NVD Insights
15.1k Posts
NVD Insights
Crypto analyst with 7 years in the crypto space and 3.7 years of hands-on experience with Binance.
Open Trade
High-Frequency Trader
4.6 Years
769 Following
26.8K+ Followers
33.2K+ Liked
Posts
Portfolio
All
Quotes
Live
been thinking less about the rates on @TermMax and more about what happens on the day a position actually matures.
most people focus on "fixed rate = safety," but I think the real question is what happens at maturity, not before it.
here's the technical bit: TermMax loans aren't open ended, they're built around fixed maturity dates, similar to how a zero coupon bond works you know the rate and the end date upfront, no surprises mid term. it's less like a normal loan and more like locking in a mortgage refinance rate before the closing date. clean on paper.
but that also means maturity itself becomes a decision point. you either close the position, roll it into a new term, or let it settle and each 0f those choices depends on market conditions you can not control from the day you opened it. fixed certainty during the term doesn't buy you certainty at the edges of it.
a fixed rate just moves the uncertainty to a different date, it doesn't remove it.
honestly I keep going back and forth on whether that's a real limitation or just... how fixed term products are supposed to work, and I am assuming too much risk should live at the start.
does anyone actually think through their rollover strategy before opening the position, or is that a decision people mostly make in the moment?
#termmax
most people focus on "fixed rate = safety," but I think the real question is what happens at maturity, not before it.
here's the technical bit: TermMax loans aren't open ended, they're built around fixed maturity dates, similar to how a zero coupon bond works you know the rate and the end date upfront, no surprises mid term. it's less like a normal loan and more like locking in a mortgage refinance rate before the closing date. clean on paper.
but that also means maturity itself becomes a decision point. you either close the position, roll it into a new term, or let it settle and each 0f those choices depends on market conditions you can not control from the day you opened it. fixed certainty during the term doesn't buy you certainty at the edges of it.
a fixed rate just moves the uncertainty to a different date, it doesn't remove it.
honestly I keep going back and forth on whether that's a real limitation or just... how fixed term products are supposed to work, and I am assuming too much risk should live at the start.
does anyone actually think through their rollover strategy before opening the position, or is that a decision people mostly make in the moment?
#termmax
I keep thinking about a specific tension in how @Dusk describes privacy, and it's less obvious than it sounds at first. Most people assume privacy and regulation pull in opposite directions you get one or the other, not both.
The thing is, Dusk's model does not force that choice. Zero knowledge verification lets the network confirm a transaction followed the rules without exposing what those specifics actually were. Traditional finance can not d0 that it solves trust by making banks, counterparties, and regulators look directly at the data before anything gets signed off. Dusk decouples verification from disclosure entirely.
That's the real shift, honestly sensitive details stay sealed, but authorized parties still get a working audit path when it actually matters. Privacy stops meaning "off the grid" and starts meaning "protected but accountable," which is a different design goal than most privacy focused chains are even attempting.
The open question I can not get past: does this hold up once real institutional volume runs through it, not just controlled pilots where everything's clean by design.
Still, building toward that balance from day one is a more serious bet than retrofitting compliance later.
Is anyone actually tracking how this performs once real regulated assets start moving at scale?
#dusk $DUSK
The thing is, Dusk's model does not force that choice. Zero knowledge verification lets the network confirm a transaction followed the rules without exposing what those specifics actually were. Traditional finance can not d0 that it solves trust by making banks, counterparties, and regulators look directly at the data before anything gets signed off. Dusk decouples verification from disclosure entirely.
That's the real shift, honestly sensitive details stay sealed, but authorized parties still get a working audit path when it actually matters. Privacy stops meaning "off the grid" and starts meaning "protected but accountable," which is a different design goal than most privacy focused chains are even attempting.
The open question I can not get past: does this hold up once real institutional volume runs through it, not just controlled pilots where everything's clean by design.
Still, building toward that balance from day one is a more serious bet than retrofitting compliance later.
Is anyone actually tracking how this performs once real regulated assets start moving at scale?
#dusk $DUSK
I’ve been thinking about something I usually overlook when looking at lending markets: the cost of keeping a position open.
That’s what made @TermMax interesting to me. The important part isn’t simply that the rate is fixed. It’s that the borrowing cost and maturity are known before the position begins.
With variable rate borrowing, I have seen the liability change while the position stays open. That makes leverage harder to plan because the financing cost is another moving part. TermMax approaches this by representing debt through fixed rate and fixed term positions.
The second order effect is what I find more interesting. Once the financing expense is defined, I can evaluate capital deployment against a known cost instead of continually guessing where the rate might go.
I don't see this as removing leverage risk. It does not, But making the liability more predictable can make decisions more deliberate and accountability clearer.
My take is that TermMax changes the question from “What will this cost later?” to “Does this position make sense at this known cost?”
Does that genuinely improve leverage management, or just make financing risk easier to measure?
#termmax
That’s what made @TermMax interesting to me. The important part isn’t simply that the rate is fixed. It’s that the borrowing cost and maturity are known before the position begins.
With variable rate borrowing, I have seen the liability change while the position stays open. That makes leverage harder to plan because the financing cost is another moving part. TermMax approaches this by representing debt through fixed rate and fixed term positions.
The second order effect is what I find more interesting. Once the financing expense is defined, I can evaluate capital deployment against a known cost instead of continually guessing where the rate might go.
I don't see this as removing leverage risk. It does not, But making the liability more predictable can make decisions more deliberate and accountability clearer.
My take is that TermMax changes the question from “What will this cost later?” to “Does this position make sense at this known cost?”
Does that genuinely improve leverage management, or just make financing risk easier to measure?
#termmax
I've been digging into @Dusk dual transaction model lately, and most people talking about it seem to think "privacy chain" means everything on it is private by default. That's not actually how it's built.
The thing is, Dusk runs two separate models side by side. Moonlight is the transparent side account based, balances and activity publicly verifiable, basically the Ethereum style approach. Phoenix is the other half, UTXO based, using zero knowledge proofs and nullifiers to handle the double spend problem without exposing what is actually in the transaction.
That's the part that actually works the network can confirm a transaction is valid without seeing the contents, and nullifiers solve the exact problem that usually breaks privacy focused designs. Instead of forcing every transaction into one model, it lets some activity stay publicly auditable while position sizes, counterparties, or strategy stay hidden, even on a public chain.
The honest risk here: running two systems side by side is not free. Whatever complexity doesn't show up now tends t0 surface later as edge cases or weird interactions between the two models.
Still, splitting privacy from transparency by design beats bolting privacy on as an afterthought.
Anyone else watching how Moonlight and Phoenix actually interact in practice?
#dusk $DUSK
The thing is, Dusk runs two separate models side by side. Moonlight is the transparent side account based, balances and activity publicly verifiable, basically the Ethereum style approach. Phoenix is the other half, UTXO based, using zero knowledge proofs and nullifiers to handle the double spend problem without exposing what is actually in the transaction.
That's the part that actually works the network can confirm a transaction is valid without seeing the contents, and nullifiers solve the exact problem that usually breaks privacy focused designs. Instead of forcing every transaction into one model, it lets some activity stay publicly auditable while position sizes, counterparties, or strategy stay hidden, even on a public chain.
The honest risk here: running two systems side by side is not free. Whatever complexity doesn't show up now tends t0 surface later as edge cases or weird interactions between the two models.
Still, splitting privacy from transparency by design beats bolting privacy on as an afterthought.
Anyone else watching how Moonlight and Phoenix actually interact in practice?
#dusk $DUSK
I've been sitting with how Phoenix transactions actually get verified on @Dusk lately, and most people still picture the usual "look at the data and approve" process.
the thing is the verifier never gets the sender, the receiver or the amount. What arrives is a PLONK proof instead. That proof encodes the rules that matter: the spender actually owned the notes being spent, the amounts balance correctly, and nothing gets reused. The check simply confirms the math holds. It never rebuilds or inspects the hidden transaction itself.
That is a real shift in what verification even means. The system is confirming a mathematical statement is true without ever seeing what made it true.
The limitation is that when something does go wrong, the same invisibility that protects privacy also makes it harder t0 debug by eye.
Still, the design feels intentional. Refusing to look at the data is part 0f the security model here.
Are you comfortable with verification that works by never seeing the thing being verified?
#dusk $DUSK
the thing is the verifier never gets the sender, the receiver or the amount. What arrives is a PLONK proof instead. That proof encodes the rules that matter: the spender actually owned the notes being spent, the amounts balance correctly, and nothing gets reused. The check simply confirms the math holds. It never rebuilds or inspects the hidden transaction itself.
That is a real shift in what verification even means. The system is confirming a mathematical statement is true without ever seeing what made it true.
The limitation is that when something does go wrong, the same invisibility that protects privacy also makes it harder t0 debug by eye.
Still, the design feels intentional. Refusing to look at the data is part 0f the security model here.
Are you comfortable with verification that works by never seeing the thing being verified?
#dusk $DUSK
I keep coming back to @TermMax because it treats time as a real financial cost. I've seen floating rates look cheap until liquidity disappears and that same borrowing suddenly becomes painful. A fixed cost and known maturity may sound boring, but in markets, boring can be useful.
What caught my attention is how TermMax implements that idea. It tokenizes fixed claims, lets market makers quote rates, and offers call or put exposure for an upfront premium instead of relying on a liquidation clock. But predictable cost is not the same as predictable outcome.
I've noticed the bigger question is where the remaining risk goes. Loans still rely on collateral, oracles, smart contracts and counterparties. Liquidity is separated by asset and maturity, so exiting early can mean slippage or no practical exit. Physical delivery can also leave lenders with volatile collateral they never wanted, while curator managed vaults introduce another layer of human judgment.
My take is simple: TermMax does not remove risk. It makes one part predictable while making the others more important to understand.
Can predictable financing create better accountability?
#termmax
What caught my attention is how TermMax implements that idea. It tokenizes fixed claims, lets market makers quote rates, and offers call or put exposure for an upfront premium instead of relying on a liquidation clock. But predictable cost is not the same as predictable outcome.
I've noticed the bigger question is where the remaining risk goes. Loans still rely on collateral, oracles, smart contracts and counterparties. Liquidity is separated by asset and maturity, so exiting early can mean slippage or no practical exit. Physical delivery can also leave lenders with volatile collateral they never wanted, while curator managed vaults introduce another layer of human judgment.
My take is simple: TermMax does not remove risk. It makes one part predictable while making the others more important to understand.
Can predictable financing create better accountability?
#termmax
I've been going back and forth on DuskVM vs DuskEVM for a few days now, and not gonna lie, I thought this was just a language thing at first Rust/WASM versus Solidity with tooling everyone already knows. It's not, though.
The thing is, DuskVM sits right at the base of the network, so it gets direct access to the privacy and zero knowledge stuff Dusk is actually built around. DuskEVM runs Solidity contracts through standard EVM tooling instead, but it still settles through the same DuskDS layer, still pays gas in the same DUSK token. Two different execution paths landing in the same place underneath.
That's the part that actually matters picking DuskVM isn't picking a language, it is picking proximity to the privacy primitives themselves. Picking DuskEVM means trading some of that distance for wallets, bridges, and exchanges that plug in with barely any code changes.
Here is the catch though: same settlement layer doesn't mean same capabilities. DuskVM gets no shortcuts every bit of tooling gets built from scratch.
Still, I'd rather see that tradeoff spelled out than pretend it does not exist.
Are you building toward the privacy primitives directly, or leaning on compatibility first?
@Dusk #dusk $DUSK
The thing is, DuskVM sits right at the base of the network, so it gets direct access to the privacy and zero knowledge stuff Dusk is actually built around. DuskEVM runs Solidity contracts through standard EVM tooling instead, but it still settles through the same DuskDS layer, still pays gas in the same DUSK token. Two different execution paths landing in the same place underneath.
That's the part that actually matters picking DuskVM isn't picking a language, it is picking proximity to the privacy primitives themselves. Picking DuskEVM means trading some of that distance for wallets, bridges, and exchanges that plug in with barely any code changes.
Here is the catch though: same settlement layer doesn't mean same capabilities. DuskVM gets no shortcuts every bit of tooling gets built from scratch.
Still, I'd rather see that tradeoff spelled out than pretend it does not exist.
Are you building toward the privacy primitives directly, or leaning on compatibility first?
@Dusk #dusk $DUSK
Verified
Spent the morning going through how @Dusk actually implements confidential transactions, and one thing threw me off I expected privacy here to be a feature sitting on top of the chain, like an optional mode you toggle. It's not. It's built into the base layer using zero knowledge proofs, so you prove something is true you're solvent, you are eligible, a trade settled without showing the numbers behind it.
What's underneath that is more interesting than the privacy itself: auditors can still verify, but everyone else just sees a valid transaction and nothing more. Most chains force a choice a mixer for secrecy, or full transparency for institutional trust. Dusk is betting selective disclosure kills that tradeoff entirely, which is the logic behind Zedger and the RWA tokenization angle, and part of why DuskEVM matters Solidity devs can build on this model without learning something new.
Honestly, the part I ca not settle is whether "provably compliant" holds up the same way "fully visible" does once a regulator actually pressure tests it in a real dispute. NPEX suggests institutions are willing to try it. Willing to try isn't the same as proven.
Still sitting with that one.
#dusk $DUSK
What's underneath that is more interesting than the privacy itself: auditors can still verify, but everyone else just sees a valid transaction and nothing more. Most chains force a choice a mixer for secrecy, or full transparency for institutional trust. Dusk is betting selective disclosure kills that tradeoff entirely, which is the logic behind Zedger and the RWA tokenization angle, and part of why DuskEVM matters Solidity devs can build on this model without learning something new.
Honestly, the part I ca not settle is whether "provably compliant" holds up the same way "fully visible" does once a regulator actually pressure tests it in a real dispute. NPEX suggests institutions are willing to try it. Willing to try isn't the same as proven.
Still sitting with that one.
#dusk $DUSK
I've been spending time lately trying to understand what Citadel actually does, and I think most people are still filing it under "identity/KYC layer" and scrolling past. the thing is, that framing misses what makes it different.
Most identity systems are vaults they collect your data and hold it. Citadel works more like a filter. You are not handing over information, you're proving a claim, and the system does not retain the underlying specifics once that's done. A verified credential is not a permanent asset either it expires into irrelevance unless the claim behind it still holds, so proof has to happen again, not just once.
That's the part that actually works: it shifts the burden from disclosure to attestation, which is a fundamentally different trust model than most compliance tooling on chain right now.
The limitation is real though repeated re proving is friction, and friction is what most users try to avoid, even when the tradeoff favors them.
Still, if that friction is what keeps people using the system instead of leaving, that is a stickier kind of demand than convenience ever creates.
Are you tracking Citadel as infrastructure, or still writing it off as compliance theater?
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
Most identity systems are vaults they collect your data and hold it. Citadel works more like a filter. You are not handing over information, you're proving a claim, and the system does not retain the underlying specifics once that's done. A verified credential is not a permanent asset either it expires into irrelevance unless the claim behind it still holds, so proof has to happen again, not just once.
That's the part that actually works: it shifts the burden from disclosure to attestation, which is a fundamentally different trust model than most compliance tooling on chain right now.
The limitation is real though repeated re proving is friction, and friction is what most users try to avoid, even when the tradeoff favors them.
Still, if that friction is what keeps people using the system instead of leaving, that is a stickier kind of demand than convenience ever creates.
Are you tracking Citadel as infrastructure, or still writing it off as compliance theater?
#dusk $DUSK @Dusk
$VELVET is up more than 32% today, but after that sharp move, I’m more interested in how price behaves around the current level than chasing the pump.
Price: 0.9507
24h High: 1.1299
24h Low: 0.4805
24h Volume: 189.47M USDT
$VELVET /USDT Long
Entry: 0.94–0.96
TP1: 1.00
TP2: 1.08
TP3: 1.12
Stop Loss: 0.89
On the 15m chart, price pushed up to 1.1110 before a strong rejection sent it down toward 0.8601. Since then, buyers have managed to stabilize price around 0.94–0.96, which is the area I’m watching now.
If this zone continues to hold and $VELVET gets a clean move back above 1.00, I’ll be looking toward 1.08 and then the previous high area around 1.11–1.12. I wouldn’t chase the earlier move here. For me, the better setup is waiting for confirmation while 0.89 remains protected.
Price: 0.9507
24h High: 1.1299
24h Low: 0.4805
24h Volume: 189.47M USDT
$VELVET /USDT Long
Entry: 0.94–0.96
TP1: 1.00
TP2: 1.08
TP3: 1.12
Stop Loss: 0.89
On the 15m chart, price pushed up to 1.1110 before a strong rejection sent it down toward 0.8601. Since then, buyers have managed to stabilize price around 0.94–0.96, which is the area I’m watching now.
If this zone continues to hold and $VELVET gets a clean move back above 1.00, I’ll be looking toward 1.08 and then the previous high area around 1.11–1.12. I wouldn’t chase the earlier move here. For me, the better setup is waiting for confirmation while 0.89 remains protected.
Verified
I've been reading through Dusk XSC design lately, and I think most people are still filing it under "privacy token" and moving on. the thing is, the privacy part might be the least interesting layer here.
Underneath the sealed balances, every transfer still has to clear a whitelist tied to KYC and AML onboarding. It has to prove eligibility, and it still leaves an audit trail even though the contents stay hidden. That's not a one time gate either counterparties have to keep re qualifying as circumstances shift, so onboarding becomes a recurring check rather than a single conversion moment.
That is the part that actually works, tbh for a security token, repeated proof of compliance is arguably the real product, not the confidentiality wrapper sitting on top of it.
The limitation is obvious though: that much recurring verification adds friction, and friction is exactly what kills adoption in most token designs. Institutions might tolerate it. Retail probably won't.
Still, if regulated capital is the actual audience here, that tradeoff makes sense quiet, compliant persistence over visible activity.
Is the market actually pricing in privacy, or just the ability to prove, discreetly, that nothing's changed?
@Dusk #dusk $DUSK
Underneath the sealed balances, every transfer still has to clear a whitelist tied to KYC and AML onboarding. It has to prove eligibility, and it still leaves an audit trail even though the contents stay hidden. That's not a one time gate either counterparties have to keep re qualifying as circumstances shift, so onboarding becomes a recurring check rather than a single conversion moment.
That is the part that actually works, tbh for a security token, repeated proof of compliance is arguably the real product, not the confidentiality wrapper sitting on top of it.
The limitation is obvious though: that much recurring verification adds friction, and friction is exactly what kills adoption in most token designs. Institutions might tolerate it. Retail probably won't.
Still, if regulated capital is the actual audience here, that tradeoff makes sense quiet, compliant persistence over visible activity.
Is the market actually pricing in privacy, or just the ability to prove, discreetly, that nothing's changed?
@Dusk #dusk $DUSK
$XRP whale accumulation is showing resilience.
Wallets holding 1M+ $XRP increased by 32 over the past three months, even as XRP's market cap dropped 29%.
That divergence suggests large holders may be accumulating weakness, potentially positioning for the next liquidity expansion.
$XRP
Wallets holding 1M+ $XRP increased by 32 over the past three months, even as XRP's market cap dropped 29%.
That divergence suggests large holders may be accumulating weakness, potentially positioning for the next liquidity expansion.
$XRP
US spot Bitcoin ETFs took in $865.3M last week, their strongest since mid April.
It comes a week after roughly $130M of BTC was drained from COLDCARDwallet when the whole conversation was about self custody risk.
It comes a week after roughly $130M of BTC was drained from COLDCARDwallet when the whole conversation was about self custody risk.
$CVX Strong short term bullish momentum on the 1 hour chart, breaking out of recent consolidation levels.
Entry Range: 1.685 - 1.714 (Look for entries on slight pullbacks to the support zone or market entry if momentum holds)
Target 1: 1.737
Target 2: 1.777
Target 3: 1.789
Stop Loss: 1.630 (Below recent local support structures
Entry Range: 1.685 - 1.714 (Look for entries on slight pullbacks to the support zone or market entry if momentum holds)
Target 1: 1.737
Target 2: 1.777
Target 3: 1.789
Stop Loss: 1.630 (Below recent local support structures
Yeah, we just got hit with another liquidation wave.
$BTC dropped below $64,000. $ETH slipped under $1,900. And leverage is getting wiped out fast we're talking $113M+ in liquidated positions in just the last 4 hours.
This is exactly the part of the market that gets dangerous. When there's too much leverage sitting on the books, even a small move can snowball into something bigger. Prices drop a little, positions get force closed, that closing adds more selling pressure, more positions get liquidated and suddenly you've got a full cascade.
But here's the thing these flush outs are not always bad. Sometimes they're exactly what the market needs. Once the panic selling slows down and leverage resets, that's often where the real opportunities show up.
So right now, just keep an eye on a few things. Can BTC claw its way back above $64K? Can ETH reclaim $1.9K? Is the liquidation flush actually slowing, or is there more to come? And are buyers starting to step back in, or is everyone still sitting on the sidelines?
Don't panic. Don not try to catch a falling knife just because it looks cheap. What matters right now isn't what just happened it's what happens next.
Please please create me a professional diagram picture according to that content and very very simple and without detailing in rectangular shape that's look beautiful and professional
#BTC #Ethereum
$BTC dropped below $64,000. $ETH slipped under $1,900. And leverage is getting wiped out fast we're talking $113M+ in liquidated positions in just the last 4 hours.
This is exactly the part of the market that gets dangerous. When there's too much leverage sitting on the books, even a small move can snowball into something bigger. Prices drop a little, positions get force closed, that closing adds more selling pressure, more positions get liquidated and suddenly you've got a full cascade.
But here's the thing these flush outs are not always bad. Sometimes they're exactly what the market needs. Once the panic selling slows down and leverage resets, that's often where the real opportunities show up.
So right now, just keep an eye on a few things. Can BTC claw its way back above $64K? Can ETH reclaim $1.9K? Is the liquidation flush actually slowing, or is there more to come? And are buyers starting to step back in, or is everyone still sitting on the sidelines?
Don't panic. Don not try to catch a falling knife just because it looks cheap. What matters right now isn't what just happened it's what happens next.
Please please create me a professional diagram picture according to that content and very very simple and without detailing in rectangular shape that's look beautiful and professional
#BTC #Ethereum
Congratulations guts TP Done ✅ still going toward other targets
$BMT
$BMT
NVD Insights
·
--
Bearish$BMT / USDT SHORT
Entry: 0.0345 – 0.0360
TP1: 0.0320
TP2: 0.0290
TP3: 0.0250
SL: 0.0385
BMT is showing signs of rejection after a massive rally. A pullback from the current resistance zone could push the price lower.
Entry: 0.0345 – 0.0360
TP1: 0.0320
TP2: 0.0290
TP3: 0.0250
SL: 0.0385
BMT is showing signs of rejection after a massive rally. A pullback from the current resistance zone could push the price lower.
$Q / USDT LONG
Entry: 0.0232–0.0237
TP1: 0.0245
TP2: 0.0255
TP3: 0.0270
SL: 0.0226
Q is showing strong bullish momentum after a clean reversal from the 0.0210 support area. Holding above the current zone could keep the upside momentum intact and open the way for another move higher.
Entry: 0.0232–0.0237
TP1: 0.0245
TP2: 0.0255
TP3: 0.0270
SL: 0.0226
Q is showing strong bullish momentum after a clean reversal from the 0.0210 support area. Holding above the current zone could keep the upside momentum intact and open the way for another move higher.
$RAY / USDT SHORT
Entry: 0.6440 – 0.6505
TP1: 0.6350
TP2: 0.6290
TP3: 0.6200
SL: 0.6570
RAY faced rejection near the 0.6505 resistance area and is showing weakness on the current range. As long as this resistance holds, the short side looks more favorable for a move lower.
Entry: 0.6440 – 0.6505
TP1: 0.6350
TP2: 0.6290
TP3: 0.6200
SL: 0.6570
RAY faced rejection near the 0.6505 resistance area and is showing weakness on the current range. As long as this resistance holds, the short side looks more favorable for a move lower.
$NIL /USDT LONG
Entry: 0.0405 – 0.0420
TP1: 0.0445
TP2: 0.0475
TP3: 0.0520
SL: 0.0380
NIL is showing strong bullish momentum after a clean breakout from the 0.0332 support area. Holding above the current zone could keep the upside momentum intact and open the way for another move higher.
Entry: 0.0405 – 0.0420
TP1: 0.0445
TP2: 0.0475
TP3: 0.0520
SL: 0.0380
NIL is showing strong bullish momentum after a clean breakout from the 0.0332 support area. Holding above the current zone could keep the upside momentum intact and open the way for another move higher.
$THE / USDT SHORT
Entry: 0.0675 – 0.0695
TP1: 0.0640
TP2: 0.0610
TP3: 0.0575
SL: 0.0765
THE faced a sharp rejection after the recent rally and is now pulling back from the 0.0759 resistance area. As long as this zone holds, the short side looks more favorable.
Entry: 0.0675 – 0.0695
TP1: 0.0640
TP2: 0.0610
TP3: 0.0575
SL: 0.0765
THE faced a sharp rejection after the recent rally and is now pulling back from the 0.0759 resistance area. As long as this zone holds, the short side looks more favorable.
Log in to explore more content