海盗鸭

A 7.7-magnitude earthquake struck the nearshore waters of East Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia, on August 14, with a focal depth of only 10 kilometers. It was followed by a tsunami. According to local agencies’ records, tsunami waves were observed along multiple coastal areas. In the vicinity of Reoek in Mangalai District, the maximum height was about 1.61 meters, while in Manguin Bahao it was around 30 centimeters. The Indonesian National Disaster Management Agency reported that at least 47 people were killed and more than 50 were injured. Most of the fatalities occurred when victims were hit in their sleep by collapsed buildings.

There is one detail worth highlighting on its own: the Indonesian Agency for Meteorology, Climatology and Geophysics issued a tsunami warning 2 minutes and 16 seconds after the quake and ordered evacuations. More than 2,000 people were evacuated to higher ground overnight, and the warning was lifted that same morning. For a shallow, 10-kilometer-deep earthquake, the time available to people is measured in minutes. This time, the system ran ahead of the waves.

But the true cause of death is written in the other half: collapsed houses. The earthquake itself does not kill—only substandard buildings do. This saying is repeated after every disaster, and it must be repeated every time.

Aftershocks are still ongoing, and local authorities expect them to continue for several more weeks. Wishing the injured a speedy recovery, and that those still trapped under the rubble will be found.

#IndonesiaEarthquakeAndTsunami

Discuss Russia’s restrictions on retail cryptocurrency trading. The easiest mistake is to understand “restrictions” as a button: once you press it, trading disappears forever. In reality, regulation is typically formed by a combination of market access, customer categorization, risk disclosures, product scope, anti-money-laundering reviews, and enforcement capacity. The rules determine who is covered, when they take effect, and who bears responsibility for violations—far more than any single news headline.

Ordinary users first need to clarify three things. First, holding, transferring, mining, payments, and derivatives trading may not legally be the same type of activity; you cannot infer all rights and obligations from one message. Second, when regulatory boundaries change, the most vulnerable points are fiat on/off-ramp services, identity verification, and tax records—not the on-chain addresses themselves. Third, when cross-border services, sanctions compliance, and source-of-funds checks overlap, “whether you can still do it” is not the same as “whether there is no compliance risk after you do it.”

A more rational preparation is not rushing to chase the final deadline, but instead preserving transaction records, checking which rules apply in your location, avoiding exposing living expenses to highly volatile assets, and carefully distinguishing between genuine updates and phishing information disguised as a “policy window.” To observe what comes next, you should look at the definitions, transitional arrangements, and investor classifications in formal regulations or regulatory documents—not just restatements. The more detailed the policy, the better the market can price it; the broader the wording, the higher the uncertainty in enforcement. What do you think should be clarified most urgently: the investor eligibility threshold, or the asset custody responsibility? #Russia’s central bank limits retail crypto trading from September

“Regulatory news like ‘From September, restrictions will be imposed on retail investors’ cryptocurrency trading’ first requires ordinary users to clarify who is being restricted, what stage is involved, and what products are affected. Terms in regulatory documents such as ‘qualified investors,’ ‘risk testing,’ ‘leverage restrictions,’ and ‘suitability obligations’ lead to completely different consequences: some affect account opening and marketing, some affect single-transaction limits, and some apply only to high-risk derivative products. Translating them generically as ‘trading is prohibited’ is prone to misjudgment and can also amplify emotions.

From a policy-logic perspective, regulators typically strike a balance among three things: anti–money laundering and traceable sources of funds, consumer protection, and market innovation. The focus is never just whether assets exist, but whether the platform can identify customers, whether it discloses risks, whether it segregates customer assets, and whether it can handle complaints and abnormal situations. For retail investors, the direct cost of tighter rules is often longer processes and a narrower range of tradable options; the potential benefit is that risk disclosures and the boundaries of responsibility become clearer.

The most practical preparation is not to rush ahead, but to verify the official effective date, the scope of applicability, and any transitional arrangements; keep records of trades, taxes, and the sources of assets; and reassess how much volatility and liquidity risk you can withstand. After the policy is implemented, it’s also important to see whether the implementation rules treat ‘holding’ and ‘trading’ differently. In your view, between increased transparency and entry costs, what counts as reasonable? Especially, you should avoid misreading rules aimed at locally regulated entities as the same kind of restrictions applying to all technologies or assets. #Russian Central Bank limits retail crypto trading starting in September

The young people who are returning to their hometowns to build houses have already gotten as far as competing over blueprints and comparing designs.

What did rural self-built houses used to look like? The foreman would say something like, “Just follow the house next door,” and that was the design finalized—three-story buildings, tiled facades, and interiors that were cold in winter and hot in summer.

Now, this group goes back with experience they’ve gained from renting in the city: they want floor-to-ceiling windows, en-suite bathrooms, new heating systems with fresh-air ventilation, and a yard where they can park a car—and they also want their parents’ room on the first floor.

Behind all of this is a very clear calculation. With the same amount of money, in the provincial capital you can only put down a down payment, then take out a 30-year loan to live in a 70-square-meter place. But in their hometown, you can build a two- to three-hundred-square-meter home and live comfortably without owing a bank—so you can actually sleep at night. People don’t lie to themselves about spending. This shift in money flow shows that for some people, the city narrative of “you only truly win once you get on the property ladder” no longer holds.

But the cost must be made clear: houses on homestead land generally can’t be freely bought or sold, and liquidity is nearly zero. It’s a place to live, not an asset. Once your child goes to school or you switch to a job in the city, that money gets locked in place.

If you have some money right now—are you going to build in your hometown, or put a down payment in the city?

#Young people return to the village to build their own homes

A young boy went missing for 4 days and was found again. His father set up 200 tables of banquet food to thank the neighbors who helped search.

The comments section has already split into two camps. One side says it’s too exaggerated—how much would 200 tables cost? The money should be donated to rescue teams instead. The other side says you haven’t been a parent. When your child is lost for those four days, this father spends every hour imagining the worst possible outcome. The moment the child is found again, he’s willing to lay out everything he has.

I lean toward the latter. But it’s not because I’m moved.
In the village, finding a child isn’t about paying people to do the job. It’s about the whole village dropping their own work, rushing up mountains and along rivers to shout out help. This kind of favor can’t be bought with money—it’s real value exchanged. If you don’t repay it afterward, who will act next time?
200 tables in the city is showy. In the village, it’s more like settling an account—using a meal that anyone can attend to publicly repay the debt owed for help.

If I really have to be picky, I’ll only point out one thing: to what extent is grand enough to be appropriate? That’s something he and his fellow villagers understand between them. Outsiders can’t quite figure it out.

If it were you, on the day your child was found again, how would you thank them? Would you hold a banquet, give gifts house by house, or just donate money to the search-and-rescue team?

#MissingBoyFoundAndReturned

The market is watching the U.S. July CPI and PPI—not just to wait for a headline of “good or bad news.” The two reports sit at different points along the inflation chain: CPI records the prices consumers ultimately pay, while PPI is closer to producer-side factory and input prices. The former affects households’ real purchasing power, whereas the latter is often used to gauge whether costs will continue to pass through to the end consumer. A synchronized decline in both is what more convincingly signals that inflation pressure is easing across the chain; if PPI rises first while CPI stays temporarily steady, then whether companies can absorb costs and whether the pass-through will be delayed becomes the next set of questions.

When interpreting the data, don’t focus only on year-over-year figures. YoY numbers are easily influenced by last year’s base effects, while month-over-month changes and core components better show the momentum in the current month. The trends for housing, services, and goods can also differ entirely. PPI similarly needs to separate final demand from more volatile subcomponents; a single month’s jump is not enough to directly draw policy conclusions.

What truly affects risk assets is how the market reprices the interest-rate path, real yields, and the U.S. dollar after the data is released—not the decimal points themselves. If inflation cools and employment doesn’t show obvious signs of slowing, the market will discuss room for easing; if service prices remain sticky, valuation-sensitive assets will face longer-lasting high rates. On the data day, what matters most is the sustained reaction in bond yields, not a price spike in the first few minutes after the opening. Which CPI component do you care about most: housing, services, or goods? #U.S. July CPI and PPI data released this week

On August 15, the 81st anniversary of Japan’s defeat, top officials of the Liberal Democratic Party were reported to have collectively visited Yasukuni Shrine for worship.

Why do reactions to this matter in China and South Korea always draw such strong responses? It’s worth making clear once again. The controversy has never been about the act of “mourning the dead” itself—any country will honor its own deceased. The issue is that Yasukuni Shrine enshrines, together with others, Class-A war criminals as identified by the Tokyo Trials. As a result, the visit is not a private act of commemoration, but a public declaration of historical stance—answering the question of how that war should be characterized.

More importantly, it’s about identity. If ordinary people go, it’s an individual action; but when senior figures of a ruling party go collectively, it carries political weight. In effect, it tells the outside world which direction this country’s official historical view is leaning toward now. Neighboring countries read precisely this kind of signal—not whether flowers were offered.

The postwar order in East Asia was originally built on a shared understanding of the nature of that war. This foundation has been probed again and again, so the vigilance of neighboring countries won’t ease.

On historical issues, do you think the standard for apology and reflection should be “saying it counts,” or “consistency between words and actions counts”?

#Yasukuni Shrine visits

“Wangwang’s biggest competitor is sugar.” After this sentence surged to the hot search, netizens began collectively urging Wangwang to cut sugar.

What’s interesting is that this isn’t an insult saying it tastes bad—it’s complaining that it’s unhealthy. That means people still want to buy; they just can’t bring themselves to reach for it. Take a look at the ingredient list: the position of white sugar is often near the front. And for people in their twenties and thirties today, the first move when choosing a drink has become checking those three characters: 0 sugar, 0 fat, 0 calories. The same can of stuff used to be called childhood ten years ago; now it’s called calories.

But can cutting sugar really save it? I’m skeptical. The reason people buy Wangzai milk is that sweet taste plus that familiar face. Change the sweetness, and long-time users will say “it tastes different” with the first sip. As for health-conscious shoppers, they never planned to linger in that aisle anyway. The hardest part for an old brand has never been changing the formula—it’s figuring out who will still recognize you after you do.

The more practical approach would probably be to add a sugar-free version and offer smaller package sizes, so that “the sugar issue” becomes a choice consumers make for themselves, rather than decisions made on behalf of everyone.

So I’ll ask sincerely: if tomorrow there were a sugar-free version of Wangzai milk, would you buy it—or would you only miss that original-taste can?

#WangwangCutsSugar

August 17 marks the 100th anniversary of Comrade Jiang Zemin’s birth, and a commemorative meeting will be held.

He was born in 1926 in Yangzhou, Jiangsu. He served as General Secretary of the CPC Central Committee from 1989 to 2002, and as President of the People’s Republic of China from 1993 to 2003. For many people, this period is what they remember as the 1990s: the return of Hong Kong in 1997, the return of Macao in 1999, with the Asian financial crisis in 1998 weathered without letting the currency depreciate, and China joining the WTO in 2001.

Joining the WTO largely determined what China’s economy in the following two decades would look like—exports, foreign investment, the world’s factory model, and population movement from coastal cities, all starting from behind that open door. Of course, in the same period, state-owned enterprise reforms and the layoffs that came with them also took place; the cost was borne by specific families, and it’s not something that can be brushed off as mere “painful adjustment.”

Leave historical judgments to time. What I’m more curious about is private memory: when it comes to the 1990s, what image pops into your head first? For me, it’s color televisions, video halls, and the phrase “go to Guangdong to work.”

#100th anniversary of Jiang Zemin’s birth

Yu Donglai went to a small restaurant to eat and spent 380. He insisted on paying 600.

This comment section is arguing again. Some people say it’s staged; the extra 220 isn’t doing anything besides adding to his persona. Others say it’s his own money and he can spend it however he wants—why do you get to police even the extra?

I think both sides missed the point. The significance of this isn’t in those 220 yuan. It’s in the fact that it conveys a very counterintuitive business view: prices shouldn’t be pushed to the absolute limit. Over the past decade, retail has mostly done the opposite—squeezing suppliers until they have no profit, cutting labor down to the point where there’s no slack, and driving prices to the level where nobody can make money. In the end, the whole chain becomes thinner together. The extra payment he made is, in essence, setting an example for the idea that “the goods are worth this price.”

Of course, demonstration is one thing; running a business is another. A boss can do this only because his company has already figured out the gross margin and labor costs. He’s learned the move, not just the math—other people can’t imitate it.

Let’s ask a practical question: if a customer eats for 380 and insists on giving you 600, do you accept it, or do you chase them out and put the money back into their hands?

#于东来

Starting in September, the Bank of Russia will restrict retail investors’ cryptocurrency trading. The core issue is not merely “whether you can buy,” but rather which part of the process regulators isolate risk. One key detail that ordinary users often overlook is that the rules typically affect multiple areas at once—product eligibility, suitability assessments, leverage, and information disclosure—rather than simply setting a one-time trading limit. In other words, a longer compliance path does not automatically mean that assets or on-chain activity disappear; it changes who can access which types of risk through which regulated channels.

So what users should do first is not chase the trading window before the rules take effect, but to separate the four categories of risks they face: the legal status of what they hold, compliance requirements for moving funds in and out, whether the product includes leverage, and tax and record-keeping obligations. If these are all lumped together as “market risk,” execution often comes with higher costs. For long-term holders, the traceability of addresses and transaction records, as well as the security of self-custody of assets, are equally important.

At the market level, it’s also crucial to watch how the fine print defines “retail investors,” “qualified investors,” and the scope of allowed products. Enforcement standards, banking-side supporting measures, and cross-border fund rules will determine that the real impact is far greater than just a policy headline. Restrictions may not directly indicate how strong demand is, but they will reshape where liquidity flows and the participation threshold. The rule effective date does not mean all supporting issues land simultaneously, and users should not act based solely on social media summaries. When facing regulatory changes, which official fine print will you verify first? #Bank_of_Russia_restricts_retail_crypto_trading_from_September

In the WTT Sweden Grand Slam arena, the Chinese national table tennis team suffered 6 defeats in “foreign” matches within a single day. The men’s doubles and women’s doubles events already have no remaining pairs on the draw; the mixed doubles is still ongoing. The harshness of doubles lies in the fact that it is never automatically formed just because two singles aces stand together: serve-receive patterns, the timing between phases, and the chemistry in crucial points—all have to pass high-pressure tests. One loss shouldn’t be magnified into a conclusion, but it also serves as a reminder that even strong teams fear treating their advantage as mere inertia. A true post-match review should come down to the choices made in every point, not just slapping on a “giant upset” label. Do you think doubles pairs should keep a fixed partnership, or continue with flexible combinations? #ChinaDoubles

In Dong’s view, the first batch of 30 formerly incarcerated people that Pinduduo hired—none of them have left even to this day.

This managed to trend because it touched on two things at once: first, “Can people like this really be employed?” and second, “Why does Pinduduo dare to hire them?”

I’m more concerned about the second one. Daring to hire doesn’t equal having a big heart. Pinduduo has been doing retail in Xuchang, Henan for 30 years. What they rely on is their core principle: ensure employees don’t lack money, don’t have to harden themselves through grueling hours, and still have dignity—high wages, long vacations, and when something goes wrong, they check the system first rather than blame individuals. Put a just-released person into this kind of system, and the truth is they’re exactly the one who’s least likely to act recklessly. The income they bring in is very hard to replace elsewhere; losing it would be unbearably costly.

So what’s truly hard to replicate isn’t the action of “hiring formerly incarcerated people,” but the待遇 behind it—the kind that makes people both reluctant to leave and unable to afford to leave. A lot of bosses watched the trending post and said they wanted to learn, but once they calculated labor costs, they quietly closed the page.

Let me ask you from a different angle: if tomorrow your company announced it was hiring employees who had completed criminal sentences, would your first reaction be to admire the boss—or to first check whether they’ll sit next to you?

#PinduduoHiredFormerlyIncarceratedEmployees

South Korea expands the VASP registration review to include major shareholders. What’s worth paying attention to is not merely an additional table, but the regulator’s perspective shifting from “whether the platform has systems” to “who actually controls the platform.” VASP refers to a virtual asset service provider. In the past, the review focused only on the company-level anti–money laundering processes, information security, and the qualifications of the responsible person—but a key question may still have remained: if the actual controlling party faces major compliance or financial risks, who will live up to the company governance commitments? Bringing major shareholders into the review is precisely intended to close that gap in identifying underlying control.

Its impact will be felt in three areas. First, the time and cost of equity changes and financing will increase. Investors will no longer look only at valuation; they will also need to assess whether they themselves can pass ongoing reviews. Second, arrangements in which nominal ownership does not match actual control will be harder to conceal, and governance structures will become part of compliance. Third, smaller service providers will bear higher fixed compliance costs. The market may not shrink immediately, but operating entities may become more concentrated.

However, stricter review does not automatically mean users’ assets are safer. What truly needs to be tracked is whether the review standards are made public, how ongoing obligations after changes in shareholders are enforced, and whether, when risks materialize, the customer asset segregation and compensation arrangements are clear. The value of regulation is not in the four words “registration approved,” but in making the responsibility chain verifiable. Do you think penetrating to major shareholders most improves anti–money laundering and governance, or user protection? #SouthKoreaVASPregistrationreviewextendedtomajorshareholders

SpaceX shares are up nearly 12% intraday—this kind of strong volatility most easily turns the conversation into a binary choice: “should you chase it or not?” A more useful way to break it down is to ask first what price is actually trading on. If the rally comes from a verifiable new piece of information, the market will typically reprice future revenue, launch capability, satellite-network expansion, or even financing valuations. But if it’s mainly a concentrated buy driven by thin liquidity, then the same percentage gain has very little explanatory power for the fundamentals. Magnitude is an outcome, not a cause.

The bulls see the scale effects of commercial space: frequent launches, reusable capability, and satellite operations—if these form synergies—could improve both unit costs and network coverage. The bears’ disagreement is equally clear: capital expenditures, regulatory approvals, project execution, and how quickly long-term cash flows materialize can all cause the forward-looking story to get disconnected from current valuation. The focus of the debate on both sides isn’t whether the technology exists, but when—and with what probability—the value will translate into financial results.

For ordinary observers, a 12% intraday move by itself shouldn’t be the conclusion. First confirm the underlying being traded and the quote source, then check whether the trades are continuous and whether subsequent information can validate the move; only then should you assess your ability to tolerate risk. Especially when volatility is amplified, using position sizing to manage exposure is often more important than trying to guess the top or bottom. If the price lacks continuous quotes, the reference value of the percentage gain drops significantly. What evidence would you use to decide whether this rally is a fundamental repricing—or a push from short-term capital? #SpaceX盘中涨近12%

“Pledged routing errors close to shutdown” is easiest to be misinterpreted as a consensus identified as $SOL no longer being valid. The two are not the same. Pledged routing is responsible for sending delegated equity or related instructions to the correct validators and on-chain workflows; once path configuration, service interfaces, or execution logic are wrong, users may see delegation failures, status delays, or validator-side operational anomalies. But whether the network is actually shutting down still depends on whether validators can continue propagating blocks, reaching consensus, and processing transactions.

The danger of such events is that they often occur in the “middle layer” of infrastructure: the frontend appears normal, and the underlying consensus is still running; the real problem is the path that delivers user actions to the chain. If large volumes of delegations pass through the same routing pattern or service, the error can be amplified into liquidity, reward settlement, and confidence issues— even if the chain has not immediately stopped producing blocks.

Going forward, you should look at three things: whether the developers publish a clear root cause and the scope of the fix; whether the affected pledges or delegations can be safely verified; and whether there are independent validators and multi-path solutions to reduce single points of failure. You should also check the on-chain status of block production, voting, and transaction confirmations, and distinguish between service-layer failures and protocol-layer failures. Transparency in post-incident review of historical events is equally important. Treat “close to shutdown” as a risk warning if you want, but equating it directly with the network already being down will lead to misjudgment. Are you more concerned about failures at the consensus layer, or about excessive concentration at the pledge entry point? #SolanaPledgeErrorsCloseToShutdown

$ETH staking ratio rises to 34.4%—this record, on the surface, is “more tokens locked up,” but in essence it’s a rebalancing among Ethereum’s security, yield, and liquidity. A proof-of-stake network needs a sufficient number of validators staking assets to increase the cost of wrongdoing; for holders, staking rewards provide a source of returns different from simply holding tokens. With these two demands overlapping, total staked value keeps climbing.

But 34.4% shouldn’t be simplistically translated as “the circulating supply shrinks, so prices must rise.” Staked assets don’t permanently disappear—there are exit mechanisms. More importantly, many staking derivatives can continue to serve as collateral on-chain. In other words, the “locked” amount on the books and the liquidity that is actually available to the market are not the same. The more staking concentrates among a small number of service providers or liquidity tokens, the more the network’s decentralization and correlated risk deserve scrutiny.

Next there are three observation points: whether new staking is still growing faster than exits, whether validator distribution has become further concentrated, and whether the leverage of staking derivatives in on-chain lending is heating up. The first two determine the network’s structure for security and liquidity; the last one determines whether, when pressure hits, cascading liquidations will occur. The record itself is a signal of the network’s attractiveness, but it isn’t a guarantee of a one-way market trend. Changes in yields should also be monitored alongside the amount of newly staked value. When you see a high staking rate, do you treat it as supply tightening—or do you look first at concentration? #ETH staking ratio hits 34.4% record

Xuchang Pangdonglai Lifestyle Plaza’s store closes every Tuesday. A nearby vendor who has been selling at a street stall for more than 20 years said that he and many other vendors on the same street will also choose not to set up on that day. This line is more vivid than the words “customer traffic”: the appeal of one store ultimately becomes the everyday business of nearby restaurants, street stalls, and even taxi drivers. Good commerce is not only about keeping people inside a shop—it can also make the whole neighborhood be seen together. It also shows that word of mouth is never just a slogan; it is many people’s real income, and it can even affect the “temperature” of a city. Does your city have a place like this that can bring life to an entire street? #Pangdonglai

“Routing errors nearing shutdown” is worth discussing not because any single point of failure equals a chain going down, but because it reveals dependency relationships in the staking system that are often overlooked. Delegated staking requires passing information among validators, delegators, staking pools, the wallet interface, and underlying instructions; so-called “routing” may affect which component a transaction is sent to, which parameters are used, or which processing path it follows. If a configuration mistake is magnified in one place, it can cause request congestion, operational failures, and even lead users to misjudge their asset status.

To assess the severity of an incident, first divide it into three levels: whether consensus is still producing blocks normally, whether funds are still controllable by their owners, and whether the issue affects only a specific frontend, service provider, or particular operation. These three should not be conflated. On-chain “appearing unavailable” is sometimes due to load at the application layer or the RPC layer, while the consensus layer is still operating; conversely, if there’s a consistency issue affecting validator clients or critical infrastructure, the risk level rises sharply.

For $SOL holders, the more practical action is to check the official status page and independent on-chain explorers, so you don’t repeatedly submit transactions during network anomalies or leak your seed phrase to “fixers.” For stakers, you should verify whether the delegation status and the unlock and withdrawal flows are affected. Developers also need to examine, from incident postmortems, whether test coverage, gradual (canary) releases, and fault isolation are sufficient. Going forward, don’t just focus on time-to-recovery; also check whether the root cause is disclosed, whether the fix was audited, and whether mechanisms exist to prevent similar configuration issues from spreading again. In an incident that brushes the boundary, the most valuable output should be clearer resilience improvements.$SOL #Solana staking due to routing errors nearing shutdown

The market often treats CPI and PPI as two separate “inflation tests,” but what is truly worth reading is the transmission chain between them. CPI measures the price of a basket of goods and services purchased by households, while PPI is closer to companies’ factory-gate prices and input costs. The former is influenced more by factors such as rent, services, and the consumption mix; the latter is also buffered by commodities, supply chains, and corporate profit margins. Therefore, a decline in PPI does not automatically guarantee that CPI will fall in sync—and the reverse is also true.

Looking at the July data, the first layer should not focus only on year-over-year figures. Base effects may make YoY look mild or steep; month-over-month and core MoM better reveal the price momentum for the month. The second layer is to break down components. Changes driven by energy differ completely in their policy implications from changes in sticky services such as housing, medical care, and insurance. The third layer is PPI: if the core goods side remains under pressure, whether companies squeeze profits or pass costs on to end consumers determines how much it will affect future consumer prices.

For assets, the direction of the data release in the moment may not be the most important. What matters is the gap between the actual figure and expectations, and how the market subsequently reprices the interest-rate path. If inflation is running too hot, it can raise discount rates and compress valuations; but if growth and employment still show resilience, it cannot simply be equated with a collapse in risk appetite. Conversely, if data comes in cooler and causes yields to rise, that rise may not necessarily be pure good news if it stems from weakening demand. My checklist is core services, housing-related subcomponents, the month-to-month changes in energy, and whether rate expectations continue to adjust after the release—not just jump for a few minutes. Which part of CPI do you care about more? #US July CPI and PPI data released this week