by short liquidations pushing it up. During BTC's return to 64,000, short positions were liquidated for $57.4 million. Someone forcefully pushed it up, crushing the shorts, forcing them to cover by buying back, which further drove the price higher.
ETF outflows are still ongoing. Last week saw a net outflow of $390 million, the largest single-week outflow in six weeks. Despite funds running out, the price still stood above 64,000, indicating selling pressure is being absorbed.
Resistance is at 64,600-65,000; if it can't break through, it will have to pull back. Support is at 63,200-63,500. Bitfinex says BTC is trapped between the long-term realized price of 52,699 and the short-term holder cost of 67,176, a typical "mid-to-late bear market."
This rebound is driven by short liquidations, not new capital entering. ETFs are still seeing outflows; institutions haven't returned. Whether 64,000 can hold depends on the next few days. My position isn't heavy; I'll watch 64,600 first.
Personal opinion, not investment advice.
$BTC $ETH $SNDK
#闪迪长期协议成焦点，开盘表现待验证
#BTC成交萎缩，ETF买盘能否回暖
#OKX预言家第二季正式上线 A statement from overseas $CORE Twitter participants is worth pondering: "Who else will become these victims?
OEX, Assien, Glyph, Colend, SatPay — a series of ecosystems continuously painting grand visions, steadily eroding participant confidence."
OEX was once a leading CORE ecosystem with 360,000 token-holding addresses, but ultimately ceased operations; the lending protocol Colend experienced a spiral adjustment with a single-day drop exceeding 60%, causing heavy losses for many leveraged participants.
Cold signals are right before us: only 21 of 31 node service providers remain, ten operators have chosen to exit, and professional capital has long made its choice through actions.
The highly anticipated SatPay frequently receives privacy issue feedback. Multiple ecosystems are consecutively cooling off, and the overall landscape continues to shrink.
The stark contrast is clear: skepticism in the overseas community continues to ferment. A few opinions stem from cognitive differences, but a large number of holders who personally participated raise concentrated questions that cannot be ignored.
In contrast, many domestic retail investors are trapped in an information cocoon within communities, surrounded daily by get-rich narratives. Some have invested hundreds of thousands in principal, suffered significant asset depreciation, yet still block out risk signals, waiting bitterly for a market reversal.
It’s not that the market hides a turnaround opportunity, but rather an inability to accept losses and an instinctive resistance to clarity.
No matter how glamorous the BTCFi narrative is, it still requires a real ecosystem and incremental capital to validate it.
Long-term acceptance of only positive news and rejection of dissenting voices accumulates all risks, which ultimately only oneself will have to pay for.
⚠️ This is only a market perspective exchange and does not constitute investment advice #SPCX shareholding structure revealed, Harvard 13F top holding #SPCX shareholding structure revealed: Harvard 13F's top holding, what’s really worth looking at isn’t the $2.2 billion
After SpaceX went public, some stakes that were previously hidden in the primary market have finally started to surface.
The latest disclosure shows that Harvard Management Company holds nearly 13 million shares of SpaceX, valued at over $2.2 billion, making it the largest holding in its disclosed stock portfolio. In comparison, TSMC is about $350 million, Amazon about $234 million — the difference in position size is very obvious.
But I think what’s really worth studying is not the news that "Harvard bought SpaceX" itself, but the capital structure behind SpaceX.
Alphabet invested about $900 million as early as 2015, and now that investment’s value once reached about $94.2 billion; long-term funds like Fidelity, BlackRock, Baillie Gifford are also among the key institutional shareholders.
This raises a very interesting question:
The market is now trading a newly listed stock, but many core shareholders hold an investment that has spanned more than a decade.
These two types of capital have completely different cost bases, time horizons, and valuation logics.
Secondary market investors may be focused on whether SPCX rises or falls 5% today, but early capital is really betting not on a single rocket launch, but on whether SpaceX can ultimately connect rockets, Starlink, AI infrastructure, and other businesses into a larger commercial ecosystem.
Of course, this does not mean the current valuation is necessarily cheap.
On the contrary — as the huge unrealized gains in the primary market gradually enter the public market, what really needs to be observed in the future is whether long-term capital continues to lock in or starts to realize profits?
I think this may be more important than short-term technical charts.
SpaceX’s biggest upcoming game may not be "whether the company is good," but:
For a company great enough, what price counts as a good investment?
Do you think SPCX should now be valued as an "aerospace company," or should it already be redefined under a valuation system of "space infrastructure + communications + AI platform"?Let me rant about tonight's iconic scene 😅 The real price movers—the US 30-year Treasury yield soaring to a 19-year high, oil prices rising 3% overnight, global interest rates all jumping up—no one in the group chat is even talking about it. What is everyone doing? All glued to $BTC's 5-minute candlestick chart, collectively breaking down and typing "the market makers are specifically targeting my stop loss" 🫨. You see, this is really surreal: institutions are focused on variables like interest rates and oil prices that can shake the whole market, while retail traders are fixated on tiny spikes on the intraday chart. They're not even on the same wavelength, so it's no wonder their decisions differ. Tonight, maybe try looking up at the real big picture instead of always staring down counting waves.$APT
$APT
Today saw a slight rebound, but the trading volume did not increase correspondingly, indicating a technical rebound after an oversell, with suspicion of a bull trap.
Current market situation:
The price is hovering around 0.53 with slight gains in the past 24 hours, but the trading volume shows no significant increase, indicating that existing funds are competing without large capital entering to support the price. All key daily moving averages are above the price, the mid-term downtrend remains unbroken, and RSI is near oversold—just because it can't fall further doesn't mean a reversal has arrived.
Fundamental outlook from two sides:
Positive: Tokenomics reform has been implemented, setting a total supply cap, reducing staking issuance, and burning fees, which will improve inflation issues in the long term.
Challenges: A recent large unlock has just completed, and early-stage selling pressure has not been fully absorbed; competition in the Move public chain sector is fierce, and ecosystem activity is noticeably weaker compared to $SUI, lacking a hot narrative to ignite the market.
Simply put, this looks more like a mid-downtrend recovery rebound. If it cannot increase volume and stabilize above 0.54 later, it is likely to fall again. This position is not suitable for chasing highs; the rebound is better for reducing positions and observing.
This is just a personal market record and does not constitute any investment advice. This wave is purely due to good market sentiment, casually throwing some gold coins, and it just happened to hit my head. While others are running, I see signs of a rebound with low volume, which is too much of a bull trap. Every upward push is weak and soft, not the way a strong trend should be. $DOS short position opened at 0.2273, now the market shows 0.2194, +68.63%, the answer is clear. Being out of position is not a sin; opening positions recklessly is the mistake. The position has been adjusted, 80% exited first, the remaining 20% stop loss raised to the cost price, hold if it continues downward, and it won't be painful to hit protection on the way up. For friends who haven't entered yet, listen to me: wait for the new structure to appear, there will be more opportunities later.
$BTC $ETH The Middle East front escalated again tonight: Iranian officials declared that their policy has shifted from "defense" to "full offense," seizing a UAE oil tanker, while Trump threatened to take action if Oman obstructs the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. Oil prices responded with about a 3% increase. Whenever such news breaks, the comment sections always have people reflexively saying: "War is coming, safe haven assets, bullish for gold and also bullish for Bitcoin." I’m not buying this old script. In the current environment, oil price surges → inflation expectations rise → rate hike expectations strengthen → high-valuation assets come under pressure together. Crypto is more often priced as a "risk asset" rather than a "safe haven asset." So geopolitical escalation is more like a short-term inflation negative rather than a safe haven positive for $BTC. Don’t apply the script from five years ago to today’s market. Let’s see how it plays out.$BTC surged past 64000 with high volume, the "ceiling" has been broken
The big coin that hovered around 63000 all weekend finally moved in the Asian session on Monday — 24-hour trading volume increased by 137%, this is not a fake move from the thin weekend market, but a volume-driven breakout.
Three details on the chart.
First, 64000 has changed from a "ceiling" to a "threshold." Previously, it hit this level several times but couldn't break through; today it directly stood above it. The 62500-64000 consolidation box that lasted three days is now being tested at the upper boundary.
Second, macro is providing support. The US dollar index has fallen three times in a row to a new low for May. After retail data cooled down, the probability of a rate hike in September dropped from about 50% to 25%. The expectation of cheaper money is the engine for risk assets.
Third, ETFs did not follow. Last Friday saw a net outflow of 885 units, and on Monday it directly hit zero. Prices are rising, but institutional money is still watching — this is the biggest flaw in this breakout.
This week is packed with variables: Wednesday's FOMC minutes + White House crypto meeting (Trump personally attending), Thursday's first CFTC innovation meeting. Holding above 64000 targets 66000; if the minutes turn hawkish, it will return to 62500 to continue consolidating.A divergence easily overlooked by the crypto community, worth noting. BHP's latest financial report shows copper revenue surpassing iron ore for the first time in history, with copper prices hitting record highs recently; management also projects global copper demand to rise from 34 million tons to over 50 million tons by 2050. In other words, solid hard assets are quietly reaching new highs, driven by real demand from AI data centers, power grids, and electrification. Meanwhile, crypto is still stuck around 64,000, lacking an independent narrative. The "smart money" in different assets has already been priced in: one is hitting new highs, the other is waiting for the wind to come. This is not to tell you to chase copper, but to remind you—when hard assets are telling a growth story, emotionally driven assets need to protect their ammunition. Those who understand, understand.Note an AI narrative shift that is currently fermenting. Several points together tonight are quite interesting: Yushi Robot jumps in place breaking 2 meters, extreme speed surpassing human records; Jiuguang's humanoid robot can lift a 50-kilogram barbell; meanwhile, Nvidia and SB Energy are collaborating to build an 8 GW ultra-large-scale AI data center in Ohio, investing $1.5 billion. The direction is very clear—the AI storyline is expanding from "computing power and chat" towards "embodied robots + power infrastructure" on both ends. The implication for crypto is: the next wave of AI narrative riding knockoffs will most likely shift from "compute coins" to these niches like "robots/DePIN/energy." Drawing the narrative map in advance is much more valuable than chasing after others shouting it out. Let's watch and see. CORE: Holding a high-quality BTC-Fi narrative, why does the coin price continue to slump despite having a strong hand?
CORE initially started with very promising conditions: an original Satoshi-Plus hybrid consensus, binding Bitcoin computing power, positioned in the popular BTC-Fi track, with high early market expectations. It has a strong conceptual narrative, but the coin price has weakened over the long term, continuously disappointing holders, with multiple issues compounding to cause the current situation.
1. Token model, a continuous source of selling pressure
1. Total supply of 2.1 billion tokens, with team, foundation, early contributors, and miner rewards unlocked linearly over the long term, continuously adding new tokens into the market, resulting in persistent selling pressure. No matter how good the narrative is, continuous release causes selling pressure that the buying side cannot absorb, naturally pressuring the coin price.
2. Weak token value capture ability: CORE’s main uses are staking, governance, and gas fees. On-chain gas revenue is very low, with a lack of early buybacks and real profit loops; many staking rewards are sold directly on the market, creating a cycle of dumping.
2. Ecosystem implementation falls short of expectations, story outweighs reality
1. The technical framework concept is advanced, but on-chain real activity is low, with few large-scale hit DeFi or applications, mostly small projects; the developer ecosystem is quiet, lacking a large number of real users entering to use on-chain products.
2. Although BTC staking is the main focus, most users participate just to earn CORE rewards; no large-scale business loop has formed on-chain; a large amount of funds remain in staking mining rather than ecosystem consumption or usage, failing to generate rigid demand for CORE purchases.
3. Increasing competition in the track dilutes advantages
More BTC-Fi and Bitcoin Layer 2 projects are emerging, with similar competitors diverting funds and attention. CORE no longer enjoys exclusive dividends.
Market funds can choose Stacks and other BTC-related public chains, dispersing capital instead of concentrating inflows into CORE, weakening the early exclusive narrative advantage.
4. Market confidence repeatedly eroded
1. Early market expectations were too high, treating it as a star project in the BTC ecosystem. When the ecosystem and coin price fail to meet market imagination for a long time, many faith holders lose confidence, causing panic selling and forming a negative cycle of decline → panic selling → further decline.
2. Impact of the overall market environment: CORE is highly tied to Bitcoin’s market trend; when BTC pulls back, the BTC-Fi track’s overall funds retreat, amplifying CORE’s volatility.
5. Summary
It’s not that the technical concept is bad, but the narrative concept has outpaced actual implementation.
There is a good technical story, but heavy token selling pressure, insufficient ecosystem users, weak value capture, combined with track competition and confidence collapse, have led to the situation of "a strong hand played terribly." The project team is also adjusting its strategy, trying to shift towards ecosystem revenue buybacks of tokens, but the mid-to-long-term outlook remains highly valuable. One cannot focus only on the project and ignore the market. TUT is currently at 0.0476900, exactly stuck at the midsection of the long lower shadow from four hours ago. On the order book, there are continuous large buy orders around 0.0465, and an active sell wall is pressing down above 0.0492. Structurally, this is a typical turnover zone. On-chain anomalies are even more obvious: an address dormant for ninety days transferred about 4.2 million TUT to the contract address this morning. Subsequently, the perpetual position volume rose by nine points within fifteen minutes, while the long-short ratio actually declined. Spot orders below 0.0470 are being continuously eaten up. This combination can only be interpreted one way: funds are suppressing the price to accumulate, not distributing. I just finished climbing to the seventh floor and left my meal at the door. Taking a breather, I scanned the completed transaction details. Around 0.0468, there are hundred-lot buy orders drilling in every few seconds, with strong support. If the pullback to the 0.0462 to 0.0471 range holds, I will enter directly, placing a stop loss at 0.0447. The first take profit target is 0.0528, and the second is 0.0564. Breaking below 0.0447 would indicate the transferred chips are meant to dump the price, not hold.
$TUT
#财报观察员：AI基建财报接力登场
@OKX星球 Tonight, the crypto circle is focused on $BTC's overnight pullback to 64,000, causing quite a stir, but the real protagonist is the bond market. The US 30-year Treasury yield is at 5.31%, a 19-year high; Japan's 10-year yield has hit its highest since 1996 — global interest rates are rising in sync. Crypto, as a "high-risk asset" with the lowest valuation priority, is essentially being passively priced along this interest rate curve. The broader context of rising rates remains unchanged; a short squeeze-driven rebound doesn't alter the overall level. This whole day actually confirmed one more thing: crypto currently lacks an independent narrative, and its ups and downs basically shadow the US stock market's AI and interest rates. At times like this, don't rush to chase the rebound; conserve your ammo and wait and see. Those who understand, understand.The person who always shouted to buy coins forever has started hoarding cash
Michael Saylor said something on Monday that felt a bit unfamiliar to longtime fans. This man, who even renamed his company Strategy and supported a position worth over $40 billion by frantically buying Bitcoin, now says his priorities have changed. He publicly stated that the company currently values STRC preferred shares, cash reserves, and credit business the most, while stock buybacks are no longer a priority.
This statement would have been almost impossible to hear from him three years ago. Back then, Saylor was the most staunch bull in the circle, always insisting that companies must put Bitcoin on their balance sheets. He himself kept financing and buying, eager to use every available leverage. Many people believed Bitcoin could keep rising just by watching his enthusiasm.
But this year, the tone has quietly shifted. MSTR’s stock price has dropped about 38% this year, and the once most stable narrative is starting to crack. Everyone remembers his previous claim that Bitcoin is the best reserve asset in history, but now there’s clearly more calculation behind that certainty. More importantly, after the price of STRC, a preferred stock that isn’t very popular in the market, fell, Strategy actually accumulated $4.8 billion in cash on its books, specifically to cover dividend payments. Saylor himself said he plans to maintain a large cash balance long-term for flexible operations.
Note the words he used: cash, credit, fixed income-type new businesses, rather than calling to increase Bitcoin holdings again. CEO Phong Le also found a reason to continue issuing shares, saying that as long as the price remains above the underlying asset value, issuing stock to exchange for Bitcoin can increase the Bitcoin content per share. It still sounds like it revolves around Bitcoin, but what they are really accumulating more and more of are dollars and credit instruments.
One detail is quite intriguing. In the past, Saylor’s story was about reverse mergers, unlimited buying, and trading time for space. Now he seems to be playing that financial engineering game into a second curve: preferred shares, cash pools, credit business—each part can still collect management fees and earn interest spreads even in a bear market. Simply put, the money raised by issuing preferred shares is much more stable than chasing high prices to buy coins in the market. The staunchest bull is quietly turning from a coin buyer into a financial product seller.
When the person who should be the most stubborn Bitcoin holder starts putting cash and credit ahead of buying coins, do you think his judgment on this cycle is more optimistic or more cautious?$BTC **BTC is cautiously bullish, $64,345**
Shorts got liquidated. $220 million liquidated across the network in 24h, 79% shorts, BTC alone liquidated $57.4 million. Short squeeze pushed it up to $64K, not because of an Iran ceasefire— even Iran denied it.
But don’t get carried away. ETFs saw a net outflow of $385 million last week, led by BlackRock and Fidelity, wiping out the $865 million inflow from the previous week. Daily MACD is still below zero, CMF is negative, $64,500-$65,000 is the resistance zone rejected last week; until it breaks through, it’s a correction, not a breakout.
Good signals: Jane Street increased BTC ETF holdings by $630 million, Harvard University endowment entered with $101 million. Fear & Greed index at 31, retail investors are still fearful, not a top. Four-hour CMF turned positive, short-term buyers are alive.
**This week’s catalysts are fully loaded:** Wednesday White House crypto summit + FOMC minutes, Thursday CFTC meeting.
If $65,000 holds → $66,000 → $67,357. If $63,000 breaks → $62,200 → $60,000 strong support. Don’t chase, wait for $65,000 confirmation. The Pentagon openly admits it can't control the Strait of Hormuz
A geopolitical risk that the market has long treated as background noise was brought to the forefront last night. According to Iranian media citing regional intelligence sources, the Pentagon itself concluded: none of the existing military plans can guarantee the Strait of Hormuz remains open, ships pass safely, or energy supplies stay stable.
Hearing this directly from the U.S. military sounds very different. For decades, Washington has treated Hormuz as its strategic choke point, maintaining a naval presence year-round and projecting an image of ready suppression. Now, internal assessments openly say it can't be done, which is tantamount to admitting the U.S. military is less confident facing Iran's asymmetric tactics.
Even more interesting is Trump's statement. On the same day, he said the U.S. does not seek to extend the memorandum of understanding with Iran and reiterated the desire to declare Hormuz as U.S. territory under American control. Yet just a few hours earlier, Iran ruled out any extension and detained a UAE oil tanker. On one side, the president is tough-talking and making big promises; on the other, the Defense Department privately admits uncertainty. This contrast itself shows the situation is more deadlocked than it appears.
The U.S.-Iran memorandum was signed in June this year, with a 60-day term that expired Monday, and Iran directly ruled out extension. Trump said Iran wants a deal but won't accept what he deems necessary. This unresolved status is what makes the market uneasy.
The market has actually voted with its feet. On Monday, international oil prices rose about 3%, and the 30-year U.S. Treasury yield surged to 5.31%, the highest since 2007. Bond traders are pricing long-term risk with real money, clearly not believing this will end easily.
But the crypto side shows a somewhat divided picture. The three major U.S. stock indexes all fell Monday, yet Bitcoin rose over 2%, reclaiming $64,000. When others panic, Bitcoin stays calm; the logic behind this may be that funds are seeking an outlet beyond U.S. dollar credit and Treasuries.
That said, the Pentagon's admission doesn't mean disaster is imminent. Hormuz carries a significant portion of global oil transport; if something really happens, oil prices and inflation expectations would instantly rewrite the Federal Reserve's calculations. The ball is now in the hands of Iran and the U.S., and both sides are still holding firm.
Who do you think will crack first under this pressure? After hoarding cash for three years, Buffett suddenly started buying stocks
The man holding the largest cash pile in history, who had been a net seller of stocks for three consecutive years, has recently quietly reversed course and started buying back. The market had been staring at his seemingly bottomless cash pile for too long, assuming this veteran value investor would maintain a defensive stance forever, but he chose this moment to act.
Buffett has been doing the same thing for three years: selling stocks and hoarding cash. Berkshire Hathaway’s books hold the thickest cash stack ever, and he repeatedly said valuations were high and bargains hard to find, preferring to hold low-yield government bonds rather than make reckless moves. Because he was mostly on the sidelines, he missed out on this AI rally and was often criticized for being out of the market. But recently, the tide quietly turned. After three years of net selling, Berkshire has started net buying, spending money on targets he finally considers cheap enough.
Interestingly, almost the same week, the crypto world’s most famous die-hard bull acted in the opposite way. Strategy last Monday broke its usual pattern by not increasing its Bitcoin holdings but instead sold over $300 million in stocks, pushing its cash reserves up to $4.8 billion. One who hoarded cash for three years started spending, while another who long advocated holding started accumulating cash. Their rhythms just missed each other, like they were playfully contradicting one another. Even more amusingly, those crypto treasury companies that followed Buffett’s lead and turned their balance sheets into cash vaults were copying his playbook, but now the master is buying while the apprentices are selling.
What Buffett buys has never been the main point; the signal itself is what matters. The last time he made a large move, it was mostly when others were at their most fearful. This time, by choosing to stay in the market rather than wait outside, it shows his internal scale has quietly shifted. Don’t forget, the cash on his books—often mocked for its size—is large enough to move any market he targets. On the crypto side, institutional actions are clearly diverging; some are buying against the trend, others are holding back. No one dares to be too confident. Bitcoin just climbed back above $64,000, but on-chain sentiment is far from euphoric.
The real question is: when the most cautious money starts moving off the sidelines, are we standing at the threshold of some turning point? This question might be more worth discussing than exactly which stock he bought.Trillions of dollars in RWA are entering on-chain: $BTC captures asset allocation, $ETH captures financial infrastructure
This round of RWA is no longer just a story. Since 2024, the global tokenized asset market has grown by tens of billions of dollars, with on-chain RWA on the ETH chain exceeding $1 billion; if stablecoins are also counted, on-chain dollar assets have long surpassed $200 billion. Products like BlackRock BUIDL, Franklin FOBXX, and Ondo USDY have contributed most of the incremental growth. Institutions are not just testing the waters; they are paving the way.
But the benefits that BTC and ETH receive are completely different.
BTC captures asset allocation. Institutions now buy BTC as a reserve asset and hold it on their balance sheets without moving it. The logic increasingly resembles digital gold. Funds allocate BTC for its scarcity and inflation resistance, without needing complex on-chain operations—just buy and hold.
ETH captures financial infrastructure. Treasury bonds, funds, and stocks need to be tokenized, and issuance, custody, clearing, and settlement are basically all handled on ETH. The over $1 billion in on-chain RWA on ETH is backed by ongoing transaction fees, staking demand, and ecosystem tool consumption. This is a cash flow logic, not a pure hoarding logic.
BTC may become an asset on institutional balance sheets, while ETH may become a platform for institutional asset circulation. One earns money from allocation, the other from pipelines and networks. If RWA truly reaches the trillion-dollar scale, both will benefit, but ETH is more closely tied to the financial system itself.
This is a personal market observation and does not constitute investment advice. 74% of people bet the Federal Reserve will stay put in September
Currently, 74% of the chips in the prediction market are betting that the Federal Reserve will hold steady in September, meaning neither raising nor lowering interest rates, just maintaining the status quo. The fact that 74% of people bet it won’t move means the market has basically ruled out any major action in September, leaving the game to be played out in timing and wording. This probability isn’t just a guess; it’s an implied expectation built from real money piled up in interest rate futures, representing how money is actually being bet now—more honest than any analyst’s prediction and more valuable than any macroeconomic report.
On the market front, the Fed holding steady is a double-edged sword for Bitcoin. No rate cut means the risk-free rate remains high, so the opportunity cost of holding non-yielding Bitcoin hasn’t decreased; but no rate hike also preserves liquidity from being further drained. So the market’s comfortable zone right now is just to avoid any surprises. Once this 74% consensus is contradicted by inflation or employment data, volatility will instantly return. Historically, such high consensus is most vulnerable to a reversal on the announcement day. The reason the market can grind sideways now is that this consensus hasn’t broken yet, and everyone is waiting for the catalyst that will break the balance.
From a swing perspective, the September meeting day is a hard node on the calendar. Before that, watch three things: the direction of jumps in the rate hike probability curve, whether the total stablecoin supply has stopped falling and started to rise, and whether the weekly net inflow of ETFs has turned positive. Only if two of these three turn will it count as a logical shift; before that, don’t relax just because 74% expect no change. High consensus often means marginal space has been squeezed dry by previous consensus. Keep leverage in check, let the data speak for itself, and don’t rely on sentiment to carry hard indicators—that’s betting your principal on someone else’s consensus.
There are several data points to watch this week: producer prices, initial jobless claims, and consumer confidence. Each could shake that probability curve. The biggest mistake crypto people make is making full-position decisions based on a static probability, not realizing the curve moves every day. Treat it as a signpost, not a destination, and your mindset will be steadier and your actions less distorted. The worst thing now is to use this 74% consensus as an excuse to lie flat. The more unanimous the consensus, the harsher the reversal tends to be; the less people talk about risk, the more you need to keep a hand in reserve.
That said, do you think this 74% consensus is stable, or is it the calm before the storm? The Russian Central Bank sets a hard cap of 25% on crypto holdings
The Russian Central Bank plans to set a limit for professional market participants: crypto asset holdings cannot exceed one-quarter of total equity. This is not an outright ban, but rather a small opening for compliant players to enter the market, while using the cap to firmly control risk. In other words, the attitude shifts from blocking to allowing, but the allowance is tightly controlled—professional institutions can only use up to one-quarter of their principal to invest in crypto. Retail investors are not given access; the door is left slightly open for institutions, aiming to benefit from crypto returns while protecting their own financial system from being overwhelmed.
From a market perspective, this policy is neutral to slightly positive for Bitcoin. The 25% cap means Russian professional funds have a legal channel, but the ceiling is clear—it's unrealistic to expect this alone to drive the market up significantly. The interesting part is the direction: a country that has long been strict on crypto is now opening a door for institutions, aligning with the global trend of central banks shifting from hostility to a more structured approach. On a macro level, regulation moving from prohibition to conditional allowance signals a gradual loosening of liquidity. Geopolitically, Russia has long been excluded from the Western financial system; by opening crypto access to domestic institutions, it is partly circumventing the dollar system, which carries more weight than the numbers themselves.
On a shorter-term basis, treat this as a sentiment indicator. Such policies usually take time to implement, and the 25% quota contributes limited liquidity globally, so don’t expect it to single-handedly drive the market. But it confirms a trend: countries are seeking a middle ground that neither lets crypto run wild nor shuts it down completely. For long-term holders, clearer regulatory frameworks reduce institutional concerns, which is good news in the slow-moving variables. The key takeaway now is that the direction is right, and there’s no need to rush the pace.
Looking at the bigger picture, Russia’s move is a different version of the same trend seen in Hong Kong and the EU’s stablecoin frameworks—everyone is trying to create a controllable shell for crypto. The more such frameworks exist, the stronger Bitcoin’s role as a cross-border reserve asset becomes. Short-term stagnation doesn’t mean it’s useless long-term; slow variables always work this way—no rushing, no panicking. For long-term Bitcoin holders like us, slow implementation means risk of outright bans decreases with each new framework, and confidence in holdings grows.
That said, do you think this hard cap opening acts as a reassuring signal for the market?Everyone says Bitcoin is digital gold, but this time real gold has won.
The world's largest gold ETF added 7.132 tons in one go yesterday, the biggest single-day purchase since June 18, bringing total holdings back above 1,030 tons. At the same time, domestic gold ETFs have attracted over 8 billion yuan this month. Interestingly, silver ETFs are actually reducing holdings, indicating that investors are very selective—they want real gold, not the entire precious metals basket.
On one side, U.S. Treasury yields have surged to a 19-year high; on the other, real gold is being frantically bought. Smart money is voting with its feet, first moving the anchor away from the dollar. In the past, the most common saying was that Bitcoin is digital gold, and at critical moments, it should rise alongside gold. But this time, as the dollar's credit is being revalued, funds clearly rushed to gold first, while Bitcoin is still hovering around 64,000, like a guest who was called but never got to the table.
Bitcoin hasn't failed to rise; in the past 24 hours, it climbed just over 1%, but this is nowhere near the buying frenzy seen in gold ETFs. Simply put, although both are safe-haven stories, real gold has stolen the spotlight this time. Many who have long treated Bitcoin as a gold substitute probably feel a bit uneasy.
A few veteran players around me have been murmuring these days: their Bitcoin holdings remain unchanged, but they've added to gold first. They verbally profess faith in Bitcoin, but their actions honestly protect real gold first. This kind of saying one thing and meaning another actually reveals more than any data.
The logic behind this is not hard to guess. The 30-year U.S. Treasury yield has hit 5.29%, the highest since 2007, and the market is seriously doubting the dollar's long-term purchasing power. Normally, gold and Bitcoin should benefit the most in such times. But gold ETFs are ready-made tools that can be bought with a few clicks, while Bitcoin's compliant channels and custody thresholds are still troublesome for large funds. Real gold wins because it's convenient, not necessarily because of the story.
Zooming out, this gold-buying wave is not isolated. U.S. debt is approaching $40 trillion, with interest payments nearly matching social security costs, and several major overseas debt holders have been reducing holdings simultaneously last month. As trust in the dollar's long-term purchasing power begins to waver, gold—a hard currency unquestioned for thousands of years—is naturally more reassuring than Bitcoin, which is still being tugged back and forth by regulatory forces.
More subtly, there's an emotional mismatch. U.S. stocks are still at historic highs, the VIX has dropped to its lowest this year, and everyone feels calm, but the bond and gold markets are quietly pricing in risk. Such divergence is often the most dangerous; by the time retail investors realize it, the ticket price has already changed.
So the question is, Bitcoin didn't keep up with gold this time—is it just temporarily lagging, or is the narrative of digital gold being dethroned by real gold for the first time? What do you think? Everyone says rate cuts are certain, but the Federal Reserve has quietly changed its stance.
Everyone thought the main theme for the second half of this year would be rate cuts, but a probability chart has left people stunned. Jin10 cited CME FedWatch data this morning, showing a 65% probability of rates remaining unchanged by September, but the cumulative probability of a 25 basis point hike has climbed to 35%. Even more aggressively, in October, the chance of rates staying the same drops to 51%, a 25 basis point hike is at 41%, and there's even a 7% position betting on a 50 basis point hike.
Just a week ago, Goldman Sachs was reassuring the market, saying the probability of a September rate hike was very low and that expectations for a hike should be pushed to January next year. Their reasoning was that inflation was already under control, but the bond market reacted completely differently. As soon as those words were out, traders changed their minds with real money. This contrast between verbal comfort and actual actions has become increasingly common in the macro space recently.
Zooming out, the real market panic is actually in another direction. The 30-year US Treasury yield surged to 5.29% last week, the highest since 2007. The total US debt is about to break $40 trillion, and interest payments alone in the past 12 months have reached $1.4 trillion. Concerns about fiscal deficits and debt sustainability are gradually eroding the space for easing. When long-term borrowing costs are this high, yet the US stock market hits record highs on the same day, Bank of America's Hartnett can't help but call it an absurd scene. Bond traders are voting with their feet, betting on sticky inflation and fiscal out-of-control risks, not on the fairy tale of rate cuts.
Interestingly, Wall Street's fear index VIX just dropped to the year's lowest at 14.2, making everyone feel calm, while long-term rates and rate hike probabilities are quietly rising. This divergence between extreme calm and underlying currents is often the most dangerous.
For us crypto traders, this line is even more glaring than it appears. The biggest tailwind for crypto assets in the past two years has been the market betting on liquidity easing again. Remember the rally in the first half of the year fueled by rate cut expectations? Many altcoins survived on that narrative. Once rate hike expectations jump from almost zero to 35%, risk appetite will be directly drained. Even the staunchest bulls are quietly turning. The strategy that once shouted "never sell coins" unusually made zero Bitcoin additions last week but sold $334 million in stocks, pushing cash reserves to $4.8 billion. Big money is already preparing backup plans.
So the question now isn't when rate cuts will come, but what exactly the market is afraid of. Is inflation quietly returning, or has the Fed once again misread the direction? The Jackson Hole speech on August 28 and the September FOMC meeting will be the moment of truth. While everyone is focused on the easing script, is it possible the script has already flipped? The positions we hold—are they betting on the consensus of the majority, or on the reversal that a minority is wagering on? History shows that when everyone thinks something is certain, a reversal is often just around the corner. Ethereum is going to put an invisibility cloak on addresses
Ethereum developers recently revealed a roadmap showing that the privacy transaction proposal is prioritized in the 2027 Hegotá upgrade, confirmed alongside FOCIL. Simply put, Ethereum plans to add a layer of invisibility to on-chain addresses, making it much harder to trace the details of transactions.
Currently, public blockchains are like transparent glass houses—anyone can check how much you transfer, who you transfer with, and how much is left in your wallet. This is fine for ordinary users, but for institutions and large funds, it's a major vulnerability; no one wants their positions to be monitored in real-time by competitors. Ethereum’s move is to integrate privacy from an external plugin into the protocol layer itself, essentially fixing this weakness from the foundation.
This path is quite challenging. Mixers like Tornado Cash have already been sanctioned and shut down, and third-party privacy tools face severe compliance pressures, making it difficult to operate. Therefore, embedding privacy into the protocol layer has become the unavoidable correct solution for Ethereum, though technically it’s ten times harder than just adding a plugin.
FOCIL is another piece of the puzzle; it manages fairness in transaction packaging, specifically addressing issues like block proposers manipulating transactions, front-running, or censorship. Looking at these two together, Ethereum aims to solve two longstanding problems simultaneously: transparency and vulnerability to manipulation. The direction is right, but implementation won’t happen until 2027, with many uncertainties along the way.
Breaking down the priorities also reveals some subtleties. Privacy transactions being prioritized shows the community now regards address exposure as a top risk. After all, current on-chain analytics firms can clearly track large holders’ flows, so institutional funds must pass this hurdle before entering. FOCIL ensures underlying fairness, preventing malicious behavior by individual validators. Together, these two form a complete solution.
A horizontal comparison makes it clearer. Solana focuses on speed and low cost, and many new public chains compete on TPS. Ethereum, however, has chosen the less-traveled path of privacy and censorship resistance. It may not seem flashy in the short term, but in the long run, this is exactly the threshold institutions care about most and a key chip for ETH to maintain its ecosystem leadership.
In the short term, this news won’t trigger a market rally; it’s more about adding weight to the long-term value logic. Looking ahead, privacy plus censorship resistance is the prerequisite for institutional funds to dare to go on-chain, and also the key factor that sets ETH apart from other public chains. What do you think—should on-chain privacy be encouraged or treated with caution? See you in the comments.YGG's pivot to infrastructure leaves old players scattered
Early this morning, someone in the group asked if YGG 3.0 had launched and whether the token was worth investing in. I clicked to check and indeed YGG officially announced the launch of 3.0, shifting its positioning from a blockchain gaming guild to a cross-domain infrastructure layer, aiming to build a bigger ecosystem beyond just gaming. The narrative is grand, but whether the old players buy into it is another matter. I skimmed through the comments and found far more complaints than excitement; new users simply didn’t catch this wave of storytelling.
Thinking back to how popular YGG was two years ago—with gold farming guilds, scholarship models, and Axie farms all over Southeast Asia—there was truly a group of people who entered the space because of it. Now, by saying it wants to become infrastructure, it’s essentially leaving behind those brothers who farmed and earned with it, trying to court developers and institutions instead. The narrative has upgraded, but the community has dispersed; this kind of pivot risks the collapse of the community foundation first.
What YGG 3.0 specifically wants to do is make game assets, identities, and point modules reusable at the base layer so other on-chain applications can directly call them. The idea is sound, but the technical threshold is high and the implementation cycle is long, which won’t solve immediate needs and can’t support the token price in the short term.
For projects like this, the most valuable asset is the people and sentiment. YGG still has its brand and partners, but the number of active on-chain addresses and player discussions have long since declined from their peak. Without continuous new users and real-money gameplay, no matter how beautiful the pivot whitepaper is, it’s just a picture.
Looking at the bigger picture, the entire blockchain gaming sector has been declining since its peak in 2021. Even phenomenon-level projects like StepN have cooled off. YGG hoping to turn things around with a single brand upgrade is a tough challenge. The market now chases real use cases that can monetize, not another grand narrative.
The data is even more disheartening. YGG tokens have dropped over 90% from their highs, and a significant portion of holding addresses are dormant zombie wallets, indicating most people have already given up or exited. The project team talks about serving developers, but whether developers acknowledge this depends on whether real applications get built.
Short-term, such news can stir up emotional trading, but whether it holds depends entirely on whether anything real materializes afterward. Long-term, I trust projects with genuine user stickiness more; just rebranding and switching sectors can’t sustain market value. If you still hold this kind of pivot token, are you planning to wait it out or exit? Share your strategy.$BTC 美联储短期不具备降息条件，主要受通胀顽固、就业数据矛盾、内部分歧及外部风险四重因素制约。当前利率维持在 3.50%至3.75% 不变，多家机构已推迟或排除2026年降息预期。 📈 通胀：离目标仍有"最后一公里" · 整体高企：7月CPI同比涨3.4%，核心CPI涨2.5%；美联储更关注的PCE通胀6月达3.7%，离2%目标差距显著。 · 上游承压：7月PPI同比涨幅高达4.7%，上游成本压力尚未充分传导。 · 趋势停滞：IMF明确指出“去通胀趋势已经停滞”。 💼 就业：信号混乱，无法提供降息理由 · 意外疲软：7月非农意外减少2.3万个岗位，前两个月数据累计下修10.3万个。 · 尚未崩溃：4月时曾新增11.5万个岗位，整体趋于稳定。经济逻辑上，稳定的就业叠加高通胀并不支持降息。 🏛️ 政策与经济：内部分歧与外部风险 · 内部分歧：7月会议以9:3的投票结果维持利率不变，3名官员支持加息。6月会议显示9名官员预计今年会加息，仅1人预计降息。 · 经济未触底：经济未到需要政策立即转向的边缘，增长前景未显著改善。 · 外部风险：中东冲突推高油价，AI相关投资也加剧了通胀压力Nasdaq Rolling Into Crypto's Territory?
Nasdaq getting SEC approval for near-24/5 trading isn't just a scheduling change. It’s a liquidity and behavior experiment nobody's fully priced in yet.
Who moves where? Do crypto traders start splitting attention toward Nasdaq, or do Nasdaq traders start drifting into crypto? Or does this just end up spreading the same liquidity thinner across more hours, deep everywhere on paper, deep nowhere in practice?
Scenario 1 Crypto traders migrate to Nasdaq's extended hours.
Unlikely at scale. Crypto traders are used to true 24/7, deep derivatives markets, and instant self-custody. A 23/5 window with weekend gaps and traditional clearing rails is a downgrade in flexibility, not an upgrade.
Scenario 2 Nasdaq traders start dabbling in crypto.
More plausible, but indirect. If retail gets comfortable trading stocks overnight, the psychological barrier around "markets never sleep" erodes. Once someone's used to acting on news at 3am, crypto stops feeling exotic and starts feeling like the more mature version of what they just learned to do.
The liquidity fragmentation risk.
This is the part that concerns me more than it excites me. Extending Nasdaq's hours doesn't create new capital, it just spreads existing capital across more hours. If overnight stock liquidity stays thin which every major bank warning already flags, you end up with access everywhere but real depth still clustered in the same few windows. Crypto already knows this problem intimately, thin order books in off-hours have liquidated plenty of leveraged positions.
Short-term, this doesn't drain crypto liquidity the audiences are still too different in risk appetite and infrastructure. Long-term, if Nasdaq's overnight sessions actually build real depth instead of just headline hours, some marginal speculative capital that currently only had crypto as a 24/7 outlet could get pulled back into equities.
Threat to crypto isn't traders leaving it's crypto losing its status as the only 24/7 game in town. That narrative has been doing more work for adoption than people admit.Someone else brought me a chart showing $BTC pulling back above 64,000 overnight tonight and asked: Is it going to reverse? Should I flip to go long? I didn’t move a muscle. Let me point you to the real boss — tonight the 30-year US Treasury yield surged to 5.31%, a 19-year high. The hand pressing down on all overvalued assets is interest rates, not the minor fluctuations in crypto prices on intraday charts. The longer interest rates stay high, the harder it is for risk asset valuations to rise, and crypto is just the last link in this chain with the least pricing power. A short squeeze doesn’t change this big picture. After trading for a while, you’ll understand that the direction depends on the water level, not the waves. Don’t be fooled by a short squeeze spike into catching the falling knife — chasing longs at this level has the worst odds. The U.S. just defaulted and Iran secretly expanded its military
On the same day, Jin10 and chaincatcher pushed a piece of news to the top: the U.S. repeatedly violated the memorandum of understanding with Iran, causing subsequent negotiations to never even start. The 60-day negotiation period in the memorandum has completely lost its meaning. The Iranian Foreign Ministry itself stated that the environmental damage caused by the U.S. amounts to trillions of dollars, and compensation must be prioritized. Translated, this means that while both sides say they are still negotiating, they have already been preparing for war underfoot. Trump said he does not seek to extend the memorandum, but Kushner admitted that both sides actually did not reach a consensus; the so-called negotiations were a sham from the start.
Even tougher is the Revolutionary Guard. According to The Wall Street Journal, Iran is secretly expanding its military, upgrading weapons, and reorganizing its high-level command chain during the ceasefire period, while also collaborating with Middle Eastern militias to deepen the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian officials even openly stated that the policy has shifted from defensive to full offensive, setting a final deadline of several weeks for the U.S. to fully comply. They say negotiations, but behind the scenes they are loading the powder keg.
This is not just a spectacle for us crypto traders. The Strait of Hormuz controls the throat of about 7 million barrels of oil globally every day. If a conflict breaks out, oil prices will surge, and risk aversion will pull funds out of risky assets. In the last round when Iran seized a UAE oil tanker, WTI rose 3% in a single day. If the blockade escalates this time, the scenario will be even more severe.
Let's do the math for clarity. The 7 million barrels passing through Hormuz daily account for about one-fifth of global seaborne oil. Even if only half is blocked, the supply gap would be enough to push both WTI and Brent prices up simultaneously. When oil prices rise, inflation expectations rebound, and the Federal Reserve’s room to cut interest rates shrinks. This chain reaction ultimately impacts the valuation of risk assets.
Looking at the timing, it’s even more tense. The U.S. says it does not want to extend the memorandum, but the Pentagon admits its current military plans cannot guarantee the Strait of Hormuz remains open, forcing 64 commercial ships to reroute. In other words, the most critical energy chokepoint is on the verge of being completely blocked, yet the market has not priced in enough risk premium.
For the crypto world, when geopolitical panic hits, capital usually rushes first to gold and U.S. Treasuries for safety, and high-beta assets like BTC are often sold off first before differentiating. Currently, crypto liquidity is already paper-thin; if a wave of safe-haven demand emerges, volatility will be magnified several times over. Don’t think this doesn’t concern us.
In the short term, geopolitical risk premiums could be repriced at any moment, so keep some buffer in your high-risk positions. In the long term, the fire in the Middle East won’t be extinguished overnight; fluctuations in oil and gold will repeatedly transmit to the crypto market. Do you think the current Hormuz risk is overestimated or far from enough? Let’s discuss.ETH Liquidation Data Analysis: This Round of Rally Sees Concentrated Short Liquidations
From the screenshot data, we can see that the total Ethereum network liquidation amount in the past 24 hours is $24,238,300, with the market status marked as predominantly short liquidations. It is clear that this round of upward movement has forced a large number of short positions out, with 2,189 traders liquidated and intraday price volatility exceeding 2.48%.
Liquidation Structure: Short Liquidations Dominate
24-hour short liquidations: $20,614,900
24-hour long liquidations: $3,623,500
The scale of short liquidations is about 5.7 times that of long liquidations, indicating that a large number of bearish orders and positions had accumulated at the previous levels. The slight upward price movement directly triggered massive short stop-loss liquidations, commonly known as a short squeeze.
Time dimension analysis:
1-hour level: Liquidations of $2,735,400, with shorts at $2,487,200, showing a rapid short exit in the short-term rally.
4-hour level: Liquidations of $2,928,300, still with short liquidations far exceeding longs.
12-hour level: Total liquidations of $8,179,500, with short liquidations at $6,743,600, indicating this short squeeze was not an instant spike but a sustained upward consumption of short positions over time.
Largest single liquidation: $1,386,065
$BTC
$ETH Bitcoin on-chain transfers have dropped to a seven-year low
The latest Bitfinex report puts the current market state very bluntly: the speed of Bitcoin on-chain transfers has fallen to the lowest level in seven years. This is not just a minor indicator shaking; the entire market's activity is cooling off. Looking at the charts, BTC is still stuck just above the realized price median of $63,200, while the key profit line for short-term holders is at $67,176. The current price is grinding back and forth in this narrow gap. This stagnant state is often more frustrating than a crash.
The most glaring issue is that money is flowing out. The US spot BTC ETF recorded a net outflow of about $385 million last week, corporate Bitcoin reserve-related activities have turned negative, and spot trading volume has dropped to multi-year lows. Even publicly listed companies' treasuries are holding back and watching, indicating institutions are not bottom-fishing but waiting for a signal. On one side, traditional risk assets are rallying under loose liquidity, while on the crypto side, there’s no drop but no trading either; funds and our market are clearly out of sync.
There’s a detail in the Bitfinex report worth watching: the core market conflict has shifted from whether monetary policy has improved to whether liquidity improvement can transmit into crypto assets. The report states plainly that loose financial conditions are pushing US stocks up, but crypto has yet to receive corresponding capital inflows. Historically, this divergence does not last forever.
Looking at a longer timeline makes it clearer. At the peak of the 2021 bull market, the daily on-chain transfer volume was several times what it is now. Back then, everyone was arbitraging, swapping, playing DeFi; now even whales are too lazy to move. Bitfinex judges that precisely because participation has dropped to extremely low levels, once liquidity truly returns, volatility will be like a compressed spring suddenly released, potentially with a strong direction.
I interpret this as the calm before the storm. The current issue is no longer whether the Fed will ease, but whether the liquidity released can really flow into the crypto market. Renewed sustained net inflows into ETFs and stablecoin supply expansion are the real triggers for BTC to break this low-volatility deadlock.
How to watch this specifically? I give two anchors. The $63,200 realized price median below is the average cost line for retail investors; holding this line means there’s still hope, breaking it easily triggers passive stop-losses. The $67,176 above is the key breakeven for short-term holders; breaking through it means a real strength shift. The current price is stuck between these two numbers; whoever breaks first will set the direction. This narrow-range standoff tests patience the most.
In the short term, this extreme volume contraction is the most frustrating but also the easiest to produce a big bullish or bearish candle that tears the direction open. The long-term logic is intact, but right now, whoever holds heavy positions will be the first to get shaken out by volatility. Whether your account is green or red this week will likely be stuck near the $63,200 median. Don’t be fooled by the calm; low volatility is never the end, it’s just building up for a big move.
Do you think this volume contraction is a bottom or a trap? Let’s discuss in the comments.Crypto exchanges have turned the US stock index into a perpetual contract
A few hours ago, Coinbase quietly launched a new product called the US500 perpetual contract. It tracks the S&P 500 index, basically allowing you to use leverage to bet on the overall performance of the 500 largest US companies, either long or short, and it operates 24/7 without closing. Previously, to trade US stocks, you had to open a brokerage account, wait for market hours, and consider time zones. Now, you can do it with a few taps in a crypto app, without even needing to research each of those 500 companies individually.
This was almost unimaginable two years ago. Traditional exchanges were still arguing over extending trading hours by a few hours each day. Nasdaq had just announced plans to extend trading into the early morning, while crypto exchanges had already turned the entire US stock market into a perpetual product that can be traded anytime. While one side debates whether to open a few more hours, the other has already made the market a sleepless chip — this mismatch is quite surreal.
An interesting point is Coinbase’s own identity. Nominally, it is still a crypto exchange, but now it’s selling derivatives tracking the S&P 500 instead of Bitcoin or Ethereum. You don’t need to actually hold those companies’ stocks, worry about earnings seasons, or even know the names of the companies. As long as you have a basic judgment about the US economy, you can bet on-chain. This company clearly doesn’t want to just do crypto business anymore.
Behind this is the same wave. Recently, Binance used bStocks to bring Tesla, Microsoft, and other stocks on-chain; Robinhood also launched its own chain; even traditional brokers are competing for pricing power over tokenized stocks. Now Coinbase skips the step of buying stocks and turns the index itself into a perpetual contract, effectively bringing the core benchmark of US stocks into the crypto market.
For traditional finance, this is a process of boundaries being pried open bit by bit. The index, originally a thermometer to observe the market, has now become an asset you can long or short anytime, with no close, no market breaks, and no price limits. The index has transformed from an economic measurement tool into a betting table you can directly wager on. The significance of this change is heavier than the product itself.
For retail investors like us, the threshold is indeed lower, and the temptation is greater. Treating US stocks as perpetual contracts means facing funding rates, liquidation lines, and 24/7 volatility, no longer the traditional market with closing bells and circuit breakers. Leverage amplifies opportunities but also magnifies negligence; a weekend negative event could liquidate you in your sleep. As crypto gameplay fully swallows US stocks, are we really ready?Wall Street finally can't hold on and is preparing to follow the crypto world with overnight trading
On Monday night, Nasdaq quietly released a rather inconspicuous announcement. Starting December 6, 2026, it will open an additional trading session from 9 PM to 4 AM Eastern Time. At the same time, it said it is communicating with regulators with the goal of enabling trading five days a week, 23 hours a day.
What does 23 hours mean? A day has 24 hours, leaving one hour for clearing and settlement, and the rest of the time fully open. This is no longer a minor extension of trading hours; this is a complete overhaul of the U.S. stock market's schedule.
The interesting part is the timing. On the same day, the three major U.S. stock indexes all closed lower: the Dow fell 0.51% to 53,460 points, the S&P dropped 0.52%, and the Nasdaq declined 0.32%. Market sentiment was not very strong. For an exchange to announce overnight operations at such a time is clearly not because business is booming.
The real pressure comes from elsewhere. In recent years, the pricing power of U.S. stocks has been leaking to places beyond the exchanges' control. The number of holders of tokenized stocks has doubled in a month, with monthly transfer volumes reaching over $20 billion. Robinhood has launched its own blockchain, open 24/7. Binance has turned U.S. stocks into perpetual contracts and bStocks, quoting prices even on weekends, and recently even arranged cash dividend distributions for tokenized stocks. In other words, when Nasdaq closes according to traditional hours, people around the world are still pricing Apple, Microsoft, and Nvidia, but the pricing venue is no longer Nasdaq.
This is the most uncomfortable situation for exchanges. Everything that happens after the market closes on Friday has to be caught up all at once on Monday morning, causing larger and larger gaps, and the fees from profits made in those gaps go to others.
Money from Asia and the Middle East is also part of the reason. 9 PM Eastern Time is morning in Asia. Those who want to buy U.S. stocks used to have to place limit orders and check the execution price after waking up. Now Nasdaq wants to bring them directly in.
For those of us who have been in the crypto world for a long time, 24-hour trading is the default setting and no one finds it strange. Looking at it from the other side is interesting. For many years, crypto's overnight trading was seen as immature, unprofessional, and lacking investor protection. Now the most orthodox exchange is gradually adopting this criticized schedule.
Of course, overnight trading does not equal liquidity. What will U.S. stocks look like at 2 AM? How thin will the order book be? How deep a pit can a large order dig? These questions remain unanswered. During the last extension of pre-market and after-hours trading, retail investors suffered losses in thin liquidity periods. After 23 hours, volatility is unlikely to become more moderate.
I'm more curious about another thing. When stocks also become all-weather, the crypto market's originally most unique selling point disappears. The scene where Bitcoin alone fluctuates on weekends while the stock market lies quietly may no longer exist. All assets will be packed into the same always-open market, with price movements infecting each other.
Do you think this means the crypto world has won, or that the stock market has taken away the last bit of uniqueness from crypto?Note a signal easily overlooked by the crypto world but related to global liquidity: Japan's 10-year government bond yield has risen to 2.945%, the highest since 1996. Don't underestimate this figure—over the past decade or so, the ultra-low interest rate yen has been the "cheap fuel" for global carry trades, with hot money borrowing cheap yen to buy various risk assets. When Japanese bond yields rise steadily and the yen needs intervention support, this cheap financing logic quietly loosens. In June, Japan also reduced its US Treasury holdings by about $26.4 billion. One of the world's largest liquidity faucets is tightening, and this change won't be reflected in $BTC overnight, but it sets the background level. Whether the tide recedes or not, watch here first. $UB $SNDK: The Vertical Move Is Losing Steam ⚠️
The explosive expansion in $SNDK has run into a serious demand problem.
While other rotation plays like $BICO, $BEAT, $ALLO, $KAITO and $APR have managed to attract fresh capital and build momentum, $SNDK continues to struggle to establish a durable support zone.
Every rebound is being met with supply before meaningful spot demand can develop.
That distinction matters.
A sharp decline alone doesn’t create a reversal setup. Until buyers absorb the overhead supply, volume expands and a credible base forms, calling the next bounce a bottom is simply speculation.
The market is rotating fast. Capital is rewarding assets showing real demand + sustained volume, not just dramatic price history.
$SNDK #加密估值转向收入，BTC如何定价？ It's often said that the US dollar is stable, yet the three largest holders of US debt are quietly reducing their positions.
Last month, the US Treasury's international capital report revealed a set of numbers that many overlooked. China, Japan, and the UK—the three largest overseas holders of US debt—all pressed the sell button simultaneously in June. Japan reduced by $26.4 billion, China by $26 billion, and the UK cut by $8.7 billion. It's not just one party running away; the top three are all moving together.
We are used to hearing that US debt is the safest asset globally. But the reality is that the biggest buyers are quietly stepping back. Japan's US debt holdings dropped to $1.117 trillion, China’s to $633.4 billion, and the UK’s to $939.9 billion. The scale of reduction isn't dramatic, but the direction is consistent, and this consistency is more worth pondering than the numbers themselves.
Why now? On one hand, the 30-year US Treasury yield surged to 5.29%, the highest since 2007, making borrowing from the US increasingly expensive. On the other hand, the total US debt is approaching $40 trillion, with interest payments reaching $1.4 trillion just in the past year. Ironically, yields are at multi-year highs, which should attract buyers, but the largest overseas holders are exiting, indicating that the coupon rate can no longer retain them.
Zooming out, you’ll see this didn’t just happen in June. China’s US debt holdings have been steadily declining, with $633.4 billion nearing a multi-year low, basically selling off continuously over recent years. Japan, as the largest overseas creditor, is also slowly reducing, and the UK is cutting back as well. The three most loyal clients are retreating together, and this trend has been ongoing for some time. There’s a market misconception that US debt will always have buyers due to dollar hegemony.
What does this have to do with the crypto we hold? Every time the US dollar’s creditworthiness is questioned, some funds look for hedges—gold has been one, and part of Bitcoin’s narrative has grown from this. The largest overseas holders of US debt withdrawing doesn’t mean crypto prices will move a certain way tomorrow, but it signals that people are seriously repricing dollar assets. This isn’t a bullish signal, just a background development in progress.
Interestingly, while the sell-off happened, US stocks hit new highs and market sentiment remained calm. On one side, creditors are retreating; on the other, stock prices are partying. No one can say how long this split can last. When this crack becomes visible, the market’s reaction might not be gentle.
Do you think this round of de-dollarization is a real trend or just a short-term portfolio adjustment? Share your judgment in the comments.Pre-position coordinates for tomorrow's market. On the evening of August 18 Beijing time, the U.S. will release several data points that could influence rate hike expectations: ADP weekly employment change, July housing starts and building permits, July import price index, and July industrial production. The logic chain is clear—stronger employment and output, along with higher import prices, will reinforce the narrative of "sticky inflation and prolonged high interest rates," which is a headwind for risk assets; conversely, only if one of these numbers weakens significantly might the market get an excuse to cool down. Given that long-term yields have already reached multi-year highs, these data points are not just background noise but marginal variables indicating direction. Don’t wait for the data to hit hard before reacting; first, think clearly about "which number will trouble whom." Let your position speak.Wisconsin Draws Sword Against Prediction Market Crypto Giants
The prediction market waters have gotten murky again. On August 15, sports prediction platform Novig filed a federal lawsuit in the Western District of Wisconsin, suing the state attorney general and gaming administrator, asking the court to stop the state from taking action against it.
The trigger was Wisconsin's April simultaneous lawsuits against Kalshi, Polymarket, Robinhood, Crypto.com, and Coinbase, accusing them of violating the state's commercial gambling ban with their sports event contracts. Novig only deals with sports contracts and does not involve international news, yet it was also caught up in the same crackdown.
This is not an isolated case. From April until now, Novig has sued officials in five states including Wisconsin to maintain its qualification to offer contracts to local residents. It has requested the court to expedite a preliminary injunction to pave the way before state enforcement.
What really stands out to the crypto community is that Crypto.com and Coinbase are on the list. These two reputable crypto exchanges are being classified by state governments as gambling simply because they list sports event contracts on their platforms. This is the same force that has been pursuing Polymarket overseas. Event contracts essentially treat an outcome as a bettable asset, from who wins a game to interest rate decisions. Polymarket’s on-chain version is crypto-native, and now even centralized exchanges listing similar products are being dragged into the fray, indicating that regulatory scrutiny has expanded beyond just on-chain activities.
The regulatory stance is clear: whether event contracts are financial innovation or disguised gambling is not unified across states. What can be banned in sports today could be extended to other categories tomorrow. This uncertainty harms the ecosystem more than a single fine; project teams dare not make long-term plans. Looking back, this crackdown started surfacing at the end of last year, with a dozen states taking action one after another, all citing gambling classification. The federal CFTC’s ambiguous attitude leaves projects stuck between state and federal jurisdictions. Novig chose to sue proactively rather than wait to be shut down, aiming to bring judges into the picture first.
Platforms fighting back is good, but the cost is prolonged litigation and an increasingly fragmented market. If you have played these types of contracts on any platform, their sense of security might be thinner than you think. When the existence of a contract depends on the state attorney general’s mood, do you think this issue is far from us?Bitcoin profitable addresses just passed the halfway mark, but the reversal signal hasn't come yet
Has your address broken even this week? CryptoQuant analyst Axel Adler's latest weekly report presents a puzzling figure: the proportion of profitable Bitcoin UTXOs climbed from 48% to 53% over the past month, just over half.
To put it simply, this metric looks at every unspent output on-chain and compares the price at the time of the transaction to the current price to determine profit or loss. Passing the halfway point means more than half of the coins are above their cost basis, but it's still far from a healthy level.
However, the 53% figure is awkward. It remains well below the 365-day moving average, meaning nearly half of UTXOs are still underwater. The analyst bluntly states this looks more like relief of holder pressure rather than confirmation of new demand.
This aligns with market sentiment. BTC is still grinding above the realized price median around 63,000, with short-term holders' break-even line stuck at 67,176. The price hasn't collapsed, but no one is willing to push it up with real money; trading volume is as thin as the tail end of a bear market.
Another detail worth watching: after the Coldcard hack, long-term holder supply decreased by 134,800 BTC. Some of this is old coins moving, so it can't simply be interpreted as old holders distributing. The data looks more like supply restructuring after a major stress event, not surrender or new money rushing in to buy.
More painful is the short-term holders. Most of these people bought near recent highs in the past few months and are still underwater on average. They represent the most tangible potential selling pressure on the rebound path. Old holders are holding, new holders are losing, so the market is stuck in this limbo. This metric fell to just over 40% at the 2022 bottom; now at 53%, it shows we're far from the most desperate phase but haven't truly left the danger zone.
In plain terms, the market is a bit better than a month ago but far from a confirmed reversal. If you want to build new positions, you need to wait for more signals. This short-term structure is unfriendly to swing trading; during range-bound periods, false breakouts often trigger stop losses.
In the long term, as long as the 63,000 cost center holds, once liquidity returns, suppressed demand could be unleashed all at once. The question is when liquidity will return—no one can provide a timetable, and ETF net inflows haven't stabilized yet.
Whether the coins in your wallet are above or below the cost line, this just-passed-half figure this week is either a relief or another kind of torment for you. The more this kind of half-alive bottoming drags on, the easier it is to hand over chips during fake moves.SanDisk (SNDK)｜Has the valuation logic for memory really changed?
This time, SanDisk can no longer be viewed simply as a "memory cyclical stock" like before.
The latest quarter's revenue reached $8.965 billion, a 51% quarter-over-quarter increase, and only about one-third of this growth came from increased shipments, while the other two-thirds came directly from price increases. Gross margin surged from 78.4% last quarter to 84.6%.
More importantly, the data center segment.
For fiscal year 2026, SanDisk's data center revenue grew 437% year-over-year. The company continues to sign new long-term cooperation agreements with major customers, turning the previously highly cyclical NAND business into one with increased price and demand visibility. Next quarter's revenue is forecasted to reach $10.3–10.8 billion.
So the reason the market is repricing SanDisk now is that everyone is starting to doubt: this time, the high gross margin in memory might not be the usual cycle of rising and then crashing.
The question: How long can the 84.6% gross margin be sustained? If AI storage demand and long-term contracts truly reduce the cyclical nature, does SanDisk's valuation still have room for upward revision?
#闪迪长期协议成焦点，开盘表现待验证 OKX personally injected $1.9 million to support its own chain
OKX just released the report card for its July Boost program. Nearly $2 million was spent on incentives in one month, with 102,000 participants, and the X Stake staking scale surpassed $50 million. The numbers don't look huge, but this is OKX pumping blood into its own public chain, X Layer.
What’s truly noteworthy is the structure. All 4 X Launch projects are 100% listed on the main site, with RWA and Agent economic infrastructure each taking half the pie. In other words, OKX wants to firmly establish two lines with real money: one to bring real-world assets on-chain, and the other to build the payment and settlement foundation for AI agents.
This aligns with recent moves by major exchanges. When main site trading fees hit rock bottom, incremental growth can only be found on-chain. X Layer is OKX’s answer similar to BNB Chain, relying on exchange traffic to feed the public chain, then using the public chain to lock in user assets. The staking surpassing $50 million shows the first batch of users have already stayed.
By tying Boost and X Layer together, OKX’s plan is a flywheel. Project teams first gain exposure and accumulate traffic on the exchange, then are directed on-chain for consolidation. On-chain activity in turn contributes fees and staking back to the exchange. Base has already broken out thanks to Coinbase; X Layer wants to replicate this path, but currently TVL and active addresses still lag behind.
But don’t take this as a guaranteed win. Incentive programs are essentially subsidies; the real question is whether users stay after the money stops. Over 70% of projects have transparency ranking in RootData’s top 10%, indicating OKX is selecting teams that can provide data, not just scattering incentives randomly. The L2 space is fiercely competitive now; Arbitrum, zkSync, and Base are all tough competitors. Whether X Layer’s differentiation relies on exchange traffic or technology remains to be seen.
Don’t forget OKX isn’t the only one competing. Binance is also pushing its own on-chain layout; exchanges running public chains has become an industry standard. For users, this is a double-edged sword: more opportunities to profit during subsidy periods, but also more incentivized low-quality chains and rugs on-chain, so keep your eyes open.
For us, exchanges personally nurturing chains means another battlefield with sustained buying power and traffic on-chain. RWA and Agent are the narratives least likely to be dismissed this year; following subsidies is a bit more stable than blindly mining low-quality tokens.
Just don’t forget, activity during subsidy periods and real adoption are two different things. When OKX eventually turns down the faucet, how many projects will remain? No one can guarantee now. What do you think—how many real players will emerge from the public chains nurtured by major exchanges? After all, the most expensive tuition on-chain is often believing subsidies will last forever.U.S. debt is pressing against the $40 trillion mark, consensus moves away from the dollar
The chief strategist at Bank of America pins the approach of U.S. national debt to $40 trillion as the core theme in the current market. In the past 12 months alone, interest payments on the debt have burned through $1.4 trillion, soon to surpass Social Security as the largest single federal government expense.
His scenario is straightforward: avoid bonds, avoid the dollar, go all-in on AI. Going long on gold is his top solution to counter dollar depreciation and bond market collapse, and he even throws out a counterintuitive trade: short AI bonds. The logic is that these AI companies, to expand data centers, rely on over $1 trillion in capital expenditures funded by debt, causing the debt snowball to grow larger.
Nomura's data supports this pressure. AI and data center-related bond issuance has reached 12 times the 2015-2024 annual average, with $269 billion issued year-to-date, double the full-year 2025 projection. Corporate bond inflows are structurally steepening the yield curve, gradually squeezing out long-duration Treasury buyers.
On the same day, U.S. stocks hit record highs while U.S. Treasuries were issued at the highest yields in 25 years. Hartnett exposes this absurdity: the stock and bond markets are sending completely opposite signals on the same day. The market is partying on one side while pricing in high long-term risk on the other.
For crypto traders like us, this line actually prices in cracks in the dollar's credit. Long-term rates can't be suppressed; safe-haven funds either flow into gold or scarce assets. BTC's narrative of digital scarcity fits perfectly here. But don't get carried away short-term; Hartnett himself says the trend of worsening interest costs will only reverse if the 5-year Treasury yield falls below 3.25%, which is still far off. Moreover, Treasury supply is still increasing, the Treasury's issuance pace hasn't stopped, but willing buyers are dwindling. This supply-demand scissors gap is the real risk.
Interestingly, the market is already quietly pricing in a peak in yields. REITs, biotech, and regional banks—long-duration assets neglected for a long time—have recently quietly outperformed. Hartnett's judgment is that if Republicans hold the Senate, the AI sector could bubble by 2027; if Democrats win both houses, stocks, currencies, and bonds could all drop more than 10% before year-end.
In the short term, macro conditions create a liquidity vacuum for crypto; in the long term, it's a story of de-dollarization. The key moments are Powell's Jackson Hole speech on August 28 and the September FOMC, when the market will choose a new direction.
When even Bank of America's chief starts calling to move away from the dollar, whether the coins in your hand are safe-haven assets or just running naked with risk sentiment is up to each person to decide. Trust him, or trust the Fed—this question is left for everyone to answer themselves.Funds claiming to offer staking rewards lose four and a half dollars for every dollar distributed
Let's start with something that sounds a bit absurd. You buy an ETF that claims to help you earn staking rewards passively, and at the end of the quarter, you actually receive a dividend, which looks pretty good. But you probably didn't notice that to put that money into your pocket, the fund has been quietly selling off its coins at a loss, and the more they sell, the bigger the paper losses.
The main subject is the Polkadot ETF under 21Shares, ticker TDOT. The latest disclosed documents have exposed this facade: in the second quarter, for every one dollar of staking rewards distributed to shareholders, the fund had to recognize about four and a half dollars of realized losses. One dollar of sweetness hides four dollars and fifty cents of bitterness.
Why is this happening? These ETFs pay dividends to investors in US dollars, not by directly giving you the DOT staking rewards. In other words, the fund has to first sell its DOT holdings for cash before it can pay dividends. Unfortunately, DOT has been crashing recently, dropping about 34% in the second quarter and 76% over the past year. Being forced to sell coins at such low prices to raise cash means turning unrealized losses into real, realized losses.
The numbers are even clearer. In Q2, TDOT sold over 98,000 DOT, raising about $107,000 in cash to pay dividends, but this sale directly confirmed nearly $486,000 in losses. The fund paid shareholders a dividend of about $0.14 per share, while the fund's share price fell from $14.95 to $9.86, a 34% drop. That little bit of dividend sweetness can't cover the pit left by the price collapse.
This is definitely worth pondering. Are the so-called staking rewards truly generating extra returns for you, or are they just returning your own principal under a different name? When the underlying asset keeps falling, how much real value does this dividend packaging have left? In other words, is the dividend you receive interest, or just a refund you're paying yourself? What do you think about this kind of yield propped up by selling coins?Before Unitree even rings the bell, people on-chain have already lined up their exit orders
Unitree Technology's stock will only be listed on the STAR Market on August 19, but on-chain, it has already been traded for several days.
The contract called xyz:UNITREE on Hyperliquid is currently priced at $98.96, which converts to about ¥667.86 at the current exchange rate, while Unitree's issue price is ¥150.8. The on-chain quote is 342.9% higher than the issue price. Based on the total share capital of about 404 million shares after listing, this price corresponds to an implied market value of approximately ¥270.1 billion, or $40 billion, which is 4.43 times the issue market value of ¥60.99 billion. A company that hasn't even rung the bell yet has already seen its valuation on-chain soar to more than four times.
What's more interesting is that someone has already figured out how to exit.
The address starting with 0x652f began building a position as soon as the contract went live, currently holding 2x isolated long 2083.81 contracts, with a position value of about $203,200, an average entry price of $67.98, an unrealized profit of 86.9%, and a liquidation price of $46.16. It has placed two partial sell orders on 91.1% of its position: selling 833.52 contracts at $106 and 1064 contracts at $140, which convert to ¥715.36 and ¥944.81 respectively. These two numbers are not randomly chosen. The former corresponds to a 374.4% increase over the issue price, the latter to 526.5%, while Changxin Technology closed up 465.8% on its first day of listing, with an intraday high of 535.5%. This trader is using the previous case as a benchmark to measure this yet-to-happen opening.
The largest long position in the entire market is held by the address starting with 0x7277, holding 2x isolated long 26,500 contracts, with a position value of about $2.623 million, an average entry price of $91.08, an unrealized profit of about $209,000, a return of 17.3%, and a liquidation price of $28.98. Unlike the previous trader, this one has not placed any take-profit orders yet.
The hype isn't crazy though. UNITREE is up about 4.6% intraday, with a 24-hour trading volume of about $3.817 million, open interest of about $18.96 million, and an hourly funding rate of about -0.000026%, basically neutral, with no sign of crowded longs. In short, it's not a bunch of people going all-in with leverage, but rather a small group who have positioned themselves early.
Just a few hours ago, the largest long holder of Changxin Technology on-chain has already started closing positions, with cumulative profits of about $5.83 million, including $2.17 million from funding fees. So the current scene is quite interesting: the protagonist of the last act is packing up to leave, while the protagonist of the next act hasn't even entered but has already drawn the exit route.
I think the most valuable aspect of these contracts is not who made how much, but that they lay out a group's expectations for a company on-chain for everyone to see days in advance. Issue price ¥150.8, on-chain quote ¥667.86, the several hundred percentage points gap in between— is the on-chain market too exuberant, or is the IPO pricing too conservative? The answer will be revealed at the opening on the 19th.
What do you think: will the order placed at $106 get filled first, or will it turn into an empty trade?Behind the tech companies' monthly borrowing frenzy of one trillion for AI, it's all debt
At the close of trading on Monday New York time, a set of numbers quietly broke records. With only half of August passed, the issuance scale of U.S. investment-grade corporate bonds has already surged to $145.2 billion, surpassing the old record of $136 billion set in August 2020. More strikingly, all eight super bond issuances exceeding $2.5 billion this year have come exclusively from tech companies.
Almost all the money is poured into AI infrastructure. Alphabet alone issued $25 billion in bonds, and every large deal in the market carries the artificial intelligence label. The pace at which companies are borrowing is nearly insane, with January, June, and July each breaking single-month records, and three other months ranking second historically. People in the bond circle say this is the fastest issuance pace ever.
This matter is closely linked to the crypto market we watch. A few days ago, Bank of America’s Hartnett named the U.S. national debt approaching $40 trillion as the top narrative and casually gave a counterintuitive trade: short AI bonds. His logic is straightforward—AI companies burn through over a trillion in capital expenditures annually, cannot generate free cash flow themselves, and must keep issuing bonds to survive. Now that bond issuance has truly hit record levels, it adds weight to this judgment.
The contrast is hidden here. On one side, the market is crazily pricing in the AI narrative, tech stock prices are soaring, and computing power is hyped as the next trillion-dollar asset class. On the other side, what supports this frenzy is a visibly growing debt snowball, with corporate bonds gradually squeezing out long-duration Treasury buyers from the market.
Nomura’s data is even more striking: the issuance scale of AI and data center-related bonds is already twelve times the annual average level from 2015 to 2024. The $269 billion at the start of the year is already twice the full-year 2025 forecast. Borrowed money must eventually be repaid, and interest won’t be waived just because the story sounds good.
Amid this bond issuance frenzy, the 30-year U.S. Treasury yield has quietly climbed to 5.29%, the highest since 2007. The higher the long-end rates, the heavier the cost for these tech companies to borrow new debt to repay old debt, and the snowball will only roll faster.
Bond traders have an old saying: the long-end yield truly tops out only when the Federal Reserve panics first. There are still a few weeks until the Jackson Hole speech and the September rate meeting, and the market is betting on a calm summer. But as the bond issuance machine keeps running at full speed, the risk assets in our hands—are they really being lifted by AI, or dragged down by the chain of debt?Trump, who verbally supported Israel, suddenly called for a halt
On August 18, Trump did something that surprised many. In an interview with Fox News, he said Israel should no longer launch attacks on the Gaza Strip, reasoning that Hamas had agreed to lay down arms. Just a week ago, his plan for Hamas to disarm in phases was directly rejected by Netanyahu.
This situation is quite contradictory. Over the past few years, Trump has been Israel's staunchest ally, from recognizing Jerusalem to various key endorsements, almost always accommodating. Now, his envoy Kushner just met with Netanyahu on Monday trying to salvage the ceasefire plan, but Trump himself immediately clarified his stance. The two closest leaders publicly clashed, which is rare.
The more critical issue is not this verbal spat. The Middle East is already a highly tense situation. On the same night, Iran seized a UAE oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz, and the market was still reeling. Meanwhile, the US and Israel suddenly publicly disagreed, signaling cracks in what was seen as a solid alliance. For traders watching the screen, this uncertainty is the hardest to price. Last week, the VIX just dropped to the year's low of 14.2, and the market was calm; in such times, even a small spark can ignite volatility.
For us crypto traders, these signals are especially important. The crypto market's sensitivity to geopolitical risks has clearly increased over the past two years; every time there is unrest in the Middle East, Bitcoin's volatility shakes accordingly. Now, with US Treasury yields stuck at a ten-year high and macro conditions unstable, an alliance rift like this only complicates the risk asset safe-haven logic.
Will Netanyahu listen? Most likely not immediately. But Trump's words have already revealed his bottom line: he wants a ceasefire and disarmament outcome, not an indefinite conflict. Whether Kushner can put out the fire next will determine if this Middle East mess will be contained or escalate.
For us, the worst thing at moments like this is to treat a single piece of news as direction. Whether cracks between allies truly affect oil prices, safe havens, and capital flows depends on how things unfold in the coming days. But one thing is clear: when even the most reliable allies start publicly saying no, the market's calm is often more fragile than it appears on the surface. BHP's latest fiscal year report is out, with basic profit at $13.2 billion, a 30% year-on-year increase, exceeding expectations. The real signal lies in the structure: for the first time in history, this world's largest miner's copper revenue has surpassed iron ore. The management's long-term outlook is even more direct — global copper demand is expected to grow from about 34 million tons per year now to over 50 million tons by 2050. In plain language: the pricing power of the old economy is shifting from "iron for building houses" to "copper for electricity." AI data centers, power grids, and electrification are all demand drivers for copper. When hard assets are quietly hitting new highs while crypto is still stuck in place, the flow of smart money speaks volumes. Data won't play along with you.The veteran lending protocol is throwing $52 million to grab institutional business
Compound is really putting its money down this time. According to CoinDesk, this veteran lending protocol just approved a record-breaking $52 million budget and reorganized its leadership, clearly shifting its focus to institutional clients, working on RWA, partner integrations, and traditional finance credit infrastructure. Dropping this amount of money shows their ambition clearly and also a sense of urgency.
Behind the numbers lies a bleak gap. Compound's current TVL is about $1.2 billion, while its peak in 2021 was $12 billion, a 90% drop. A DeFi veteran, worn down by the bear market and security incidents, has lost so much market share that it has no choice but to pivot. This $52 million investment aims to shift from retail users to institutional clients, to capture the entry points of traditional capital moving on-chain, since retail locked assets are no longer attractive.
The direction is right, but the path is tough. Institutions demand compliance, custody, and risk control—completely different from DeFi native users—with much higher experience thresholds and audit requirements. Compound has to compete with Maple, Centrifuge, and others already serving institutional credit; these competitors have long-established relationships with banks and funds. More realistically, the entire DeFi sector's TVL hasn't recovered yet, so whether institutional capital is willing to enter now is a big question.
Looking back, Compound once ignited the liquidity mining wave with COMP mining, leading the industry in peak TVL, but was later surpassed by Aave and hit by several security incidents, losing market share continuously. Now, trying to turn things around with an institutional narrative is no easier than before. Whether this budget can bring real institutions and revenue is key to valuation recovery.
In the short term, just announcements won't sustain the token price; the market wants concrete results. In the long term, RWA bringing real-world assets on-chain is one of the few growth stories that still makes sense, with giants like BlackRock and Morgan Stanley moving in this direction. Do you think Compound can turn around through institutions, or is this just another cash burn for survival?
That said, Compound daring to invest this $52 million also shows that old DeFi projects haven't given up yet. But the market doesn't reward hard work, only revenue. Aave's TVL is several times larger, offering institutions a wider choice. For Compound to turn around, just shouting the institutional narrative isn't enough; it must deliver real lending scale and partnership lists, or this $52 million will just be life support money, burning out and returning to square one. The anxiety of old protocols is actually a microcosm of the entire DeFi space. Retail users have left, institutions haven't arrived, and the vacuum in between is the hardest. Whether Compound's $52 million can fill this gap will be clear in the second half of the year. But whoever turns around, those who survive will be the ones who first deliver real revenue, not the loudest voices.The compliant stablecoin pools are rapidly filling up, with $RLUSD seeing an inflow of $132 million in a single week, ranking among the top in incremental growth. Capital is seeking a foothold that balances custodial compliance and certainty of returns.
Alongside the expansion of $RLUSD, rwaUSDi and USDGO have recorded incremental inflows of $50.6 million and $49 million respectively, as interest-bearing stablecoins begin to concentrate their capital-attracting effects at the top.
The rigid demand from institutional compliance channels, combined with the $32.7 million basis arbitrage scale brought by the synthetic asset USDe, jointly form the underlying support for this round of liquidity redistribution.
If the annualized basis of on-exchange derivatives remains stable, this batch of institutional incremental capital seeking safety and yield is expected to settle as medium- to long-term reserve assets.
When $RLUSD can maintain a net inflow pace of over $100 million per week, and the scale of RWA assets expands synchronously, on-chain liquidity will establish a substantial shift toward interest-bearing reserves; if the basis arbitrage yield quickly drops by more than 50 basis points, the capital retention logic will fail.
Once the leading traditional stablecoins repeat liquidity siphoning, with $RLUSD’s weekly new inflow falling below $30 million and the scale of arbitrage assets retracting, the market will slide back into a stock game.
When the total market capitalization of stablecoins across the network stagnates, the observed differentiation only belongs to short-term rotation among existing stocks.
The most important variables to track in the next 7 days are the marginal change rate of $RLUSD issuance increments and its correlated trend with derivative basis spreads.
#AMD完成历史最大美元债发行：融资47.5亿美元 #SafePal订单泄露，隐私保护待完善