海盗鸭
2.1k Posts
海盗鸭
Report
Block User
43 Following
123 Followers
268 Liked
Posts
All
Quotes
·
--
“Rise to the highest level in July” — the background to this rally is that the US-Iran conflict, which began with mutual attacks on warships and oil tankers, has escalated into direct strikes on shipping lanes. First, let’s look at the data: Brent crude closed on Monday at $97.31, having touched $98.06 intraday—both the highest levels since July 24. Brent rose about 8% on the week, while WTI gained nearly 10%. On September 9, Brent also climbed above $100 for the first time since July 24. This is not a technical rebound; it’s geopolitical risk premia being layered on step by step.
More importantly, physical volumes are already validating the price increase. Kpler data shows that over the past 10 days, the average number of cargo ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz was only about 10 per day—the lowest since May. Iran has set up new “no-go zones” in the strait, and after the parliamentary speaker’s comments, there are threats that retaliation will be “faster and more intense.” The attacks have shifted from striking warships to targeting oil tankers and export facilities—directly hitting Iran’s cash flow, while also pulling the strait—which accounts for roughly one-fifth of global oil transport—into the line of fire. Shipping insurance and freight rates are rising as commercial shipping takes precautions; countries are being forced to draw down inventories passively. Supply disruptions are moving from “expectations” to “reality.”
OPEC+ kept production quotas unchanged over the weekend, effectively giving up the chance to offset the shock with increased output. Goldman Sachs warned that if attacks targeting shipping continue to increase, oil prices could rise as high as $120. The United States’ strategic petroleum reserves are at their lowest level since 1982. The buffer to dampen oil prices is not thick, and policy room is being exhausted.
There are three key things to watch next: whether the Strait of Hormuz’s transit volumes can stop falling and rebound—this is the most direct indicator of whether the conflict is sliding toward a “facts-on-the-ground blockade.” Iran has warned that crews of tankers docking at Kuwaiti and Bahraini ports must leave immediately—whether the threat is carried out will determine whether the fighting spreads to the other side of the Gulf. Second-round transmission to inflation expectations: $100 oil would rewrite central banks’ interest-rate paths, and in turn suppress all risk assets.
The peak of this oil rally is unlikely to be determined by inventory data; it will most likely be driven by military decisions. Until signals of a ceasefire appear, the logic of going long on pullbacks remains smooth—but behind every green candle are real ships and crews taking real risks. In this kind of market, the money is not easy to make.
#Crude oil rises to the highest level in July
“Rise to the highest level in July” — the background to this rally is that the US-Iran conflict, which began with mutual attacks on warships and oil tankers, has escalated into direct strikes on shipping lanes. First, let’s look at the data: Brent crude closed on Monday at $97.31, having touched $98.06 intraday—both the highest levels since July 24. Brent rose about 8% on the week, while WTI gained nearly 10%. On September 9, Brent also climbed above $100 for the first time since July 24. This is not a technical rebound; it’s geopolitical risk premia being layered on step by step.
More importantly, physical volumes are already validating the price increase. Kpler data shows that over the past 10 days, the average number of cargo ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz was only about 10 per day—the lowest since May. Iran has set up new “no-go zones” in the strait, and after the parliamentary speaker’s comments, there are threats that retaliation will be “faster and more intense.” The attacks have shifted from striking warships to targeting oil tankers and export facilities—directly hitting Iran’s cash flow, while also pulling the strait—which accounts for roughly one-fifth of global oil transport—into the line of fire. Shipping insurance and freight rates are rising as commercial shipping takes precautions; countries are being forced to draw down inventories passively. Supply disruptions are moving from “expectations” to “reality.”
OPEC+ kept production quotas unchanged over the weekend, effectively giving up the chance to offset the shock with increased output. Goldman Sachs warned that if attacks targeting shipping continue to increase, oil prices could rise as high as $120. The United States’ strategic petroleum reserves are at their lowest level since 1982. The buffer to dampen oil prices is not thick, and policy room is being exhausted.
There are three key things to watch next: whether the Strait of Hormuz’s transit volumes can stop falling and rebound—this is the most direct indicator of whether the conflict is sliding toward a “facts-on-the-ground blockade.” Iran has warned that crews of tankers docking at Kuwaiti and Bahraini ports must leave immediately—whether the threat is carried out will determine whether the fighting spreads to the other side of the Gulf. Second-round transmission to inflation expectations: $100 oil would rewrite central banks’ interest-rate paths, and in turn suppress all risk assets.
The peak of this oil rally is unlikely to be determined by inventory data; it will most likely be driven by military decisions. Until signals of a ceasefire appear, the logic of going long on pullbacks remains smooth—but behind every green candle are real ships and crews taking real risks. In this kind of market, the money is not easy to make.
#Crude oil rises to the highest level in July
More importantly, physical volumes are already validating the price increase. Kpler data shows that over the past 10 days, the average number of cargo ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz was only about 10 per day—the lowest since May. Iran has set up new “no-go zones” in the strait, and after the parliamentary speaker’s comments, there are threats that retaliation will be “faster and more intense.” The attacks have shifted from striking warships to targeting oil tankers and export facilities—directly hitting Iran’s cash flow, while also pulling the strait—which accounts for roughly one-fifth of global oil transport—into the line of fire. Shipping insurance and freight rates are rising as commercial shipping takes precautions; countries are being forced to draw down inventories passively. Supply disruptions are moving from “expectations” to “reality.”
OPEC+ kept production quotas unchanged over the weekend, effectively giving up the chance to offset the shock with increased output. Goldman Sachs warned that if attacks targeting shipping continue to increase, oil prices could rise as high as $120. The United States’ strategic petroleum reserves are at their lowest level since 1982. The buffer to dampen oil prices is not thick, and policy room is being exhausted.
There are three key things to watch next: whether the Strait of Hormuz’s transit volumes can stop falling and rebound—this is the most direct indicator of whether the conflict is sliding toward a “facts-on-the-ground blockade.” Iran has warned that crews of tankers docking at Kuwaiti and Bahraini ports must leave immediately—whether the threat is carried out will determine whether the fighting spreads to the other side of the Gulf. Second-round transmission to inflation expectations: $100 oil would rewrite central banks’ interest-rate paths, and in turn suppress all risk assets.
The peak of this oil rally is unlikely to be determined by inventory data; it will most likely be driven by military decisions. Until signals of a ceasefire appear, the logic of going long on pullbacks remains smooth—but behind every green candle are real ships and crews taking real risks. In this kind of market, the money is not easy to make.
#Crude oil rises to the highest level in July
287
·
--
Friday’s CPI might be this week’s most "outdated" data. The August inflation report is released on September 11, and it only covers up to August. On Tuesday, Houthi attacks on Saudi energy facilities occurred; this round of shock—Brent briefly climbing to $101—doesn’t appear in it. September’s CPI won’t come until October 14, and when the Fed meets on the 15–16th, there won’t be data reflecting the new oil-price move. Background: July CPI year-on-year was 3.4%. August Nonfarm Payrolls added 162,000 jobs, and the unemployment rate was 4.1%. Markets have priced the probability of a rate hike this month at about 58%. Fed Governor Waller said that if inflation continues to cool, he would be inclined to hold steady; if the data runs hot, they would consider a rate hike, and they would also treat rising energy prices as a clear upside risk. $BTC . The toughest part right now isn’t inflation itself, but the tail risk of rate hikes created by the combination of an "oil price shock + data blind spot." After BTC fell below 78,000 intraday, it bounced back to around 88,000. Over 30 days, it’s still up about 20%. If CPI unexpectedly cools, would you see it as good news—or just the last gasp before the oil-price shock?
Friday’s CPI might be this week’s most "outdated" data. The August inflation report is released on September 11, and it only covers up to August. On Tuesday, Houthi attacks on Saudi energy facilities occurred; this round of shock—Brent briefly climbing to $101—doesn’t appear in it. September’s CPI won’t come until October 14, and when the Fed meets on the 15–16th, there won’t be data reflecting the new oil-price move. Background: July CPI year-on-year was 3.4%. August Nonfarm Payrolls added 162,000 jobs, and the unemployment rate was 4.1%. Markets have priced the probability of a rate hike this month at about 58%. Fed Governor Waller said that if inflation continues to cool, he would be inclined to hold steady; if the data runs hot, they would consider a rate hike, and they would also treat rising energy prices as a clear upside risk. $BTC . The toughest part right now isn’t inflation itself, but the tail risk of rate hikes created by the combination of an "oil price shock + data blind spot." After BTC fell below 78,000 intraday, it bounced back to around 88,000. Over 30 days, it’s still up about 20%. If CPI unexpectedly cools, would you see it as good news—or just the last gasp before the oil-price shock?
112
·
--
September 15, the U.S. Senate will conduct a procedural vote on the CLARITY Act (the Digital Assets Market Clarity Act). This is the first hurdle to determine whether it can move on to formal debate. In a recent trip, Ripple’s Chief Legal Officer, Alderoty, met with the offices of several senators who are undecided or opposed, urging them to meet real cryptocurrency holders before the vote. The data Ripple cites is: the U.S. has 67 million crypto holders, the industry provides 232,000 jobs, and creates about $55 billion in economic activity.
First, clarify what the bill is meant to do. CLARITY would establish a federal regulatory framework for digital assets, assigning oversight of spot “digital commodity” markets to the CFTC—its largest authority expansion in history. For ordinary holders, the meaning boils down to one thing: whether a token is a commodity or a security would no longer have to be determined through endless lawsuits and trial-and-error, but instead would have clear statutory boundaries. With clear rules for listing, custody, and settlement, institutions will be willing to enter—that’s the “certainty” $XRP and the broader altcoin market want most.
But don’t confuse lobbying momentum with being guaranteed to win. The procedural vote requires at least 60 votes. Seven Democratic senators have already raised ethical concerns. Even if the Senate passes the bill, the House has canceled its two full weeks of session in late September, and lawmakers are expected to leave on September 17—leaving very little time to complete legislation for both chambers this year. Traditional financial institutions such as banks are also lobbying against it, so the contest is far from over.
There isn’t much ordinary users can do, but three things are worth remembering: First, set a reminder for September 15. The procedural vote itself is a market variable—if it passes, the market will price in the “rules era” in advance; if it’s blocked, the uncertainty premium will return. Second, don’t go all-in betting on a single event. Whether the bill passes or fails doesn’t change $XRP ’s high-volatility, high-regulatory-sensitivity profile—position management matters more than being right about outcomes. Third, non-U.S. users shouldn’t sit this out either. Once the U.S. commodity/security binary is codified, it will very likely become a legislative template for other jurisdictions, with regulatory spillover happening faster than many expect.
So what $XRP holders should truly focus on isn’t a single day’s K-line, but the line in the bill’s text defining “digital commodity,” and whether it ultimately includes them.
#Ripplelobbying to advance the CLARITY Act vote
September 15, the U.S. Senate will conduct a procedural vote on the CLARITY Act (the Digital Assets Market Clarity Act). This is the first hurdle to determine whether it can move on to formal debate. In a recent trip, Ripple’s Chief Legal Officer, Alderoty, met with the offices of several senators who are undecided or opposed, urging them to meet real cryptocurrency holders before the vote. The data Ripple cites is: the U.S. has 67 million crypto holders, the industry provides 232,000 jobs, and creates about $55 billion in economic activity.
First, clarify what the bill is meant to do. CLARITY would establish a federal regulatory framework for digital assets, assigning oversight of spot “digital commodity” markets to the CFTC—its largest authority expansion in history. For ordinary holders, the meaning boils down to one thing: whether a token is a commodity or a security would no longer have to be determined through endless lawsuits and trial-and-error, but instead would have clear statutory boundaries. With clear rules for listing, custody, and settlement, institutions will be willing to enter—that’s the “certainty” $XRP and the broader altcoin market want most.
But don’t confuse lobbying momentum with being guaranteed to win. The procedural vote requires at least 60 votes. Seven Democratic senators have already raised ethical concerns. Even if the Senate passes the bill, the House has canceled its two full weeks of session in late September, and lawmakers are expected to leave on September 17—leaving very little time to complete legislation for both chambers this year. Traditional financial institutions such as banks are also lobbying against it, so the contest is far from over.
There isn’t much ordinary users can do, but three things are worth remembering: First, set a reminder for September 15. The procedural vote itself is a market variable—if it passes, the market will price in the “rules era” in advance; if it’s blocked, the uncertainty premium will return. Second, don’t go all-in betting on a single event. Whether the bill passes or fails doesn’t change $XRP ’s high-volatility, high-regulatory-sensitivity profile—position management matters more than being right about outcomes. Third, non-U.S. users shouldn’t sit this out either. Once the U.S. commodity/security binary is codified, it will very likely become a legislative template for other jurisdictions, with regulatory spillover happening faster than many expect.
So what $XRP holders should truly focus on isn’t a single day’s K-line, but the line in the bill’s text defining “digital commodity,” and whether it ultimately includes them.
#Ripplelobbying to advance the CLARITY Act vote
First, clarify what the bill is meant to do. CLARITY would establish a federal regulatory framework for digital assets, assigning oversight of spot “digital commodity” markets to the CFTC—its largest authority expansion in history. For ordinary holders, the meaning boils down to one thing: whether a token is a commodity or a security would no longer have to be determined through endless lawsuits and trial-and-error, but instead would have clear statutory boundaries. With clear rules for listing, custody, and settlement, institutions will be willing to enter—that’s the “certainty” $XRP and the broader altcoin market want most.
But don’t confuse lobbying momentum with being guaranteed to win. The procedural vote requires at least 60 votes. Seven Democratic senators have already raised ethical concerns. Even if the Senate passes the bill, the House has canceled its two full weeks of session in late September, and lawmakers are expected to leave on September 17—leaving very little time to complete legislation for both chambers this year. Traditional financial institutions such as banks are also lobbying against it, so the contest is far from over.
There isn’t much ordinary users can do, but three things are worth remembering: First, set a reminder for September 15. The procedural vote itself is a market variable—if it passes, the market will price in the “rules era” in advance; if it’s blocked, the uncertainty premium will return. Second, don’t go all-in betting on a single event. Whether the bill passes or fails doesn’t change $XRP ’s high-volatility, high-regulatory-sensitivity profile—position management matters more than being right about outcomes. Third, non-U.S. users shouldn’t sit this out either. Once the U.S. commodity/security binary is codified, it will very likely become a legislative template for other jurisdictions, with regulatory spillover happening faster than many expect.
So what $XRP holders should truly focus on isn’t a single day’s K-line, but the line in the bill’s text defining “digital commodity,” and whether it ultimately includes them.
#Ripplelobbying to advance the CLARITY Act vote
67
·
--
Grayscale’s Zcash spot ETF (ZCSH) launched two weeks ago. Assets under management have surpassed $500 million, with holdings of over 550,000 ZEC—about 3% of the 16.9 million ZEC in circulation. That has pushed $ZEC market value into the top ten cryptocurrencies. Since listing, the price has risen by nearly 70% cumulatively. The numbers are certainly seductive, but the bullish–bearish divide is precisely hidden in the structure of that $500 million.
To the bulls, it’s a compounding effect of “scarcity + compliant access.” This is the first privacy-coin spot ETF in the U.S. Institutions finally have a compliant exposure. With 3% of circulating supply locked by the funds, an amount is effectively pulled from the freely floating float. Thereafter, every real subscription will be reflected directly on the order book. $ZEC briefly broke above $1,180 intraday, with a 24-hour trading volume of about $1 billion— the market is paying a premium for the privacy narrative that “can be held with compliant capital,” and the entire sector is being repriced.
The bears, however, are focused on the source of the money. According to disclosures, about $100 million comes from DCG, a related party to the parent company (subscribed in kind with 85,700 ZEC). After stripping that out, the true net inflow from third parties is only about $70 million. In other words, much of the $500 million scale was “inflated” by a combination of related-party injections, the conversion of older trust products, and mark-to-market gains from rising coin prices. Moreover, after the Grayscale Zcash trust—launched back in 2017—was converted into an ETF, longtime holders gained an additional liquidity exit channel at any time. Low-cost existing coins still hang over the market.
Both sides’ disagreement boils down to the same question: within this $500 million, how much is coming as a long-term allocation driven by Zcash’s fundamentals, and how much is merely transaction-driven demand in the initial listing phase? The coming weeks will act like a “reality check.” After removing related-party contributions, can third-party net weekly inflows be sustained, and will the fund continue issuing new shares? If the answer is yes, the scarcity logic behind the lock-up will reinforce itself. If it’s only a listing-time surge, then the current market value corresponding to the price is basically a sentiment premium, and the high volatility of $ZEC will repeatedly educate would-be buyers who chase price.
The market action itself isn’t hard to interpret. What’s difficult is telling which part is demand and which part is liquidity. If you understand the structure, you won’t be easily led by the headline.
#Grayscale Zcash ETF Assets Surpass $500 Million
Grayscale’s Zcash spot ETF (ZCSH) launched two weeks ago. Assets under management have surpassed $500 million, with holdings of over 550,000 ZEC—about 3% of the 16.9 million ZEC in circulation. That has pushed $ZEC market value into the top ten cryptocurrencies. Since listing, the price has risen by nearly 70% cumulatively. The numbers are certainly seductive, but the bullish–bearish divide is precisely hidden in the structure of that $500 million.
To the bulls, it’s a compounding effect of “scarcity + compliant access.” This is the first privacy-coin spot ETF in the U.S. Institutions finally have a compliant exposure. With 3% of circulating supply locked by the funds, an amount is effectively pulled from the freely floating float. Thereafter, every real subscription will be reflected directly on the order book. $ZEC briefly broke above $1,180 intraday, with a 24-hour trading volume of about $1 billion— the market is paying a premium for the privacy narrative that “can be held with compliant capital,” and the entire sector is being repriced.
The bears, however, are focused on the source of the money. According to disclosures, about $100 million comes from DCG, a related party to the parent company (subscribed in kind with 85,700 ZEC). After stripping that out, the true net inflow from third parties is only about $70 million. In other words, much of the $500 million scale was “inflated” by a combination of related-party injections, the conversion of older trust products, and mark-to-market gains from rising coin prices. Moreover, after the Grayscale Zcash trust—launched back in 2017—was converted into an ETF, longtime holders gained an additional liquidity exit channel at any time. Low-cost existing coins still hang over the market.
Both sides’ disagreement boils down to the same question: within this $500 million, how much is coming as a long-term allocation driven by Zcash’s fundamentals, and how much is merely transaction-driven demand in the initial listing phase? The coming weeks will act like a “reality check.” After removing related-party contributions, can third-party net weekly inflows be sustained, and will the fund continue issuing new shares? If the answer is yes, the scarcity logic behind the lock-up will reinforce itself. If it’s only a listing-time surge, then the current market value corresponding to the price is basically a sentiment premium, and the high volatility of $ZEC will repeatedly educate would-be buyers who chase price.
The market action itself isn’t hard to interpret. What’s difficult is telling which part is demand and which part is liquidity. If you understand the structure, you won’t be easily led by the headline.
#Grayscale Zcash ETF Assets Surpass $500 Million
To the bulls, it’s a compounding effect of “scarcity + compliant access.” This is the first privacy-coin spot ETF in the U.S. Institutions finally have a compliant exposure. With 3% of circulating supply locked by the funds, an amount is effectively pulled from the freely floating float. Thereafter, every real subscription will be reflected directly on the order book. $ZEC briefly broke above $1,180 intraday, with a 24-hour trading volume of about $1 billion— the market is paying a premium for the privacy narrative that “can be held with compliant capital,” and the entire sector is being repriced.
The bears, however, are focused on the source of the money. According to disclosures, about $100 million comes from DCG, a related party to the parent company (subscribed in kind with 85,700 ZEC). After stripping that out, the true net inflow from third parties is only about $70 million. In other words, much of the $500 million scale was “inflated” by a combination of related-party injections, the conversion of older trust products, and mark-to-market gains from rising coin prices. Moreover, after the Grayscale Zcash trust—launched back in 2017—was converted into an ETF, longtime holders gained an additional liquidity exit channel at any time. Low-cost existing coins still hang over the market.
Both sides’ disagreement boils down to the same question: within this $500 million, how much is coming as a long-term allocation driven by Zcash’s fundamentals, and how much is merely transaction-driven demand in the initial listing phase? The coming weeks will act like a “reality check.” After removing related-party contributions, can third-party net weekly inflows be sustained, and will the fund continue issuing new shares? If the answer is yes, the scarcity logic behind the lock-up will reinforce itself. If it’s only a listing-time surge, then the current market value corresponding to the price is basically a sentiment premium, and the high volatility of $ZEC will repeatedly educate would-be buyers who chase price.
The market action itself isn’t hard to interpret. What’s difficult is telling which part is demand and which part is liquidity. If you understand the structure, you won’t be easily led by the headline.
#Grayscale Zcash ETF Assets Surpass $500 Million
56
·
--
On the afternoon of September 9, BTC surged in the short term and reclaimed the $79,000 level—just a few hours earlier, it had briefly fallen below $78,000. At nearly the same time, spot gold rose above $4,400, Brent crude surged toward the $100 mark, and WTI climbed above $94, while U.S. stocks the previous night closed lower across the board. With gold, oil, and crypto all rising while equities faced pressure, this combination itself is signaling that asset prices are being repriced: the market’s focus has shifted from “growth” to “inflation and geopolitics.”
Let’s break down how the selloff happened first. After dipping below $78,000 at $BTC , the backdrop was that a spike in oil prices lifted inflation expectations. Markets’ bets on the Fed to hike in September rose to around 60%, and risk-off sentiment began to spill over into all risk assets. But on the data front, over the past 24 hours about $246 million in crypto derivatives were liquidated, mostly involving long positions being stopped out—more like leverage getting cleared than a large-scale capitulation by spot buyers. That helps explain why the recovery of the $79,000 level came so quickly and so cleanly.
Now consider the impact on sector structure. Once $BTC regained stability, overall risk appetite was repaired. But altcoins didn’t revert to a “everything rises together, everything falls together” pattern: capital started concentrating in assets with their own independent narratives. Under ETF catalysts, the privacy segment carved out its own trading momentum. The broad-market rally logic has made way for the question of “who can deliver incremental storylines.” The quality of this repair will depend on whether second-tier assets can follow.
Cross-asset dynamics are even more worth watching. Gold, oil, and Bitcoin rising together suggests that some capital is treating $BTC as a hedge for a stagflation-like environment—its role in a portfolio is increasingly starting to resemble a macro asset rather than purely a risk asset. That’s a longer-term variable than the specific level of $79,000.
Next, watch two key nodes: whether it can reclaim $80,000 with volume, bringing the recent highs near $82,000 back within reach; and September 11’s U.S. CPI, followed by the Fed’s rate decision. Oil has already pushed inflation expectations higher, and if the data again comes in above expectations, the $79,000 support will likely be tested repeatedly. The position itself has never been the main point—the pricing logic is. The near-term wheel of $BTC has already been handed to the macro agenda.
#Bitcoin breaks above $79,000
On the afternoon of September 9, BTC surged in the short term and reclaimed the $79,000 level—just a few hours earlier, it had briefly fallen below $78,000. At nearly the same time, spot gold rose above $4,400, Brent crude surged toward the $100 mark, and WTI climbed above $94, while U.S. stocks the previous night closed lower across the board. With gold, oil, and crypto all rising while equities faced pressure, this combination itself is signaling that asset prices are being repriced: the market’s focus has shifted from “growth” to “inflation and geopolitics.”
Let’s break down how the selloff happened first. After dipping below $78,000 at $BTC , the backdrop was that a spike in oil prices lifted inflation expectations. Markets’ bets on the Fed to hike in September rose to around 60%, and risk-off sentiment began to spill over into all risk assets. But on the data front, over the past 24 hours about $246 million in crypto derivatives were liquidated, mostly involving long positions being stopped out—more like leverage getting cleared than a large-scale capitulation by spot buyers. That helps explain why the recovery of the $79,000 level came so quickly and so cleanly.
Now consider the impact on sector structure. Once $BTC regained stability, overall risk appetite was repaired. But altcoins didn’t revert to a “everything rises together, everything falls together” pattern: capital started concentrating in assets with their own independent narratives. Under ETF catalysts, the privacy segment carved out its own trading momentum. The broad-market rally logic has made way for the question of “who can deliver incremental storylines.” The quality of this repair will depend on whether second-tier assets can follow.
Cross-asset dynamics are even more worth watching. Gold, oil, and Bitcoin rising together suggests that some capital is treating $BTC as a hedge for a stagflation-like environment—its role in a portfolio is increasingly starting to resemble a macro asset rather than purely a risk asset. That’s a longer-term variable than the specific level of $79,000.
Next, watch two key nodes: whether it can reclaim $80,000 with volume, bringing the recent highs near $82,000 back within reach; and September 11’s U.S. CPI, followed by the Fed’s rate decision. Oil has already pushed inflation expectations higher, and if the data again comes in above expectations, the $79,000 support will likely be tested repeatedly. The position itself has never been the main point—the pricing logic is. The near-term wheel of $BTC has already been handed to the macro agenda.
#Bitcoin breaks above $79,000
Let’s break down how the selloff happened first. After dipping below $78,000 at $BTC , the backdrop was that a spike in oil prices lifted inflation expectations. Markets’ bets on the Fed to hike in September rose to around 60%, and risk-off sentiment began to spill over into all risk assets. But on the data front, over the past 24 hours about $246 million in crypto derivatives were liquidated, mostly involving long positions being stopped out—more like leverage getting cleared than a large-scale capitulation by spot buyers. That helps explain why the recovery of the $79,000 level came so quickly and so cleanly.
Now consider the impact on sector structure. Once $BTC regained stability, overall risk appetite was repaired. But altcoins didn’t revert to a “everything rises together, everything falls together” pattern: capital started concentrating in assets with their own independent narratives. Under ETF catalysts, the privacy segment carved out its own trading momentum. The broad-market rally logic has made way for the question of “who can deliver incremental storylines.” The quality of this repair will depend on whether second-tier assets can follow.
Cross-asset dynamics are even more worth watching. Gold, oil, and Bitcoin rising together suggests that some capital is treating $BTC as a hedge for a stagflation-like environment—its role in a portfolio is increasingly starting to resemble a macro asset rather than purely a risk asset. That’s a longer-term variable than the specific level of $79,000.
Next, watch two key nodes: whether it can reclaim $80,000 with volume, bringing the recent highs near $82,000 back within reach; and September 11’s U.S. CPI, followed by the Fed’s rate decision. Oil has already pushed inflation expectations higher, and if the data again comes in above expectations, the $79,000 support will likely be tested repeatedly. The position itself has never been the main point—the pricing logic is. The near-term wheel of $BTC has already been handed to the macro agenda.
#Bitcoin breaks above $79,000
113
·
--
Oil prices move in sync with crypto amid turmoil, with the trigger point still the Strait of Hormuz. After the U.S. attacked an Iranian oil tanker, Brent crude rose to $97.2 and WTI to $92.56, both hitting six-week highs; Iran’s parliament vowed retaliation and plans to set up a restricted zone outside the strait. Shipping volumes have already reflected panic: for bulk commodity ships, the number transiting on the most recent Saturday was only 5, versus more than 130 per day before the war; over the past 10 days, the average has been about 10 ships per day, the lowest since May. Goldman Sachs warned that if the attack expands to more vessels, Brent could head toward $120. Risk assets were hit: $BTC 24 hours fell 1.7% to about $83,000; $ETH fell 1.24%; liquidations across the whole market totaled about $127 million, with longs accounting for 82%. In the moment of risk aversion, “digital gold” temporarily underperformed physical gold. #IranWillSetUpRestrictedZoneInStraitOfHormuz
Oil prices move in sync with crypto amid turmoil, with the trigger point still the Strait of Hormuz. After the U.S. attacked an Iranian oil tanker, Brent crude rose to $97.2 and WTI to $92.56, both hitting six-week highs; Iran’s parliament vowed retaliation and plans to set up a restricted zone outside the strait. Shipping volumes have already reflected panic: for bulk commodity ships, the number transiting on the most recent Saturday was only 5, versus more than 130 per day before the war; over the past 10 days, the average has been about 10 ships per day, the lowest since May. Goldman Sachs warned that if the attack expands to more vessels, Brent could head toward $120. Risk assets were hit: $BTC 24 hours fell 1.7% to about $83,000; $ETH fell 1.24%; liquidations across the whole market totaled about $127 million, with longs accounting for 82%. In the moment of risk aversion, “digital gold” temporarily underperformed physical gold. #IranWillSetUpRestrictedZoneInStraitOfHormuz
289
·
--
September has long been one of the weakest months for the U.S. stock market, and this year’s volatility makes stock picking even harder. Based on an institutional screen rooted in momentum investing’s "buy high and sell even higher" logic, only 19 stocks were selected out of 7,743. Dell is a representative example: it has a momentum score of A, with an average positive earnings surprise of 29% over the past four quarters, and an expected year-ahead earnings growth rate of as much as 146%. The criteria behind this screen are straightforward: it looks for stocks trading above the 50-day moving average, with positive relative strength, and with earnings growth continuing to be delivered—rather than trying to predict when falling stocks will turn around. The selected list also includes China’s property transaction platforms and consumer stocks, but Dell is singled out because AI demand is being steadily converted into a string of earnings results that beat expectations. For ordinary investors, such lists are more like a window into market sentiment than a buy signal to copy. The premise for momentum strategies to make money is trend continuation—whether $DELLB can continue to strengthen will still depend on whether AI server orders can keep translating into profits.
September has long been one of the weakest months for the U.S. stock market, and this year’s volatility makes stock picking even harder. Based on an institutional screen rooted in momentum investing’s "buy high and sell even higher" logic, only 19 stocks were selected out of 7,743. Dell is a representative example: it has a momentum score of A, with an average positive earnings surprise of 29% over the past four quarters, and an expected year-ahead earnings growth rate of as much as 146%. The criteria behind this screen are straightforward: it looks for stocks trading above the 50-day moving average, with positive relative strength, and with earnings growth continuing to be delivered—rather than trying to predict when falling stocks will turn around. The selected list also includes China’s property transaction platforms and consumer stocks, but Dell is singled out because AI demand is being steadily converted into a string of earnings results that beat expectations. For ordinary investors, such lists are more like a window into market sentiment than a buy signal to copy. The premise for momentum strategies to make money is trend continuation—whether $DELLB can continue to strengthen will still depend on whether AI server orders can keep translating into profits.
4
·
--
Starting from the summer high, Nokia $NOKB has retraced by about 42%. Almost all of the rally sparked by AI partnerships and an unexpectedly strong Q2 earnings report has been unwound. The most intriguing part is the timeline: when the media revealed plans to exit the Chinese market, the stock price had already begun falling, and the withdrawal news seemed more like a narrative talking point handed to the shorts. The market is truly worried about two things: first, dilution from the follow-on offering that accompanied the big rise; second, the new story—AI-RAN and optical networking—still remains at the stage of cooperation and orders, with profits yet to be realized. Exiting China may cut a portion of revenue, but it also sheds geopolitical and compliance burdens; in the long run, it may not be a bad thing. The 42% pullback has pushed valuation expectations back to square one. After sentiment stabilizes, what will determine the stock price is the pace at which AI-RAN orders get delivered. If orders are fulfilled in batches, today’s price is the odds; if they remain only a concept, the rebound will lack a foundation—that’s where the disagreement lies.
Starting from the summer high, Nokia $NOKB has retraced by about 42%. Almost all of the rally sparked by AI partnerships and an unexpectedly strong Q2 earnings report has been unwound. The most intriguing part is the timeline: when the media revealed plans to exit the Chinese market, the stock price had already begun falling, and the withdrawal news seemed more like a narrative talking point handed to the shorts. The market is truly worried about two things: first, dilution from the follow-on offering that accompanied the big rise; second, the new story—AI-RAN and optical networking—still remains at the stage of cooperation and orders, with profits yet to be realized. Exiting China may cut a portion of revenue, but it also sheds geopolitical and compliance burdens; in the long run, it may not be a bad thing. The 42% pullback has pushed valuation expectations back to square one. After sentiment stabilizes, what will determine the stock price is the pace at which AI-RAN orders get delivered. If orders are fulfilled in batches, today’s price is the odds; if they remain only a concept, the rebound will lack a foundation—that’s where the disagreement lies.
21
·
--
The same yen shock—and this time $BTC didn’t break. In August 2024, a sudden yen surge triggered the unwinding of carry trades, and BTC’s maximum drawdown briefly approached 20%. This week, USD/JPY fell from 160.39 to 154.50 over three trading days; the yen appreciated by about 3.7%, yet BTC held above $79,000, hovering near levels close to the highs since May. Why the difference? In August, Japan used nearly $100 billion to prop up the yen, foreign exchange reserves fell by about $94.6 billion in a month to roughly $995 billion. The funding mainly came from selling U.S. Treasuries, and stronger external resistance to further large-scale intervention makes it harder. At the same time, the market has already priced in a cumulative about 75 basis points of rate hikes from the Bank of Japan through April next year; an additional 25 basis points next week to bring rates to 1.25% is not exactly a surprise. This looks more like a replay of a known risk than a sudden raid in 2024. The real test hasn’t arrived yet: if the yen continues to strengthen and the carry trade unwinds accelerate, can $BTC withstand a second shock?
The same yen shock—and this time $BTC didn’t break. In August 2024, a sudden yen surge triggered the unwinding of carry trades, and BTC’s maximum drawdown briefly approached 20%. This week, USD/JPY fell from 160.39 to 154.50 over three trading days; the yen appreciated by about 3.7%, yet BTC held above $79,000, hovering near levels close to the highs since May. Why the difference? In August, Japan used nearly $100 billion to prop up the yen, foreign exchange reserves fell by about $94.6 billion in a month to roughly $995 billion. The funding mainly came from selling U.S. Treasuries, and stronger external resistance to further large-scale intervention makes it harder. At the same time, the market has already priced in a cumulative about 75 basis points of rate hikes from the Bank of Japan through April next year; an additional 25 basis points next week to bring rates to 1.25% is not exactly a surprise. This looks more like a replay of a known risk than a sudden raid in 2024. The real test hasn’t arrived yet: if the yen continues to strengthen and the carry trade unwinds accelerate, can $BTC withstand a second shock?
74
·
--
The so-called “three-day ceasefire” between Russia and Ukraine from September 5 to 7 has already expired. In the early hours of the 8th, Russian forces resumed missile and drone strikes on Kyiv. The “quality” of this ceasefire is far more complicated than the four words “simultaneously announced.”
First, the facts: To support U.S. special envoy Witkoff’s and Kushner’s shuttle diplomacy, Putin ordered on the 5th that, from midnight, Russia would not carry out airstrikes on Kyiv within the following three days. Zelensky, in turn, announced that Ukraine would stop striking Moscow until the 7th. The scope was limited to “not attacking each other’s capitals.” Fighting on the front lines and in other regions never stopped—at its core, this was a diplomatic arrangement, not a true ceasefire. The Kremlin said talks with the U.S. side would be “very beneficial,” and it did not rule out the resumption of trilateral negotiations among Russia, the U.S., and Ukraine. Zelensky said the U.S., Ukraine, and the EU would hold a new round of trilateral talks soon, though the location had not been decided.
The market’s bull-bear disagreement over this theme boils down to one question: how to price the ceasefire. The bullish camp argues that: Since the conflict has dragged on, this is the first time the U.S. has pushed for the restart of negotiations in the form of special envoys personally shuttling between the two countries, bringing the framework for trilateral talks back into view. If “capital ceasefire” can be expanded into mutual non-attack on energy and civilian facilities, European natural gas and geopolitical risk premia could both fall, which would be a marginal positive for risk assets. The bearish camp, however, warns that once the three-day deadline ends, missiles arrive in Kyiv on schedule—suggesting this is more about giving diplomats a safe window than a softening of positions. Both sides’ bottom lines on territory and security guarantees have not changed, and the probability of repeating the “ceasefire while fighting continues” pattern is not low. Trading “peace” with a three-day window is a dangerous thing.
The real variable is whether the ceasefire can be extended, whether its scope can expand from the capitals to energy facilities, and whether trilateral talks among Ukraine, the U.S., and the EU can actually be implemented. Until those signals appear, “fighting while negotiating” remains the baseline scenario, and war risk premia for safe-haven assets will not disappear due to a single ceasefire headline. #Russia-Ukraine Simultaneously Announce Ceasefire for 3 Days
The so-called “three-day ceasefire” between Russia and Ukraine from September 5 to 7 has already expired. In the early hours of the 8th, Russian forces resumed missile and drone strikes on Kyiv. The “quality” of this ceasefire is far more complicated than the four words “simultaneously announced.”
First, the facts: To support U.S. special envoy Witkoff’s and Kushner’s shuttle diplomacy, Putin ordered on the 5th that, from midnight, Russia would not carry out airstrikes on Kyiv within the following three days. Zelensky, in turn, announced that Ukraine would stop striking Moscow until the 7th. The scope was limited to “not attacking each other’s capitals.” Fighting on the front lines and in other regions never stopped—at its core, this was a diplomatic arrangement, not a true ceasefire. The Kremlin said talks with the U.S. side would be “very beneficial,” and it did not rule out the resumption of trilateral negotiations among Russia, the U.S., and Ukraine. Zelensky said the U.S., Ukraine, and the EU would hold a new round of trilateral talks soon, though the location had not been decided.
The market’s bull-bear disagreement over this theme boils down to one question: how to price the ceasefire. The bullish camp argues that: Since the conflict has dragged on, this is the first time the U.S. has pushed for the restart of negotiations in the form of special envoys personally shuttling between the two countries, bringing the framework for trilateral talks back into view. If “capital ceasefire” can be expanded into mutual non-attack on energy and civilian facilities, European natural gas and geopolitical risk premia could both fall, which would be a marginal positive for risk assets. The bearish camp, however, warns that once the three-day deadline ends, missiles arrive in Kyiv on schedule—suggesting this is more about giving diplomats a safe window than a softening of positions. Both sides’ bottom lines on territory and security guarantees have not changed, and the probability of repeating the “ceasefire while fighting continues” pattern is not low. Trading “peace” with a three-day window is a dangerous thing.
The real variable is whether the ceasefire can be extended, whether its scope can expand from the capitals to energy facilities, and whether trilateral talks among Ukraine, the U.S., and the EU can actually be implemented. Until those signals appear, “fighting while negotiating” remains the baseline scenario, and war risk premia for safe-haven assets will not disappear due to a single ceasefire headline. #Russia-Ukraine Simultaneously Announce Ceasefire for 3 Days
First, the facts: To support U.S. special envoy Witkoff’s and Kushner’s shuttle diplomacy, Putin ordered on the 5th that, from midnight, Russia would not carry out airstrikes on Kyiv within the following three days. Zelensky, in turn, announced that Ukraine would stop striking Moscow until the 7th. The scope was limited to “not attacking each other’s capitals.” Fighting on the front lines and in other regions never stopped—at its core, this was a diplomatic arrangement, not a true ceasefire. The Kremlin said talks with the U.S. side would be “very beneficial,” and it did not rule out the resumption of trilateral negotiations among Russia, the U.S., and Ukraine. Zelensky said the U.S., Ukraine, and the EU would hold a new round of trilateral talks soon, though the location had not been decided.
The market’s bull-bear disagreement over this theme boils down to one question: how to price the ceasefire. The bullish camp argues that: Since the conflict has dragged on, this is the first time the U.S. has pushed for the restart of negotiations in the form of special envoys personally shuttling between the two countries, bringing the framework for trilateral talks back into view. If “capital ceasefire” can be expanded into mutual non-attack on energy and civilian facilities, European natural gas and geopolitical risk premia could both fall, which would be a marginal positive for risk assets. The bearish camp, however, warns that once the three-day deadline ends, missiles arrive in Kyiv on schedule—suggesting this is more about giving diplomats a safe window than a softening of positions. Both sides’ bottom lines on territory and security guarantees have not changed, and the probability of repeating the “ceasefire while fighting continues” pattern is not low. Trading “peace” with a three-day window is a dangerous thing.
The real variable is whether the ceasefire can be extended, whether its scope can expand from the capitals to energy facilities, and whether trilateral talks among Ukraine, the U.S., and the EU can actually be implemented. Until those signals appear, “fighting while negotiating” remains the baseline scenario, and war risk premia for safe-haven assets will not disappear due to a single ceasefire headline. #Russia-Ukraine Simultaneously Announce Ceasefire for 3 Days
2
·
--
The day before the earnings report, the EU first raised a “yellow card.” On September 10 in the U.S. Eastern time, $ORCLB will release its earnings report after the close. The European Commission is collecting information and assessing whether its cloud software licensing terms effectively lock customers into its own cloud. At this stage, it is only “information gathering” and no case has been filed yet, but in July the EU reached a binding settlement with SAP over similar concerns. With a precedent set, regulatory risk cannot be ignored. On the other side, Wall Street remains broadly bullish: 44 analysts in consensus rate the stock a Buy, with an average target price of $242.69—about 43% above the current price of around $169. AI cloud orders—remaining performance obligations of $638 billion, up 363% year over year—support the story. The price is that the free cash flow in the prior fiscal year was about -$23.7 billion, and the company still needs to raise roughly $40 billion in the new fiscal year. Growth versus regulation—watch for clarity on September 10.
The day before the earnings report, the EU first raised a “yellow card.” On September 10 in the U.S. Eastern time, $ORCLB will release its earnings report after the close. The European Commission is collecting information and assessing whether its cloud software licensing terms effectively lock customers into its own cloud. At this stage, it is only “information gathering” and no case has been filed yet, but in July the EU reached a binding settlement with SAP over similar concerns. With a precedent set, regulatory risk cannot be ignored. On the other side, Wall Street remains broadly bullish: 44 analysts in consensus rate the stock a Buy, with an average target price of $242.69—about 43% above the current price of around $169. AI cloud orders—remaining performance obligations of $638 billion, up 363% year over year—support the story. The price is that the free cash flow in the prior fiscal year was about -$23.7 billion, and the company still needs to raise roughly $40 billion in the new fiscal year. Growth versus regulation—watch for clarity on September 10.
23
·
--
NVIDIA’s chips have been banned for over three years, yet they remain the most sought-after products in the Chinese market. On the counters of Shenzhen’s Huaqiangbei, the H100 is priced openly at about 200,000 yuan per card—far above the official price. Even though U.S. export controls have long placed it on a blacklist, demand through gray channels still numbers in the hundreds of thousands of units, and China’s large manufacturers have been quietly stockpiling. Ironically, NVIDIA itself has already iterated forward through several generations. Jensen Huang has repeatedly and publicly criticized export controls as “failures,” saying that China’s data centers represent an opportunity worth hundreds of billions of dollars. Now, this market is being rapidly taken up by domestically made chips such as Huawei Ascend. As a result, an industry spectacle has emerged: the strongest AI chips in the largest AI market can only rely on smuggling and gray-market distribution, and the controls—ironically—have become the best catalyst for domestic substitution. For $NVDAB’s long positions, even if the earnings report looks even brighter, China is still the missing piece in the growth story. Who do you think export controls are actually protecting?
NVIDIA’s chips have been banned for over three years, yet they remain the most sought-after products in the Chinese market. On the counters of Shenzhen’s Huaqiangbei, the H100 is priced openly at about 200,000 yuan per card—far above the official price. Even though U.S. export controls have long placed it on a blacklist, demand through gray channels still numbers in the hundreds of thousands of units, and China’s large manufacturers have been quietly stockpiling. Ironically, NVIDIA itself has already iterated forward through several generations. Jensen Huang has repeatedly and publicly criticized export controls as “failures,” saying that China’s data centers represent an opportunity worth hundreds of billions of dollars. Now, this market is being rapidly taken up by domestically made chips such as Huawei Ascend. As a result, an industry spectacle has emerged: the strongest AI chips in the largest AI market can only rely on smuggling and gray-market distribution, and the controls—ironically—have become the best catalyst for domestic substitution. For $NVDAB ’s long positions, even if the earnings report looks even brighter, China is still the missing piece in the growth story. Who do you think export controls are actually protecting?
27
·
--
The conflict between Iran and the U.S. around the Strait of Hormuz is shifting from “warship vs. warship” to “tanker vs. tanker,” and the market has already started pricing in the worst-case scenario.
In the firefights between September 5 and 6, the U.S. said it destroyed three Iranian oil tankers, while Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said it struck three oil tankers linked to the United States. Afterwards, Iran’s top national security council secretary, Rezaei, announced the establishment of a “no-go zone” extending from the U.S. blockade line to the loading ports in the Persian Gulf. Vessels that enter without coordination with Iran will be listed for sanctions and face insurance invalidation. For oil shipping, this is a qualitative change: in the past, only ships entering or leaving the strait were intercepted; going forward, even ships moored inside port could become targets.
The market reaction is textbook risk pricing. On September 8, Brent crude was about $97, hovering at a three-month high and nearing the $100 threshold. Last week’s gain was nearly 10%. The insurance market is even more extreme: the war-risk premium for a single transit through the strait has risen from roughly 0.25% before the conflict to 7.5%-12.5% of the vessel’s hull value, and some underwriters have simply refused coverage. On the capacity side, in roughly the past 10 days, only about 10 merchant ships have transited the strait on average—its lowest level since May. Meanwhile, Iraq’s Basra exports have recovered from 1.35 million barrels per day in July to 2.35 million bpd in August, but they remain below pre-war levels.
For crypto investors, the transmission chain must be made clear: higher oil prices push up inflation expectations. The probability of the Fed raising rates in September remains around 57%. A stronger dollar and higher U.S. Treasury yields then suppress risk assets such as $BTC. In other words, geopolitical risk doesn’t benefit crypto through “safe-haven capital inflows”; instead, it turns bearish through the interest-rate path.
Next, watch three things: whether Iran’s “no-go zone” is just a signal or effectively enforced; whether the U.S. expands strikes against Iran’s shadow fleet; and whether both sides still have diplomatic exit ramps—U.S. Energy Secretary has hinted that the nuclear deal may have to wait for Iran’s next government, which essentially amounts to admitting there is no near-term solution. It’s not impossible for oil prices to stand above $100, but the harder indicator than statements is the combination of reduced strait transit volumes and higher war-risk insurance premiums. #US airstrike on Iranian oil tankers restricts the Strait of Hormuz in Tehran
The conflict between Iran and the U.S. around the Strait of Hormuz is shifting from “warship vs. warship” to “tanker vs. tanker,” and the market has already started pricing in the worst-case scenario.
In the firefights between September 5 and 6, the U.S. said it destroyed three Iranian oil tankers, while Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said it struck three oil tankers linked to the United States. Afterwards, Iran’s top national security council secretary, Rezaei, announced the establishment of a “no-go zone” extending from the U.S. blockade line to the loading ports in the Persian Gulf. Vessels that enter without coordination with Iran will be listed for sanctions and face insurance invalidation. For oil shipping, this is a qualitative change: in the past, only ships entering or leaving the strait were intercepted; going forward, even ships moored inside port could become targets.
The market reaction is textbook risk pricing. On September 8, Brent crude was about $97, hovering at a three-month high and nearing the $100 threshold. Last week’s gain was nearly 10%. The insurance market is even more extreme: the war-risk premium for a single transit through the strait has risen from roughly 0.25% before the conflict to 7.5%-12.5% of the vessel’s hull value, and some underwriters have simply refused coverage. On the capacity side, in roughly the past 10 days, only about 10 merchant ships have transited the strait on average—its lowest level since May. Meanwhile, Iraq’s Basra exports have recovered from 1.35 million barrels per day in July to 2.35 million bpd in August, but they remain below pre-war levels.
For crypto investors, the transmission chain must be made clear: higher oil prices push up inflation expectations. The probability of the Fed raising rates in September remains around 57%. A stronger dollar and higher U.S. Treasury yields then suppress risk assets such as $BTC . In other words, geopolitical risk doesn’t benefit crypto through “safe-haven capital inflows”; instead, it turns bearish through the interest-rate path.
Next, watch three things: whether Iran’s “no-go zone” is just a signal or effectively enforced; whether the U.S. expands strikes against Iran’s shadow fleet; and whether both sides still have diplomatic exit ramps—U.S. Energy Secretary has hinted that the nuclear deal may have to wait for Iran’s next government, which essentially amounts to admitting there is no near-term solution. It’s not impossible for oil prices to stand above $100, but the harder indicator than statements is the combination of reduced strait transit volumes and higher war-risk insurance premiums. #US airstrike on Iranian oil tankers restricts the Strait of Hormuz in Tehran
In the firefights between September 5 and 6, the U.S. said it destroyed three Iranian oil tankers, while Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said it struck three oil tankers linked to the United States. Afterwards, Iran’s top national security council secretary, Rezaei, announced the establishment of a “no-go zone” extending from the U.S. blockade line to the loading ports in the Persian Gulf. Vessels that enter without coordination with Iran will be listed for sanctions and face insurance invalidation. For oil shipping, this is a qualitative change: in the past, only ships entering or leaving the strait were intercepted; going forward, even ships moored inside port could become targets.
The market reaction is textbook risk pricing. On September 8, Brent crude was about $97, hovering at a three-month high and nearing the $100 threshold. Last week’s gain was nearly 10%. The insurance market is even more extreme: the war-risk premium for a single transit through the strait has risen from roughly 0.25% before the conflict to 7.5%-12.5% of the vessel’s hull value, and some underwriters have simply refused coverage. On the capacity side, in roughly the past 10 days, only about 10 merchant ships have transited the strait on average—its lowest level since May. Meanwhile, Iraq’s Basra exports have recovered from 1.35 million barrels per day in July to 2.35 million bpd in August, but they remain below pre-war levels.
For crypto investors, the transmission chain must be made clear: higher oil prices push up inflation expectations. The probability of the Fed raising rates in September remains around 57%. A stronger dollar and higher U.S. Treasury yields then suppress risk assets such as $BTC . In other words, geopolitical risk doesn’t benefit crypto through “safe-haven capital inflows”; instead, it turns bearish through the interest-rate path.
Next, watch three things: whether Iran’s “no-go zone” is just a signal or effectively enforced; whether the U.S. expands strikes against Iran’s shadow fleet; and whether both sides still have diplomatic exit ramps—U.S. Energy Secretary has hinted that the nuclear deal may have to wait for Iran’s next government, which essentially amounts to admitting there is no near-term solution. It’s not impossible for oil prices to stand above $100, but the harder indicator than statements is the combination of reduced strait transit volumes and higher war-risk insurance premiums. #US airstrike on Iranian oil tankers restricts the Strait of Hormuz in Tehran
138
·
--
An inactive privacy track, reignited as $ZEC returned to the trading table. On the evening of September 6, ZEC broke through $1,200, pushing its market cap above $20 billion and surpassing Dogecoin to return to the top ten by market value; if calculated from the roughly $16 low in 2024, the cumulative gain exceeds 6,000%.
The trigger was the opening of regulated channels: Grayscale converted the Zcash trust it had operated for about nine years into the U.S.’s first ZEC spot ETF (code: ZCSH), which began trading on the NYSE Arca on August 25, with a management fee of 2.5%. As of September 4, the product’s net assets were about $460 million. An asset marketed as “anonymous” finally gained a regulated, institutional-facing exposure—this is the pricing-logic shift across the entire privacy narrative: the old belief that “privacy coins equal a regulatory no-go zone” is starting to loosen.
There are two amplifiers in the market as well: first, short liquidations. On September 4, the day ZEC broke above $1,000, about $34.5 million in short positions were liquidated; the more it rose, the steeper the push became. Second, supply contraction: ZEC held in the shielded pool rose to about 4.85 million coins, the highest since June, and the amount of tradable circulating supply is shrinking.
However, translating a “ZEC rally” into an “opportunity in the privacy sector” should be done cautiously. The fund flows into ZCSH are a ZEC-specific catalyst; other privacy assets do not have institutional channels at the same level. Sentiment spillover doesn’t automatically mean fundamentals spillover. ZEC futures open interest has reached a record of about $2.4 billion; if leveraged longs ease, a squeeze-driven rally can reverse just as quickly. Regulatory “mainstreaming” also still has boundaries: Japan’s compliant exchanges have delisted ZEC since 2018 under the banner of anonymity, and it has not been restored to date—showing that “privacy and compliance are compatible” still requires negotiation across jurisdictions.
Strictly speaking, above $1,200 is a new high in nearly a decade, and the initial peak of about $3,191 around the time of its listing in October 2016 has not yet been retested. Rather than chasing the price, it’s better to treat it as a barometer: whether ETF inflows can stay consistent, whether the proportion in the shielded pool can continue to rise, and whether—when it pulls back—the leveraged positions will become an accelerant for further declines. #ZEC continues to refresh historical highs
An inactive privacy track, reignited as $ZEC returned to the trading table. On the evening of September 6, ZEC broke through $1,200, pushing its market cap above $20 billion and surpassing Dogecoin to return to the top ten by market value; if calculated from the roughly $16 low in 2024, the cumulative gain exceeds 6,000%.
The trigger was the opening of regulated channels: Grayscale converted the Zcash trust it had operated for about nine years into the U.S.’s first ZEC spot ETF (code: ZCSH), which began trading on the NYSE Arca on August 25, with a management fee of 2.5%. As of September 4, the product’s net assets were about $460 million. An asset marketed as “anonymous” finally gained a regulated, institutional-facing exposure—this is the pricing-logic shift across the entire privacy narrative: the old belief that “privacy coins equal a regulatory no-go zone” is starting to loosen.
There are two amplifiers in the market as well: first, short liquidations. On September 4, the day ZEC broke above $1,000, about $34.5 million in short positions were liquidated; the more it rose, the steeper the push became. Second, supply contraction: ZEC held in the shielded pool rose to about 4.85 million coins, the highest since June, and the amount of tradable circulating supply is shrinking.
However, translating a “ZEC rally” into an “opportunity in the privacy sector” should be done cautiously. The fund flows into ZCSH are a ZEC-specific catalyst; other privacy assets do not have institutional channels at the same level. Sentiment spillover doesn’t automatically mean fundamentals spillover. ZEC futures open interest has reached a record of about $2.4 billion; if leveraged longs ease, a squeeze-driven rally can reverse just as quickly. Regulatory “mainstreaming” also still has boundaries: Japan’s compliant exchanges have delisted ZEC since 2018 under the banner of anonymity, and it has not been restored to date—showing that “privacy and compliance are compatible” still requires negotiation across jurisdictions.
Strictly speaking, above $1,200 is a new high in nearly a decade, and the initial peak of about $3,191 around the time of its listing in October 2016 has not yet been retested. Rather than chasing the price, it’s better to treat it as a barometer: whether ETF inflows can stay consistent, whether the proportion in the shielded pool can continue to rise, and whether—when it pulls back—the leveraged positions will become an accelerant for further declines. #ZEC continues to refresh historical highs
The trigger was the opening of regulated channels: Grayscale converted the Zcash trust it had operated for about nine years into the U.S.’s first ZEC spot ETF (code: ZCSH), which began trading on the NYSE Arca on August 25, with a management fee of 2.5%. As of September 4, the product’s net assets were about $460 million. An asset marketed as “anonymous” finally gained a regulated, institutional-facing exposure—this is the pricing-logic shift across the entire privacy narrative: the old belief that “privacy coins equal a regulatory no-go zone” is starting to loosen.
There are two amplifiers in the market as well: first, short liquidations. On September 4, the day ZEC broke above $1,000, about $34.5 million in short positions were liquidated; the more it rose, the steeper the push became. Second, supply contraction: ZEC held in the shielded pool rose to about 4.85 million coins, the highest since June, and the amount of tradable circulating supply is shrinking.
However, translating a “ZEC rally” into an “opportunity in the privacy sector” should be done cautiously. The fund flows into ZCSH are a ZEC-specific catalyst; other privacy assets do not have institutional channels at the same level. Sentiment spillover doesn’t automatically mean fundamentals spillover. ZEC futures open interest has reached a record of about $2.4 billion; if leveraged longs ease, a squeeze-driven rally can reverse just as quickly. Regulatory “mainstreaming” also still has boundaries: Japan’s compliant exchanges have delisted ZEC since 2018 under the banner of anonymity, and it has not been restored to date—showing that “privacy and compliance are compatible” still requires negotiation across jurisdictions.
Strictly speaking, above $1,200 is a new high in nearly a decade, and the initial peak of about $3,191 around the time of its listing in October 2016 has not yet been retested. Rather than chasing the price, it’s better to treat it as a barometer: whether ETF inflows can stay consistent, whether the proportion in the shielded pool can continue to rise, and whether—when it pulls back—the leveraged positions will become an accelerant for further declines. #ZEC continues to refresh historical highs
219
·
--
An $80,000 barrier has turned into a tug-of-war battlefield for both bulls and bears over the past few days. From the sharp plunge after the August 28 Jackson Hole conference, trader number $BTC managed to regain and stand back above 80,000 in early September, then fell again to around 79.3k on September 8—within two weeks, the market effectively played out a full round of a “false breakout” script.
First, let’s look at the cause. Fed Chair Powell turned hawkish at his Jackson Hole debut: PCE year-over-year came in at 3.7%, six-month annualized at 4.1%. Inflation is still far from the 2% target. He said bluntly that “there’s still work to be done,” and indicated he will base decisions on data rather than provide forward guidance to the market. Interest-rate futures’ pricing for a September rate hike once pushed close to a 60% probability; as of September 8 it was still around 57%. Bitcoin promptly dropped to about $78,000.
What held the price up was institutional buying. In August, U.S. spot ETF net inflows were about $3.5 billion, the largest monthly inflow since July 2025; on September 3 alone, another $731 million flowed in—highest since January 3—pushing the price back above $80,000. But we need to see the nature of these inflows clearly: a significant portion is basis arbitrage between futures and spot. When institutions buy ETFs while shorting futures, the one-way upward push on price is limited. Meanwhile, the $80,000 to $83,000 range is roughly the average cost zone estimated for ETF holders by institutions, so profit-taking and breakeven sell pressure can appear at any time. The two forces offset each other, so a breakout isn’t solid.
That’s why the early-September spike couldn’t hold. The Iran–Israel tanker war pushed Brent crude toward $100, reigniting inflation and rate-hike expectations. On September 8, Bitcoin retreated to around $79.3k. Over the prior 24 hours, the entire market liquidated positions totaling $179 million; more than 70% were long positions.
Next, what really needs watching isn’t the exact price level, but the nature of the capital: the inflation data before the policy meeting, and whether ETF inflows can shift from “arbitrage” to “directional buy orders.” $80,000 is the overlap of the cost line and the psychological line. To stand firm above it requires one-way capital to keep entering, rather than repeated expectation-driven back-and-forth. Until then, it’s more realistic to treat it as the midpoint of a trading range than to focus on it as the start of a breakout. #BTC触及80000美元
An $80,000 barrier has turned into a tug-of-war battlefield for both bulls and bears over the past few days. From the sharp plunge after the August 28 Jackson Hole conference, trader number $BTC managed to regain and stand back above 80,000 in early September, then fell again to around 79.3k on September 8—within two weeks, the market effectively played out a full round of a “false breakout” script.
First, let’s look at the cause. Fed Chair Powell turned hawkish at his Jackson Hole debut: PCE year-over-year came in at 3.7%, six-month annualized at 4.1%. Inflation is still far from the 2% target. He said bluntly that “there’s still work to be done,” and indicated he will base decisions on data rather than provide forward guidance to the market. Interest-rate futures’ pricing for a September rate hike once pushed close to a 60% probability; as of September 8 it was still around 57%. Bitcoin promptly dropped to about $78,000.
What held the price up was institutional buying. In August, U.S. spot ETF net inflows were about $3.5 billion, the largest monthly inflow since July 2025; on September 3 alone, another $731 million flowed in—highest since January 3—pushing the price back above $80,000. But we need to see the nature of these inflows clearly: a significant portion is basis arbitrage between futures and spot. When institutions buy ETFs while shorting futures, the one-way upward push on price is limited. Meanwhile, the $80,000 to $83,000 range is roughly the average cost zone estimated for ETF holders by institutions, so profit-taking and breakeven sell pressure can appear at any time. The two forces offset each other, so a breakout isn’t solid.
That’s why the early-September spike couldn’t hold. The Iran–Israel tanker war pushed Brent crude toward $100, reigniting inflation and rate-hike expectations. On September 8, Bitcoin retreated to around $79.3k. Over the prior 24 hours, the entire market liquidated positions totaling $179 million; more than 70% were long positions.
Next, what really needs watching isn’t the exact price level, but the nature of the capital: the inflation data before the policy meeting, and whether ETF inflows can shift from “arbitrage” to “directional buy orders.” $80,000 is the overlap of the cost line and the psychological line. To stand firm above it requires one-way capital to keep entering, rather than repeated expectation-driven back-and-forth. Until then, it’s more realistic to treat it as the midpoint of a trading range than to focus on it as the start of a breakout. #BTC触及80000美元
First, let’s look at the cause. Fed Chair Powell turned hawkish at his Jackson Hole debut: PCE year-over-year came in at 3.7%, six-month annualized at 4.1%. Inflation is still far from the 2% target. He said bluntly that “there’s still work to be done,” and indicated he will base decisions on data rather than provide forward guidance to the market. Interest-rate futures’ pricing for a September rate hike once pushed close to a 60% probability; as of September 8 it was still around 57%. Bitcoin promptly dropped to about $78,000.
What held the price up was institutional buying. In August, U.S. spot ETF net inflows were about $3.5 billion, the largest monthly inflow since July 2025; on September 3 alone, another $731 million flowed in—highest since January 3—pushing the price back above $80,000. But we need to see the nature of these inflows clearly: a significant portion is basis arbitrage between futures and spot. When institutions buy ETFs while shorting futures, the one-way upward push on price is limited. Meanwhile, the $80,000 to $83,000 range is roughly the average cost zone estimated for ETF holders by institutions, so profit-taking and breakeven sell pressure can appear at any time. The two forces offset each other, so a breakout isn’t solid.
That’s why the early-September spike couldn’t hold. The Iran–Israel tanker war pushed Brent crude toward $100, reigniting inflation and rate-hike expectations. On September 8, Bitcoin retreated to around $79.3k. Over the prior 24 hours, the entire market liquidated positions totaling $179 million; more than 70% were long positions.
Next, what really needs watching isn’t the exact price level, but the nature of the capital: the inflation data before the policy meeting, and whether ETF inflows can shift from “arbitrage” to “directional buy orders.” $80,000 is the overlap of the cost line and the psychological line. To stand firm above it requires one-way capital to keep entering, rather than repeated expectation-driven back-and-forth. Until then, it’s more realistic to treat it as the midpoint of a trading range than to focus on it as the start of a breakout. #BTC触及80000美元
76
·
--
The “yen shock” that hit the crypto market into a deep trough two years ago—this time, it seems that $BTC has held up. The USD to JPY rate has fallen from 160.39 to 154.50, with the yen appreciating by about 3.7% over three trading days. The key is that this time there was no confirmation from the Bank of Japan of entering the fray, while in August Japan spent nearly $100 billion in intervention—yet it still couldn’t push the USD to JPY rate below 154. The sharp yen rally in August 2024 triggered the unwinding of carry trades; Bitcoin at one point fell by about 20%. This time, $BTC has held above $79,000 and is near the highest level since May, and the market sees it as a stress test. The cost shows up in foreign reserves: Japan’s foreign reserves fell by $94.6 billion to $995.0 billion in August; foreign securities shrank by $87.8 billion. This has been interpreted as selling U.S. Treasuries to fund intervention. Analysts worry that continued selling of Treasuries would draw pressure from the U.S. Markets have already priced in cumulative rate hikes by the Bank of Japan of about 75 basis points by next April. If the yen were to surge again, can $BTC hold up once more?
The “yen shock” that hit the crypto market into a deep trough two years ago—this time, it seems that $BTC has held up. The USD to JPY rate has fallen from 160.39 to 154.50, with the yen appreciating by about 3.7% over three trading days. The key is that this time there was no confirmation from the Bank of Japan of entering the fray, while in August Japan spent nearly $100 billion in intervention—yet it still couldn’t push the USD to JPY rate below 154. The sharp yen rally in August 2024 triggered the unwinding of carry trades; Bitcoin at one point fell by about 20%. This time, $BTC has held above $79,000 and is near the highest level since May, and the market sees it as a stress test. The cost shows up in foreign reserves: Japan’s foreign reserves fell by $94.6 billion to $995.0 billion in August; foreign securities shrank by $87.8 billion. This has been interpreted as selling U.S. Treasuries to fund intervention. Analysts worry that continued selling of Treasuries would draw pressure from the U.S. Markets have already priced in cumulative rate hikes by the Bank of Japan of about 75 basis points by next April. If the yen were to surge again, can $BTC hold up once more?
38
·
--
$ETH stuck in a $2,500 tug-of-war: after a strong breakout from the $1,850–$1,920 range in August, the market didn’t push through in one go. Instead, it repeatedly surged and then pulled back within the $2,440–$2,520 resistance zone, with upper and lower wicks alternating; both bulls and bears are waiting for the other side to make the first move.
On the daily chart, only if volume increases and price holds above $2,520–$2,560 will it count as buyers regaining control and opening up new space; otherwise, a break below $2,390–$2,440 would damage the current structure. Deeper support is likely around $2,080–$2,150—what used to be the resistance zone before the breakout has now become the medium-term line of defense.
More honest than the candlesticks are on-chain data: Ethereum spot average order size shows that when prices rose in August, the active large “whale” buy orders are gone. In recent days, as price nears $2,500, the remaining orders are mostly of ordinary size, and retail investors haven’t rushed in either. This rally is missing its biggest buyer.
A breakout without whale participation won’t go far, and a sell-off without whale selling won’t fall deeply. The answer to this stalemate is hidden in the $2,500–$2,560 area.
$ETH stuck in a $2,500 tug-of-war: after a strong breakout from the $1,850–$1,920 range in August, the market didn’t push through in one go. Instead, it repeatedly surged and then pulled back within the $2,440–$2,520 resistance zone, with upper and lower wicks alternating; both bulls and bears are waiting for the other side to make the first move.
On the daily chart, only if volume increases and price holds above $2,520–$2,560 will it count as buyers regaining control and opening up new space; otherwise, a break below $2,390–$2,440 would damage the current structure. Deeper support is likely around $2,080–$2,150—what used to be the resistance zone before the breakout has now become the medium-term line of defense.
More honest than the candlesticks are on-chain data: Ethereum spot average order size shows that when prices rose in August, the active large “whale” buy orders are gone. In recent days, as price nears $2,500, the remaining orders are mostly of ordinary size, and retail investors haven’t rushed in either. This rally is missing its biggest buyer.
A breakout without whale participation won’t go far, and a sell-off without whale selling won’t fall deeply. The answer to this stalemate is hidden in the $2,500–$2,560 area.
On the daily chart, only if volume increases and price holds above $2,520–$2,560 will it count as buyers regaining control and opening up new space; otherwise, a break below $2,390–$2,440 would damage the current structure. Deeper support is likely around $2,080–$2,150—what used to be the resistance zone before the breakout has now become the medium-term line of defense.
More honest than the candlesticks are on-chain data: Ethereum spot average order size shows that when prices rose in August, the active large “whale” buy orders are gone. In recent days, as price nears $2,500, the remaining orders are mostly of ordinary size, and retail investors haven’t rushed in either. This rally is missing its biggest buyer.
A breakout without whale participation won’t go far, and a sell-off without whale selling won’t fall deeply. The answer to this stalemate is hidden in the $2,500–$2,560 area.
52
·
--
A fact that makes Bitcoin bulls feel awkward: 2014, 2018, and 2022 were all years when M2 hit new highs, yet in $BTC those times BTC still kept dropping. Why did the narrative of 'printing money to boost Bitcoin' fail?
Cowen’s explanation is: everyone is watching the wrong indicators. He tracks 'global net liquidity'—the sum of major central banks’ balance sheets’ assets, minus the money in the Federal Reserve’s reverse repo tools and the Treasury’s general account. It’s currently about $2.5 trillion, down from the $3.0 trillion peak in 2021–22 by $0.5 trillion. Without that gap, the 'flood' of liquidity never truly reached the ground under Bitcoin.
Tech giants in AI have kept U.S. stocks propped up at high levels, and central banks have had no pressure to expand their balance sheets—this is the reason Bitcoin has lagged behind U.S. equities. Cowen also draws a comparison with 2019: M2 rose as usual and the stock market kept setting new highs, but Bitcoin still drifted lower all the way, only turning around when the pandemic forced central banks to genuinely expand their balance sheets. He believes that in the next cycle, Bitcoin will outperform only after the trigger condition of central banks resuming balance-sheet expansion.
Should you watch M2 or watch net liquidity? That determines when you should get off for the next leg.
A fact that makes Bitcoin bulls feel awkward: 2014, 2018, and 2022 were all years when M2 hit new highs, yet in $BTC those times BTC still kept dropping. Why did the narrative of 'printing money to boost Bitcoin' fail?
Cowen’s explanation is: everyone is watching the wrong indicators. He tracks 'global net liquidity'—the sum of major central banks’ balance sheets’ assets, minus the money in the Federal Reserve’s reverse repo tools and the Treasury’s general account. It’s currently about $2.5 trillion, down from the $3.0 trillion peak in 2021–22 by $0.5 trillion. Without that gap, the 'flood' of liquidity never truly reached the ground under Bitcoin.
Tech giants in AI have kept U.S. stocks propped up at high levels, and central banks have had no pressure to expand their balance sheets—this is the reason Bitcoin has lagged behind U.S. equities. Cowen also draws a comparison with 2019: M2 rose as usual and the stock market kept setting new highs, but Bitcoin still drifted lower all the way, only turning around when the pandemic forced central banks to genuinely expand their balance sheets. He believes that in the next cycle, Bitcoin will outperform only after the trigger condition of central banks resuming balance-sheet expansion.
Should you watch M2 or watch net liquidity? That determines when you should get off for the next leg.
Cowen’s explanation is: everyone is watching the wrong indicators. He tracks 'global net liquidity'—the sum of major central banks’ balance sheets’ assets, minus the money in the Federal Reserve’s reverse repo tools and the Treasury’s general account. It’s currently about $2.5 trillion, down from the $3.0 trillion peak in 2021–22 by $0.5 trillion. Without that gap, the 'flood' of liquidity never truly reached the ground under Bitcoin.
Tech giants in AI have kept U.S. stocks propped up at high levels, and central banks have had no pressure to expand their balance sheets—this is the reason Bitcoin has lagged behind U.S. equities. Cowen also draws a comparison with 2019: M2 rose as usual and the stock market kept setting new highs, but Bitcoin still drifted lower all the way, only turning around when the pandemic forced central banks to genuinely expand their balance sheets. He believes that in the next cycle, Bitcoin will outperform only after the trigger condition of central banks resuming balance-sheet expansion.
Should you watch M2 or watch net liquidity? That determines when you should get off for the next leg.
65
·
--
Bitcoin is testing $82,000; this time, it’s backed by the real money of institutions. On September 3, U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs saw a single-day net inflow of $730.9 million—its largest record since January 14. Of this, BlackRock’s IBIT alone attracted about $454 million. In August, total monthly inflows reached $3.5 billion, the best since September last year. Over the past three weeks, cumulative inflows were approximately $3.8 billion. $BTC With that, BTC has returned above $79,000; it’s up about 2.6% on the week. Now it’s stuck at the $82,000 key resistance—will the market move from “testing” to “breaking out”? Traders are watching the four-hour candle close. The backdrop is that comments from Federal Reserve Governor Waller, seen as dovish, are viewed as supportive for risk assets, but the price is still trading below $82,000, suggesting this leg of the rally is driven mainly by ETF buying rather than leveraged retail demand. Institutions are accumulating, and price action is grinding. Which side do you believe? #BitcoinETFPostsLargestSingle-DayInflowSinceJanuary
Bitcoin is testing $82,000; this time, it’s backed by the real money of institutions. On September 3, U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs saw a single-day net inflow of $730.9 million—its largest record since January 14. Of this, BlackRock’s IBIT alone attracted about $454 million. In August, total monthly inflows reached $3.5 billion, the best since September last year. Over the past three weeks, cumulative inflows were approximately $3.8 billion. $BTC With that, BTC has returned above $79,000; it’s up about 2.6% on the week. Now it’s stuck at the $82,000 key resistance—will the market move from “testing” to “breaking out”? Traders are watching the four-hour candle close. The backdrop is that comments from Federal Reserve Governor Waller, seen as dovish, are viewed as supportive for risk assets, but the price is still trading below $82,000, suggesting this leg of the rally is driven mainly by ETF buying rather than leveraged retail demand. Institutions are accumulating, and price action is grinding. Which side do you believe? #BitcoinETFPostsLargestSingle-DayInflowSinceJanuary
1
·
--
The next battlefield in the PC market is students. Dell’s newly released Dell 14S is clearly aiming at the education market: a 13.5 mm aluminum-alloy chassis, 1.15 kg weight, up to about 21 hours of battery life, and a display option of either a 2K 60Hz or a 2.8K 120Hz panel—launching in North America in the fall. Why make a move now? Because $AAPLB ’s MacBook Neo is laying siege: Apple’s Mac revenue rose 29% year over year in the most recent quarter to $10.4 billion, and the number of newly purchased Mac users hit a record high. In large procurement orders from U.S. educational institutions, about half is shifting from the Windows and Chromebook camp. Dell also has confidence: for the latest quarter, consumer-side revenue grew 7% year over year to $1.8 billion—marking the fourth consecutive quarter of growth—and it even provided guidance that the consumer business will grow by about 15% next quarter. $DELLB wants to hold the entry-level market with value for money, while $AAPLB wants to expand its gains while the momentum is on. With the same budget, who will students choose?
The next battlefield in the PC market is students. Dell’s newly released Dell 14S is clearly aiming at the education market: a 13.5 mm aluminum-alloy chassis, 1.15 kg weight, up to about 21 hours of battery life, and a display option of either a 2K 60Hz or a 2.8K 120Hz panel—launching in North America in the fall. Why make a move now? Because $AAPLB ’s MacBook Neo is laying siege: Apple’s Mac revenue rose 29% year over year in the most recent quarter to $10.4 billion, and the number of newly purchased Mac users hit a record high. In large procurement orders from U.S. educational institutions, about half is shifting from the Windows and Chromebook camp. Dell also has confidence: for the latest quarter, consumer-side revenue grew 7% year over year to $1.8 billion—marking the fourth consecutive quarter of growth—and it even provided guidance that the consumer business will grow by about 15% next quarter. $DELLB wants to hold the entry-level market with value for money, while $AAPLB wants to expand its gains while the momentum is on. With the same budget, who will students choose?
40
Log in to explore more content
Join global crypto users on Binance Square
⚡️ Get latest and useful information about crypto.
💬 Trusted by the world’s largest crypto exchange.
👍 Discover real insights from verified creators.
Email / Phone number
Trending Topics
AppleDebutsFoldablePhone
25,756 views
566 Discussing
Apple just dropped the foldable iPhone — and the market is paying attention. This isn't just another product cycle; it's a new product category, a new CEO on stage, and a $1,999 price tag that pushes $AAPL further into ultra-premium territory. Foldables are the narrative, and Apple is now the headline.
#appledebutsfoldablephone #EUExtendsCentralContactPointToCASPs #US10YTreasuryYieldHitsHighestSinceNov2023 #BrentCrudeTops$100 #USTreasuryToBuyBackUpTo$6BLongDatedDebt
KimHotbae
·2 Likes
·2.7k views
TSMCAugustRevenueUp53.3%YoY
315 views
66 Discussing
IranSaysReadyToEscalateWarWithUS
3,148 views
122 Discussing