查理-Charlie

Dusk’s kind of business idea is to get a regulated institution to move real assets onto the blockchain. These clients are different from retail users: their first question isn’t about returns—it’s whether you’re secure, and who’s responsible if something goes wrong.

So, let’s look at $DUSK ’s security record this year.

In January, the bridge’s signed wallet was breached, and more than ten million DUSK were stolen. In March, after completing a major audit, seven Critical-level vulnerabilities were found. The official statement was that they had not been exploited, and they carried out what was the largest hard fork since the mainnet launched to fix them.

Put these two incidents together, and the signals feel a bit contradictory. The official has consistently emphasized that what was stolen was the bridge—not the consensus layer—and that the mainnet protocol is fine. Technically, that’s true. But for a project that aims to accept regulated assets, the largest hard fork ever performed was used to patch seven fatal vulnerabilities. And the bridge really did have funds taken from it. That record doesn’t look good in front of compliance-minded clients.

The institution’s concerns are very real. Once assets are put on-chain and something goes wrong, they’ll have to answer to their regulators—not just be able to issue a recap post and be done with it. You can say the vulnerabilities were all fixed and the bridge needs to be rebuilt—this is progress. But for a client that demands near-zero tolerance, what matters isn’t how fast you patch things; it’s how you could have had seven Critical issues in the first place.

I don’t think these events prove that Dusk is not viable. Early chains falling into security traps is quite common. But @Dusk ’s positioning means it will inevitably be measured with a much stricter yardstick. On other chains, when vulnerabilities are found, the community complains for a couple of days and it passes. When #dusk has vulnerabilities, it affects the foundation of its entire narrative. Whether regulated assets will dare to come in depends on whether it can clean up this record—and make sure it never happens again.

Personal opinion only; not investment advice.

$ETH Evening Strategy

ETH is currently trading around $1,880. Over the past 24 hours, it has mainly moved within the $1,865–$1,935 range. After pulling back from the recent high, it is now working to find a new direction.

Resistance: $1,900–$1,920
Once it regains stability, look for $1,935 → $1,950.

Support: $1,865–$1,875
After an effective break below, look for $1,840 → $1,820.

In the evening, I’m more focused on the $1,865–$1,900 range.

Stabilize at $1,900, then pull back and get absorbed → slightly bullish.
Break below $1,865, and the retest fails to reclaim → slightly bearish.

Now that price is near the lower end of the range, it’s not very suitable to chase a short directly. First, see whether support can hold and absorb.

For personal market observations only, not investment advice

A number is hanging on the Dusk website: the whole network has staked 210M DUSK, accounting for more than forty percent of the circulating supply. It looks pretty healthy. A staking ratio this high on a single chain suggests that everyone is willing to lock their tokens to support and protect it.

But I thought about it: who exactly is the money that these locked coins are earning?

@Dusk —each day about 170,000 new tokens are minted; $DUSK
These are paid out as block rewards to the staking validators. This is their main source of income. On the same day, the actual transaction fees collected by the whole chain are 258 tokens, which is about fifteen dollars.

So the validators’ money is hardly coming from on-chain users paying for usage—it’s essentially being printed by the protocol.

That’s a bit roundabout. Staking is supposed to protect a chain that people actually use and that can generate real demand. The idea is that participants share in the value created by that chain. But #Dusk is different now: there’s almost no demand on-chain. Stakers are splitting the newly minted coins, and those newly minted coins dilute the holders who are not staking. In plain terms, it’s a group of people who lock tokens taking value from another group who didn’t lock—redistributing inflation.

This isn’t a problem unique to Dusk. Many early chains have the same issue: they buy security by issuing more tokens. The question is that this setup can only last for a while. Once day comes when block rewards run out, or when the token price drops so that the reward from minting can no longer cover the opportunity cost, stakers start to withdraw. Then the chain’s security budget must be supported by real transaction fees. But Dusk’s transaction fees of fifteen dollars per day are still far from enough to sustain itself.

So that staking rate of more than forty percent—I'm not really seeing it as a sign of confidence. It’s more like people are waiting: locking up to capture emissions on one side, while watching for the chain to eventually attract real users. If users don’t come, this loop keeps going from left hand to right.

Personal view only; not investment advice.

Do you like Dusk?

Most chains that focus on privacy tend to dodge regulation. @Dusk On the flip side, it wants institutions to be able to use privacy in a compliant way: transactions look “black” to the outside, but when needed, it can selectively disclose to the right people.

$DUSK It sounds like someone has blended two things that are fighting each other together. Privacy has to be hidden, compliance has to be checked—how could they both be true at the same time? But for privacy-focused assets being put on-chain under regulation, that’s exactly what they want: don’t let the world watch the transaction details, but when regulators come, I can prove I’m clean.

I agree with the direction. The real problem is on the other end.

#dusk It has been on the mainnet for a year and a half: there are only a couple hundred transactions per day on-chain, and they’re all public transactions. Hardly anyone touches the privacy function. It’s not that the technology can’t work—it’s that nobody who actually has regulated assets and dares to move them onto the chain has arrived yet.

So what it’s stuck on isn’t whether it can be done, but whether there will be people to use it. Who is this design for? Whoever is first bold enough to put real assets on-chain—that’s what Dusk needs to answer in the coming year. If it can answer, it stands; if it can’t, then even the right direction will just spin in place.

Personal views only; not investment advice.

So, do you think Dusk is worth buying now?

Why did $BABY suddenly drop so much? The rewards for my plaza haven’t been sent yet 😭

When it was at 0.013, there was a 170U. Now it’s directly down by forty U…

$BTC The easiest place to lose money in short-term trading is probably not the first time you stop out, but the moment after you stop out when you immediately want to make the money back.

My rules will be simpler.

After the first long position gets stopped out, don’t immediately reverse and don’t enter again right away. Wait until at least one 15-minute candlestick closes.

If the original support level holds and price goes back above it, and trading volume recovers, then consider entering again for the second time.

If you make a wrong call the second time, stop trading in that direction for the day.

Seeing a wrong call once in a day is normal. If you still add positions after getting it wrong three times in a row, it basically turns into fighting with yourself.

This NFP release tonight is quite unusual.

Job gains for July came in at -23k, when the market had been looking for +80k. Yet the unemployment rate fell from 4.2% to 4.1%. Employment has clearly cooled, but there are still no signs of a rapid deterioration in unemployment.

The market is trading rates first. With employment this weak, the pressure on the Fed to continue hiking in September will be much smaller, which is generally supportive for BTC.

Right now, BTC at $BTC is stalling around 65,000. What I care about more is whether, after the news, it can truly break and absorb the 65,200–65,300 range. If it holds steady, you could look at 65,500 and even 66,000. But if the bullish news comes out and it can’t hold above 65,000, be careful for a wave of profit-taking.

Personal analysis only; not investment advice.

Actually the square and the planet—I’m working on both. Compared to the square, the planet’s reward opportunities are indeed not as high.

So, here’s the thing: the square’s latest project just got cut off.

The one I participated in is the Invited List Top 15, which has a separate prize pool of 239,000 coins $BABY . Then I asked AI to convert it for me: I’m ranked ninth and I can get 12,870 coins (about 141 U). For two weeks, that comes out to 141 U—can you believe it?

Now let’s talk about the planet. This week I have 140k views in traffic. On average, each post gets more than 3k views, and the highest single post reached around 10k.

I got a 10U reward once before. Next Thursday, I’ll continue sharing my planet earnings

Thailand’s tax exemption policy only covers capital gains from cryptocurrency generated by individuals through local licensed exchanges, brokers, or dealers, and is valid until December 31, 2029. Income from overseas platforms, mining, staking, andirdrops is generally not included in the exemption.

The impact on the market is mainly within Thailand. It may attract more trading funds back to licensed platforms, and also drive growth in compliant users.

Overall, the major coins like $BTC are modestly positive, but relying on a tax incentive from a single country alone is unlikely to directly trigger a significant increase. In the short term, it is closer to an emotional boost; in the long term, it depends on actual net inflows of new capital.

$XAU gold has clearly strengthened over these past two days. Spot prices briefly moved to around 4262, hitting a new 7-week high. The previous trading day’s gain was about 4%. Weaker employment data, a pullback in oil prices, and cooling rate-hike expectations have provided room for gold to push higher again.

For the short term, first look at resistance at 4260–4280. After a breakout with increased volume, you can look for 4300. Support is at 4200–4220; if it breaks below 4180, this round of bullish momentum will clearly weaken.

Just looked at this gold 4-hour candle—$XAUT was pushed all the way from around 4050 to 4242. It rose more than 4% in a single day. In the latter half, you can clearly see both short-sellers getting stopped out and breakout-chasers placing their bets together.

Behind this upswing, the market is mainly trading expectations of easing employment data, a weaker US dollar, and a pullback in U.S. Treasury yields. As expectations that interest rates will keep rising have cooled off, gold is naturally easier for funds to absorb.

Price has already broken out above the upper Bollinger Band, and the KDJ indicator has also entered overbought territory. In the short term, things are a bit overheated. 4243 to 4250 is the immediate resistance zone. If it pulls back, first watch 4180 to 4200—if it can hold there, it suggests the uptrend is still intact. If it falls back below 4118, then we need to reassess this burst of strength.

Now the odds of chasing long are not as good as they were right when 4100 was first broken through—especially don’t “hard push” it with high leverage

What's going on? Why has gold suddenly risen so much?

Is it not that brown-haired guy causing trouble again? $XAU

Today Nvidia is up. The main reason isn’t the earnings report, but that Musk has clearly stated that SpaceX will only use Nvidia chips going forward, and he even directly named Vera Rubin. After the news broke, the pre-market for $NVDAB rose by about 2%; AMD once fell 8.7%. Clearly, capital is concentrating toward the leading companies.

The current price is around $212, with an intraday high of about $212.7. I won’t chase it directly here.

If it can trade at around 213 with increased volume and hold, you can take a small position and place an order, first looking at 218; if it stays strong, then 222. If it pulls back to 208–210 and then stops falling, you can also buy in batches. If it breaks below 205, it suggests the strength driven by the news is being absorbed—then step back first.

The most important risk to watch is a move higher on a gap-up, then it quickly falls back to below 210. This kind of price action is more like using the good news to unload shares.

$BTC 15-minute chart analysis

Current price is about 64,288. The intraday low is 63,594, and the high is 64,493. The price has pulled back from the low and is now close to the upper bound of today’s range. Short-term bias is slightly toward a rebound, but an effective breakout hasn’t been completed yet.

Key price levels

* Strong resistance: 64,450–64,500
* Second resistance: 65,000
* Bull-bear dividing line: 64,200
* First support: 64,000
* Strong support: 63,600

Market situation

The move from around 63,600 up to above 64,300 indicates there is support below.

However, the current position is not far from today’s high, so the risk-reward ratio for chasing a long is average. For the 15-minute timeframe, only a breakout counts if the volume expands and it closes above 64,500.

If it keeps failing to break through 64,500 and then falls back below 64,200, it is highly likely that the price will retest 64,000 in the short term.

Plan A: Breakout follow

1. If the 15-minute close holds above 64,500, go long with a light position.
2. If it pulls back to 64,300–64,400 and does not break, add once.
3. First target: 64,800
4. Second target: 65,000
5. If it drops back below 64,200, the breakout logic is invalid.

Plan B: Wait for the pullback to enter

1. Don’t chase the current price.
2. Wait for the pullback near 64,000, then take longs in batches after selling pressure fades.
3. Place risk control below 63,800.
4. Pause adding longs after 63,600 is broken.
5. The next support to watch is around 63,000.

Risk warning

The current price is in the upper half of today’s intraday range, so the risk-reward for longs is average, and it’s also not suitable to directly chase shorts.

More reasonable approach: wait for a breakout at 64,500, or wait for a pullback to 64,000. Don’t use high leverage to guess direction in the middle of the range.

Personal chart analysis only and does not constitute investment advice.

The most attractive line about Babylon is: your BTC isn’t bridged over, wrapped, and put aside—it’s still locked on the Bitcoin mainnet. Hearing that, it definitely sounds safer than those wBTC solutions. But after actually operating it myself once, that sense of security in my heart gets discounted. @BabylonLabs_io

Not bridging over is true—the coins are indeed still on the Bitcoin chain. But they’re not sitting nicely in your own address. They’re locked into a conditional script. Whether and when you can get them back, and under what circumstances they’ll be slashed, is determined by Babylon’s rules and the behavior of those external Finality Providers. You could ask if this counts as self-custody. Strictly speaking, it does—your private keys never leave you. But that feeling of control, where you can move them whenever you want and withdraw anytime, disappears the moment you lock them away. $BABY

What truly concerns me is the slashing. In the project’s promotional material, dual-signing triggers the burning of the Bitcoin principal—this is the foundation of the entire security narrative. But how exactly this slashing is enforced on the Bitcoin mainnet is something ordinary users can’t verify at all. You can only trust that the design is correct, trust that those providers don’t do evil, and trust that there’s no loophole in the middle that can be exploited. If anything goes wrong in any step, the slashing might not hit the bad actors—it might hit you. #baby

I’m not saying it’s definitely a problem. Technically, the direction of not bridging over is, in my view, indeed stronger than wrapped coins. But strong doesn’t mean risk-free—it just moves the risk from being stolen via bridging to being tied to script design and provider behavior. The risk hasn’t disappeared; it’s just been relocated, and that new place is harder to understand.

So my stance is: don’t be fooled by the words “not bridged over” and “still on the mainnet.” Whether your BTC is truly safe doesn’t depend on which chain it’s locked on. It depends on whether those slashing rules and that batch of providers can be trusted. And right now, not many people who have locked funds have actually gone and checked these things.

We talked earlier about @BabylonLabs_io Babylon and penalties, and also about where the returns come from. This one is a bit more concrete: of the BTC that are currently locked up, how many are genuinely buying into this security narrative, and how many are purely here to wait for the airdrop.

I guess most of them are the latter—including me at the start.

If you look at the times when the locked-amount data climbed the fastest, it never corresponds to some specific chain actually integrating Babylon’s security and starting to pay for it. Instead, it’s always when the points rules were announced and the expectation of an airdrop took off. Everyone isn’t calculating whether this breach insurance is worth it—they’re calculating how many coins they’ll get back after locking so much for so long.

That’s completely different from the story #baby is trying to tell.

The problem with TVL propped up by airdrops is that it’s rented, not bought. Once the coins are sent out and the points stop, this batch of BTC will likely withdraw right back, doing whatever they were going to do. What can truly remain is only the security that downstream chains are willing to continuously pay for. And how much of that there is right now—basically you can’t see.

I’ve been through several rounds of this kind of thing. The playbook is always the same. Before token issuance, TVL rockets up; the project team uses that number to claim market share and talk about being a leading player. After the token is issued and a first unlock happens, the numbers drop—then nobody mentions that original peak anymore. $BABY

Will Babylon follow the same path? I don’t know, but at least this TVL right now—I’m not very willing to read it as demand. It feels more like a price set by airdrop expectations.

So my stance is: don’t just look at how much is locked. Look at how much is left after the coins have been issued and the points have stopped. That number is Babylon’s real picture. Before then, everything is prepaid.

The data at 10 tonight for $BTC isn’t very friendly.

The U.S. manufacturing PMI rose to 55.6, and the employment component also moved back from contraction to 52.8, indicating that companies’ hiring has not kept getting worse. After this result, expectations that Friday’s non-farm payrolls will deliver a major surprise drop a bit, and the Fed has more confidence to keep high interest rates in place.

The good side is that the price component eased slightly, but 71.1 is still very high and, for now, offsets the employment rebound.

So, the big picture is that around 63,000 is what it’s aiming for—more like waiting for Friday to deliver the final answer. If it can’t reclaim 64,000, then in the short term we’ll likely first look for support around 62,000.

My personal view only; it does not constitute investment advice.

This round of news is only a mild relief for the BTC outlook; it’s not a trend reversal yet.

After the U.S. paused further strikes on Iran, oil prices fell by about 5% immediately, which may ease inflation pressure a bit. But Iran denies that it is negotiating with the U.S., and there are still three votes within the Federal Reserve supporting further rate hikes. Both risks haven’t truly ended.

More importantly, after oil prices dropped, BTC still couldn’t hold above 63,000, which suggests that buy-side demand hasn’t followed through.

In the short term, $BTC is likely to digest between 62,000 and 65,000. Once the situation is confirmed to cool down and BTC can reclaim and stabilize above 64,000, there will be a chance to test 65,000. If talks fall apart or oil prices rebound, first look at 62,000; if it weakens further, then we need to watch out for the 60,000 area.

Personal opinion only; not investment advice.

The square has to eat another 1,200 pieces of $NEWT , which is about 46U

The cycle is two weeks: one post per day with one trading task, and it’s easy and breezy to get on the leaderboard and earn rewards. There’s also a Babylon invited event coming up—this two days, too, are the deadline

I wonder if I can make it to the Top 15 to eat 200U 🤤

Take another perspective on @BabylonLabs_io this time—let’s not talk about whether it sells punishment, let’s talk about where the little bit of returns it gives you actually comes from.

When you lock BTC, what you’re after is the yield. But that yield isn’t issued by the Bitcoin mainnet—Bitcoin mainnet gives nothing. The people paying are those who come to Babylon to buy security from it. The problem is: most of those chains haven’t generated real income yet. Some don’t even have their products fully launched. What they can hand over to pay you is basically their own token stack. $BABY

So what you locked is real BTC, and what you receive is a bunch of coins from new chains. How much those coins are worth depends on whether the chain behind them can actually survive. If it lives well, your returns are good.

If it doesn’t take off, all you have is a handful of chips that no one is picking up—while you’ve tied up BTC liquidity for months, even longer. #baby

I’ve done quite a few kinds of staking like this. The pattern is pretty consistent. In the early days, the annualized numbers they show look great because the denominator is made of tokens that nobody is genuinely selling on the secondary market—the quote is inflated. Once tokens are unlocked and can be sold, the yield rate immediately shows its true face. Babylon adds an extra layer: you also have to underwrite the survival of those downstream chains.

In other words, you’re not finding yield for Bitcoin—you’re making an early investment in a batch of unproven new chains, using the opportunity cost of BTC to fund it. Whether you’re willing to invest is another question. But at least you should understand that this is what you’re investing in—not some risk-free, interest-bearing thing.

My position hasn’t changed: how many BTC you lock doesn’t matter. What matters is whether you know who’s paying the returns and what they’re paying with. If you can’t figure out those two questions, then that string of TVL numbers is meaningless to you.