渠乾利贞 止损持盈

Secondary market craftsman. Cycle player.
No shilling. No calls. No referral fees. Just journaling.
PnL is your own. Not financial advice.
Don't follow. Don't tip. Read and move on.

Doing the secondary level. Only work in cycles.
No shouting buy/sell signals, no carrying trades, no doing rebates, no taking advertisements.
Writing is for myself, not for you.
Profit and loss are your own responsibility. This does not constitute investment advice. Don’t pay attention, don’t tip; if you’ve seen it, you’ve seen it.

—— Clear Stream Channel

On the 81,000 level, I woke up a little after six in the morning, checked my phone—BTC was at 81,480. I wasn’t excited. I put the phone down and made myself a cup of tea. When I came back, I checked again and confirmed I hadn’t seen it wrong.

The last time it closed above 80,000 was 11 days ago.

How this move came about—the data is written very clearly.

Within 60 minutes, the shorts got liquidated to the tune of $183 million. According to CoinGlass, in that one hour, for every $1 of liquidation, 95 cents came from people who were short. BTC accounted for $119 million, and ETH for $36 million.

FxPro’s analyst put it plainly: traders had previously piled up leveraged short positions in a big way, betting that the downtrend would continue. Those positions were forced to cover, and that became fuel for the breakout.

Now, take a good look at this picture. Over the past week, three things happened: the CLARITY Act was voted down in the Senate, the Fed raised rates by 25 basis points, and the Bank of Japan pushed rates to the highest level in 31 years. The shorts thought they were safe—the more positions they piled on, the heavier they got. Then the price didn’t fall. They started to run out of money for funding fees. And then, this morning—this happened.

Shorts don’t lose to longs. They lose to their own positioning.

The ETF money came in before the short squeeze even started. On September 17, the U.S. spot Bitcoin ETF saw net inflows of $159 million. BlackRock’s IBIT alone added $184 million—bringing the historical total net inflows to $64 billion. On September 18, net inflows surged to $433 million, and Fidelity’s FBTC added $311 million.

In two days, nearly $600 million—that’s spot buying in the relay.

A short squeeze is the fuel. Spot buying is the engine—it can keep running.

What really makes me feel like this move isn’t over is the number in the Fed’s dot plot.

On September 16, there was a 25 bps hike, taking rates to 3.75%–4.00%, the first time since July 2023. Doesn’t that look hawkish? But the dot plot shows that the rate median at the end of 2027 is 4.1%.

I’m holding a 10x long position.

I’m not telling you to go long. I’m just saying: at the 80,000 level, the shorts have just been cleared out, but the longs haven’t fully come back yet. Spot ETFs are continuously pulling in inflows, and the rate-hike cycle is nearing its end. Put these things together, and the odds don’t favor the shorts.

As for how high it can go—I don’t know. 82,000 is the upper edge of the previous range. FxPro says that profit-taking before the weekend may delay the attempt to challenge that level, but that’s only short-term.

— Qingliu Qu #比特币突破8万美元大关

21Shares has filed a revised S-1/A for its spot Injective ETF, code TINJ, on Nasdaq.

On September 19, the SEC received 21Shares’ amended filing. This is an updated version of the original application submitted in October 2025. If approved, TINJ will be listed on Nasdaq, passively tracking the FTSE Injective Index, and it can also use part of its holdings to stake and earn yield.

21Shares has already been doing Injective staking ETPs in Europe for a while. This time, it’s bringing essentially the same setup to the United States.

Pay attention to this detail: staking.

This is the most interesting part of this latest wave of ETF applications. In 21Shares’ ETF application for Hyperliquid, it mentions staking 30% to 70% of the holdings. The Injective filing also includes a staking option.

What does staking mean? It means the ETF isn’t just passively holding tokens. It locks up the tokens, earns network rewards, and then counts that portion of the rewards as part of the fund’s return.

In the SEC’s eyes, this has been controversial all along. Does staking count as issuing securities? Do staking rewards count as consideration under an investment contract? Those questions have previously blocked the staking versions of ETH ETFs. Now 21Shares is trying first on smaller assets like INJ and HYPE.

But don’t confuse an application with approval.

21Shares has a long queue of S-1 filings. Solana, SUI, SEI, ONDO, and also Hyperliquid. SUI is already listed on Nasdaq under the ticker TSUI. The Injective filing moving to S-1/A means the SEC has issued its first round of comments and 21Shares is responding. There’s still a ways to go before the 19b-4 approval to list.

And Injective isn’t exclusive to 21Shares. Canary’s Staked INJ ETF was submitted to the Cboe back in July 2025. 21Shares has experience with Injective ETPs in Europe, but in the U.S. market, first-mover advantage may not necessarily belong to it.

— Qingliuqu #sec收到21sharesinj现货etf修订申请

S&P Dow Jones announced on September 4 that the changes would take effect before the start of trading in U.S. stocks on September 21. Sandisk was upgraded from the S&P 500 to the S&P 100. At the same time, the companies kicked out were Colgate, Nike, Honeywell’s aviation unit, and Simon Property Group. The four new entrants were Dell, Palo Alto Networks, Arista Networks, and Sandisk—all tech stocks.

Pay attention to one detail

Nike had been in the S&P 100 for 18 years, and this was the first time it was removed. Over the past five years, the S&P 100 rose 83%, while Nike fell 80%, with a market cap loss of $230 billion. It’s not that Nike did something wrong—it’s that money is flowing into AI, and Nike isn’t on that track.

Sandisk is running on that track. And it’s running faster than anyone else.

In February 2025, it was spun out of Western Digital and went public at $35 per share. By the close on September 18, it was $1,791. In a year and a half, it jumped more than 4,300%. Over the past 12 months, it rose 1,700%.

But the most ruthless part isn’t the surge. It’s its financials.

In fiscal year 2026’s fourth quarter, revenue was $8.97 billion, up 372% year over year and up 51% quarter over quarter. Full-year revenue was $20.25 billion, up 175%. Its data center business grew 437%.

Gross margin is 56%, ROE is 91.6%, and ROIC is 102%.

Have you ever seen a hardware company with this kind of profit margin? This isn’t selling flash memory—it’s selling a money printer.

The news that Sandisk would enter the S&P 100 was released on September 4. But before September 4, it had already had a run. On the day the news came out, it jumped 11.9% and closed at 1,740. Then it pulled back to 1,519, before rallying back to 1,791. On September 18, it rose another 11%.

My take

Sandisk is one of the purest plays in this AI infrastructure rally. It’s not chip design, not computing power—it’s storage. AI training and inference require massive amounts of NAND flash memory, and Sandisk is one of the largest suppliers. Its backlog is $93.9 billion, of which $16.5 billion is secured.

But look at the valuation here now. 1,791 is 52-week high of 2,354—down 24% from the peak. The forward P/E is 8.37x. For a company with revenue up 372%, it’s cheap to the point of being unbelievable.

— Qingliu Channel #闪迪将于9月21日纳入标普100

First, let’s see how this move came about.

In the past 24 hours, the whole market liquidated positions totaling 194 million. Short liquidations were 78.58 million, and long liquidations were 115 million. Taste this structure. Long liquidations were more than shorts. That means when the price was pushed down from around 2600, it first wiped out the people chasing longs, and only then did it pull back.

This is called killing the long side to set the banner, and then lifting the market.

But what’s truly interesting is the other data.

Some analysis attributes this ETH rally to the SEC’s “innovation exemption” from two days ago. The exemption requires that smart contracts for tokenized securities trading venues must run on a public, permissionless ledger. Among the chains that meet this requirement, Ethereum is obviously the frontrunner—on the short list.

So if tokenized stocks really take off, ETH would become the default settlement layer. This is narrative-level stuff, not actual buying pressure. But it gives capital a reason.

There’s also something more tangible.

ETH’s staking amount has already reached 47.36 million coins, setting a new all-time high. A large portion of the circulating supply is locked up. On the ETF side, net inflows in August exceeded 3.5 billion—its highest month since mid-2025.

On one side, supply is locked via staking; on the other, ETFs are absorbing it. This structure is more interesting than the price action itself.

But now look at this level.

2600 was the resistance level from the earlier phase. Before the Clarity Act vote failed on September 15, ETH was already around 2597. That means most of this rally is just a return to the old area, not a breakout.

Whether 2600 can hold comes down to whether the narrative around tokenized stocks can turn from “story” into “flows.” The story is already being told, but the money hasn’t arrived yet.

——Clear Current Channel #以太坊重回2600美元

SOL on the spot at 112; in 24 hours it’s climbed nearly 11%, the highest since January. Bitwise’s staked ETF BSOL saw $85 million in trading volume, up 12%.

Looks lively, right? But take a closer look.

In the past 24 hours, Solana’s entire network liquidations totaled $38.21 million. Shorts were liquidated for $36.72 million, while longs were only liquidated for $1.48 million. Shorts accounted for 96% of the liquidations.

What is this called? This is called a short squeeze. The shorts got pushed out—not because longs “won.”

Next, look at the trading structure. In the last 24 hours, SOL’s futures trading volume was $12.14 billion, while spot trading was $1.49 billion. Leverage is eight times that of spot. The price was pushed up by futures—not bought up on the spot market.

What does this structure fear most? It fears the price stalling. As long as it doesn’t keep rising, longs start paying funding fees. After paying for a while, they can’t hold on.

The Solana Foundation has launched a Project Harmonia, partnered with Allfunds—the world’s largest fund distribution network, managing €1.9 trillion in assets. Its RWA scale has passed $4 billion, with 350,000 addresses holding it. MoneyGram’s inflow and outflow rails are now on Solana: deposits from 25 countries, withdrawals across 170 regions.

These things are real. But you need to see clearly what they are. They’re “rails,” not “buy orders.” Once the rails are open, when money will come in and how much it will be—no one knows.

— 清流渠 #sol涨约10%

Why am I bearish from this position on ZEC
Three things.
First, the orphan rate. A 25-second block time means the block generation speed is three times higher than it is now. Test data from the Zakura team shows that with a 75-second interval, the orphan rate is 1.57%, and at 25 seconds it’s 3.43%. Although that’s below the 5% threshold, you need to understand that orphans mean miners’ computing power is being wasted. For a network that relies on PoW to maintain security, this is not a small issue. Mainnet performance depends on network topology, miner behavior, and how full the blocks are. A testing environment is always cleaner than the real world.
Second, the money for the ETF—most of it isn’t new money. Grayscale’s ZCSH did attract nearly 700 million in AUM, but DCG itself put in 100 million, which was funding from a related party. The true net inflow from outside came to over 70 million cumulatively as of September 8. 70 million—over two weeks. For a “first privacy coin spot ETF,” it’s not necessarily ugly, but it also definitely doesn’t deserve a +2500% monthly move. The rest of the increase comes from ZEC’s price rising from 500 to 1400 in terms of mark-to-market gains—not from buy orders piling it up.
Third, the technicals are already stretched too tight. The 14-day RSI is above 80, and the stochastic %K is higher than 85. This isn’t a healthy uptrend reading—it’s an overbought reading. Being overbought doesn’t necessarily mean a drop is immediate, but it does mean the odds are getting worse. If you chase in from this position, when you’re right you make small money, and when you’re wrong you lose big money.
There’s one more thing most people haven’t noticed.
ZEC’s open interest in futures: on September 3 it was 565 million, and on September 5 it surged to over 2.3 billion. In two days, it quadrupled. Leverage is pouring in like crazy. The funding rate is positive, meaning longs are paying shorts. The structure that’s most vulnerable to this is a single “needle.” As long as the price stops moving, longs start to be unable to cover the funding, and liquidations turn into a stampede. #zcash开发者拟11月5日激活nu7主网

The truly new money coming from the outside is that 70 million. In two weeks, 70 million. For a “first privacy coin spot ETF,” this number isn’t too bad, but it definitely doesn’t deserve a headline at the “$230 million” level.
More worth looking at is the pattern of fund flows.
Some analysis suggests that in the first week of September, ZEC’s daily fund flows fluctuated between 60 million and 200 million, with the net amount nearly zero. Money is coming in and going out—turnover is happening, but it isn’t sticking around or getting locked in.
Futures trading volume over 24 hours is 9.5 billion, while spot is only a bit over 1 billion. Leverage is nine times that of spot. The price rise is driven by short positions getting forced to close, not by spot buyers pushing it up.
There’s another detail.
That 100 million from DCG: it was paid for 85,705 ZEC, exchanged for ETF shares. This isn’t a purchase in the secondary market—it's a related party putting its own coins into its own fund. Left hand to right hand: the AUM on paper rises, but the market doesn’t have an extra dollar of buy-side demand.
I don’t hold any ZEC.
It’s not that I don’t believe in the privacy track. It’s that I think the data at this level can’t withstand the packaging of a narrative like “$230 million.” The real external inflow is 70 million, leverage is nine times spot, the RSI is above 80, and in September there are also the Clarity Act voting and the regulatory cliff for privacy coins under the EU MiCA #zcash现货etf月度净流入超2.3亿美元

BTC once again surged above 80,000—feels like it’s finally holding strong.

Short covering is the fuel, and spot buying is the engine. Once the fuel runs out, it’s gone—but the engine can keep running.

Things are changing on the macro side too.

The U.S. Treasury Secretary rolled out Treasury repurchase operations. On the surface it’s a technical move, but in reality it’s like putting a steadying balm into the market. The market has started trading again under the logic of “improving liquidity” and “a weaker dollar.” Gold and Bitcoin benefit at the same time—this isn’t a coincidence. When sovereign credit is questioned, scarce assets get repriced.

On top of that, the SEC has introduced a new regulatory exemption framework, giving tokenized securities trading a five-year green light. With regulatory uncertainty decreasing, the psychological threshold for institutions to enter the market is also lowering.

There’s a wall above 80,000. Large sell orders are clustered in that zone—a liquidity wall. Whether it can be absorbed depends on whether spot buying can keep going.

The HKMA has issued a release: by the end of the year, it will roll out a wholesale central bank digital currency (wCBDC) for interbank tokenized-deposit settlement, enabling 24/7 payments. It is called Project EnsembleTX, and a live pilot was already launched toward the end of last year.

Many people see the three letters “CBDC” and get excited, thinking Hong Kong is about to make some big move. Others see “CBDC” and panic, believing the government is coming to monitor every cent you have.

Both reactions are wrong.

First, let’s clarify what this wCBDC is.

Wholesale, not retail. That means it’s not for individual use—it’s for banks only. It solves a very specific technical problem: Hong Kong’s cross-bank settlement currently relies on the RTGS system (Real-Time Gross Settlement), i.e., real-time, full-value settlement. This system operates only during business hours. If you want to transfer a tokenized deposit at night, sorry—you have to wait until the next morning.

What the wCBDC does is to move that settlement step onto a blockchain so it can run 7×24 hours. It can also support margin settlement for post-market derivatives trading at the HKEX.

In plain terms, this is an upgrade to financial infrastructure, not a currency revolution.

Why is Hong Kong doing this?

Look at the use cases it chose—you’ll see immediately. Tokenized deposits, tokenized government bonds, and margin settlement for HKEX derivatives. All are institutional scenarios. All are the parts in traditional finance where “settlement is too slow and costs are too high.”

HSBC, Bank of China (Hong Kong), and Standard Chartered are all on the pilot list. They’re doing the same thing: using digital HKD to pay margin for post-market derivatives trading, so settlement is no longer constrained by bank closing hours.

The HKMA itself is very clear: it will prioritize developing wholesale use cases, and the launch of digital HKD for retail use “has not yet been decided, or when.”

So what does that have to do with the crypto world?

Honestly, not much in the short term.

wCBDC is not a stablecoin. It won’t be listed on exchanges, and it won’t go into DeFi. It is a central bank liability—a settlement instrument for interbank transactions—running on a permissioned blockchain. Your USDT and USDC are in a completely different category.

You could even say it competes with USDC. If interbank tokenized-deposit settlement can be handled with wCBDC, then stablecoins’ room to operate in institutional settlement scenarios would be squeezed.

If it gets going, Hong Kong could become a settlement center for tokenized assets in Asia #香港拟年底前推出批发cbdc

Bottomline, one of the world’s top three SWIFT service providers, processes 160 trillion in payments per year and has 600+ banking clients. It built a platform called Global Pay Connect that enables these banks to connect directly to on-chain settlement using ISO 20022 standard messages, with Chainlink’s CCIP and CRE.
Think about that design.
Banks don’t have to replace their systems, buy crypto, or learn something new. They just send the original payment instructions; Chainlink translates them into on-chain operations behind the scenes, and then settles.
This is bigger than it looks on the surface.
Bottomline handles about 15% of SWIFT cross-border transactions globally. This isn’t a fringe player. It’s an active artery in traditional finance infrastructure. Now that artery has a blockchain branch connected to it.
And it didn’t choose to build its own chain. It chose Chainlink as the middleware layer. CCIP handles cross-chain messaging, while CRE orchestrates the payment workflow. Banks only need to connect once to reach multiple chains.
But don’t equate “integration” with “usage.”
Neither company has disclosed how many banks will actually use the feature, published rollout timelines, or shared transaction volumes. Integration is a technical capability; usage is a business decision. There’s a world of difference between the two.
Bottomline’s own product lead once said: whether to adopt it depends on whether the finance team can manage on-chain payments with the same level of visibility, control, and governance capability as it uses to manage existing payment methods. Translated plainly: the tech works, but the finance department may not buy in.
Chainlink’s standing is changing.
In the past few months, it won a bundle of institutional deals. Aave set CCIP as the default cross-chain infrastructure. BitGo chose CCIP as the exclusive cross-chain provider for WBTC, managing $7.3 billion in assets. Coinbase picked it as the oracle for tokenized stocks on Base. Nethermind migrated validators from LayerZero to Chainlink.
This time, it’s the SWIFT ecosystem. Most cross-border payment messages worldwide originate from the SWIFT ecosystem. Bottomline has given CCIP a direct channel into that ecosystem #bottomline推出chainlink链上支付平台

The Bank of Japan raised rates by 25 basis points today, taking the interest rate to 1.25%. That’s the highest level since 1995. The vote passed 7 to 2, with both dissenting votes cast by commissioners appointed by Prime Minister Hayao Takai

The USD/JPY pair has broken 157 straightaway. When you raise rates, your currency actually depreciates. This is something straight out of a textbook—professors don’t even know how to explain it.

Because the market already knew you were going to raise. The probability of a rate hike priced in by the FX swap market was over 92% before the meeting. So when the hike finally landed, it wasn’t “bullish for the yen”—it was “fully priced.” The yen shorts had been waiting all along, and finally found a moment they could feel comfortable shorting.

More fundamentally, it comes down to the interest-rate differential. Japan raised rates to 1.25%, while the U.S. federal funds rate is 3.75% to 4%. The gap is about 250 to 275 basis points. If you raise by 25 basis points, the differential only narrows a little. After the carry-trade players run the numbers, they find that borrowing yen and buying dollars is still profitable. So they keep borrowing and keep selling the yen.

The Bank of Japan itself also knows this problem. In its statement, it says, “Financial conditions remain accommodative, and real interest rates have been kept at a low level.”

So why raise rates anyway?

In the Middle East, oil prices have broken above 100, with Brent around 104. Japan is an oil importer—when oil prices rise, imported inflation directly pours into the CPI. And the yen is already depreciating, making imports even more expensive. It’s a double squeeze. The Bank of Japan’s statement, in its own words, is: “The impact of rising import prices has begun to show, and the tendency for firms to pass on higher wage costs to sales prices remains ongoing.”

At the same time, U.S. Treasury Secretary Bessent has been publicly pressuring Japan to raise rates and strengthen the yen. At the end of July, the U.S. and Japan even jointly intervened in the FX market, spending $96 billion to buy yen. What happened? A month later, the yen fell back again.

What the market is focused on now is the next move.

At Ueda Kazuo’s press conference, he hinted when the next rate hike might come. A Reuters survey shows the market expects rates to reach 1.5% by March 2027, and 1.75% in the second quarter.

In the Bank of Japan’s statement, there is no clear signal about continuing to hike in October. For the two dissenting-vote commissioners, the reasoning was that “the economic situation is not strong enough.” Capital Economics analyst said the statement amplified the impact of AI demand on inflation. That means even if oil prices fall back, the BOJ’s hawkish bias is unlikely to change easily.

—Clear Stream Channel #日本央行加息至31年高位

Circle spent more than a year building an institutional-grade setup. The list of founding verifiers includes BlackRock, Visa, Mastercard, DTCC, and ICE. The testnet processed over 700 million transactions. The whitepaper is all about tokenized funds, stablecoin FX, institutional settlement, and AI agent economics. CEO Allaire’s exact words were: “the economic operating system of the internet.”
Then on day one after launch, in came the meme-coin crowd. 97,025 new tokens were minted, 83,751 of them from Arguspad.
I’m not mocking Circle. I’m talking about something more real.
For any new chain, the traffic on day one has never come from “real use cases.” It comes from speculation. Speculation doesn’t need education, doesn’t need compliance, doesn’t need institutional approvals. All speculation needs is one thing: someone willing to bet.
Arc’s USDC gas, sub-second finality, and EVM compatibility—those technical features are selling points to institutions. But to meme players, they only mean one thing: fast, cheap, and able to mint tokens.
So Arguspad ate up half the chain. This isn’t Arc failing—it’s the normal pattern for every public chain at launch. On day one, the Robinhood Chain had only 568,000 in volume, and it took more than a week to slowly pick up. Arc did 410 million on day one because Aave, Uniswap, and Morpho were already deployed in the very first block—liquidity was in place, and the launchpad was directly getting piped in.
What’s really worth looking at is the 75 million after you remove the launchpad.
That number is what corresponds to what Circle truly wanted to do: USDC settlement, tokenized collateral, StableFX FX, and institutional payment rails. For a new L1, put next to 336 million of speculative volume, the ratio is 1 to 4.5.
This is the dilemma facing all “institutional chains” right now. You set up the stage, lay down the red carpet, and send invitations to BlackRock and Visa. Then the first people to rush in are the ones in flip-flops trying to grab the airdrop.
I’m not judging whether that’s good or bad.
In September 2026, on the launch day of a new chain, speculation is still the only thing that can instantly fill the blocks. Institutional narratives still need compliance processes to run their course. Meme coins only need a contract address.
Circle is betting on the long term. But the market never gives votes for the long term—it only votes for today. #meme发射台占arc首日成交82%

On Solana, most USDC is used for payments, transfers, and DeFi interactions—it’s “spent money.” On Hyperliquid, almost all USDC is margin for perpetual contracts—it’s “staked money.” The former is water flowing through pipes. The latter is bullets waiting in the chamber.
Think about the difference in that picture.
Why can Hyperliquid be so strong?
I checked the data: in the past 30 days, Hyperliquid’s perpetual contract trading volume was $240 billion, the highest. The second-place Arbitrum had $47.2 billion, while Solana had $46 billion. Do the math on that multiple—it’s over five times.
With trading volume stacked there, margin naturally piles up there too.
Plus, Hyperliquid’s USDC has a special feature. This past May, Circle, Coinbase, and Hyperliquid did a partnership. USDC became Hyperliquid’s only quoted asset. Coinbase manages the treasury deployments, and Circle handles minting and redemption. Even more importantly, 90% of reserve earnings are sent back to buy back HYPE.
Take a closer look at this design.
Users deposit USDC as margin. The interest generated by that USDC doesn’t go to Circle or Hyperliquid. Instead, it’s used to buy HYPE in the market and then burn it. For every additional dollar of USDC, there’s an additional amount of potential pressure to buy HYPE.
This isn’t just a stablecoin. It’s a flywheel.
But what I want to talk about today isn’t that.
I want to say that what this data truly reveals is something deeper: the “use cases” of stablecoins are splitting.
Previously, everyone looked at stablecoins in terms of total supply. How many billions of USDT, how many billions of USDC—who’s growing and who’s falling. But now, if you look at on-chain distribution, you’ll see a trend: stablecoins are starting to branch out by “function.”
On Ethereum, USDC is the vault for old money. On Solana, USDC is the payment channel. On Hyperliquid, USDC is the chips at the poker table.
These three things all get called USDC, but their “turnover rate” is completely different. Money in the payment channel moves many times a day. Money at the poker table moves more frequently too, but in a more one-directional way—it only flows in, not out, until it gets liquidated or withdrawn.
Hyperliquid’s USDC being able to outperform Solana shows that, at some point, the volume of “betting” in this market outweighed the volume of “use” #hyperliquid上usdc供应量超越solana

The timing is too perfect. On September 15, the Senate failed a procedural vote on the CLARITY Act—49 in favor and 50 against, not reaching the 60-vote threshold. Prediction markets’ estimated probability of the bill passing before the end of the year dropped straight from over 30% to around 5%.
Then on September 16, the FOMC raised rates. The market-implied probability of a rate hike had already been priced in at 92.9% before the meeting.
Two bombs—both went off in succession within 24 hours. One was a bomb on regulatory expectations, and the other was a bomb on interest-rate funding costs. The institutional playbook is simple: get out first, then take a clear look.
Where did the money go.
Look at the other data. On September 11, when the Bitcoin ETFs were still bleeding, Ethereum ETFs pulled in $216 million in a single day. Just BlackRock’s ETHA alone took in $148.8 million, with net inflows for 20 consecutive trading days.
This isn’t a retreat from crypto; it’s a rotation—switching from BTC to ETH. Same market, same institution, two directions.
Why do I care.
Because this shows one thing: the money in Bitcoin ETFs isn’t “faith money.” It’s “allocation money.” Allocation money is about accounting, not belief. When the CLARITY Act dies, the accounting result is that the risk premium rises; when the FOMC hikes rates, the accounting result is that the opportunity cost rises. If both rise, then you cut exposure.
How much to cut? Look at the odds. When the odds change, the position changes. #比特币etf流出4.5亿美元

PMatt Huang yesterday posted on X. It was very simple—just two sentences: Paradigm is an investor in the Zcash Open Development Lab, and it also holds ZEC tokens. He called Zcash “a privacy add-on to Bitcoin.”

Then ZEC surged—up nearly 20% in 24 hours, and up 160% over the past month. How much did Bitcoin rise over the same period? 18.2%.

First, let’s talk about Matt Huang.

He’s a co-founder of Paradigm, one of the top-tier crypto VCs in the space. He never posts casually. You can look up what narrative he publicly backed last time. When someone like him posts, it’s not to hype a trade—it’s to set the tone.

In his post, there are three points that I think are worth watching even more than “buying ZEC” itself.

First, he said Paradigm supports Zcash’s “inflation-funded developer fund.” What does that mean? It means that when miners mine coins, a portion of them will be used to support the development team. In crypto circles, this is a highly controversial mechanism, but he says it’s important because “AI-driven network attack capabilities and quantum computing are developing.”

Second, he supports combining Zcash’s token voting with other forms of governance, reducing its unpredictability as a monetary asset.

Third—and most interesting—he defines Zcash as “a privacy add-on to Bitcoin,” not a replacement. This positioning is spot-on. Bitcoin is a transparent vault, while Zcash is an invisible vault. The two don’t conflict—they’re complementary.

But you need to see one thing clearly.

Paradigm’s investment in the Zcash ecosystem didn’t start yesterday. Back in March, the Zcash Open Development Lab completed a seed round of over $25 million. Investors included Paradigm, a16z crypto, Coinbase Ventures, and Winklevoss Capital.

On September 14th, the Zcash community vote ended. 98.9% of token holders supported maintaining the Bitcoin-style halving mechanism, not opting for smooth issuance.

This was one of the most important governance votes in Zcash’s history. With nearly unanimous consensus, the community confirmed that Zcash will follow the path of Bitcoin’s monetary attributes plus optional privacy.

Then Grayscale’s Zcash ETF, ZCSH, was listed on the NYSE Arca on August 25th. In two weeks, assets under management surpassed $500 million, with holdings of more than 550,000 ZEC—locking up 3% of the network’s total circulating supply.

——Clear Channel #paradigm披露持有zec

First, look at the liquidation data.

In the past 24 hours, the entire market liquidated a total of 632 million. Long liquidations were 526 million, while short liquidations were only 106 million. Bitcoin long liquidations were 174 million, shorts only 37 million. Ethereum is even worse—long liquidations were 181 million.

Study this ratio. What got liquidated were all longs. It’s not that the bears are winning—it's that the longs are being repeatedly swept out. The price moved down from around 79,000, pushing the people chasing longs out one by one, and then it stopped at 77,000. Is this position just a temporary rest spot after the washout, or is it a relay point for the next leg of the downswing? I don’t know.

But one detail is pretty interesting.

On September 15, the Clarity Act was rejected in the Senate procedural vote. 49 votes in favor, 50 against—didn’t reach the 60-vote threshold. The probability in the prediction market that the bill would pass before the end of the year dropped directly from over 30% to around 5%.

After the news, Bitcoin fell from 79,600 to below 75,000. The amount of coins transferred from short-term holders to exchanges spiked from a daily average of 19,400 BTC to 33,100 BTC, with 23,200 BTC of that in losses.

This is capitulation. Not panic selling—it's that those who chased in at 79,000 and 80,000 couldn't take it anymore, and cut.

The ETF side is retreating too.

From September 8 to 11, Bitcoin spot ETFs saw net outflows of 463 million, ending three consecutive weeks of inflows. ARKB ran out 250 million, GBTC out 129 million, and even BlackRock’s IBIT exited 52.5 million.

But Ethereum ETFs are doing the opposite. On September 11 alone, ETH ETFs had net inflows of 216 million; BlackRock’s ETHA accounted for 149 million by itself, with net inflows continuing for 20 straight trading days.

Money is moving from BTC to ETH. This isn’t something I made up—it’s from Farside data. Same market, same time, two directions.

Whether 77,000 holds isn’t about the candlesticks—it depends on what happens after next week’s FOMC, whether those still holding U on the sidelines are willing to come in.

Right now, the people entering the market are either betting that the rate hike landing will be a negative-forcing “bad news but good news” and the bad news is already out, or betting that the Clarity Act still has a turnaround. These two groups are betting on two completely different things.

—Pure Flow Channel #比特币突破77000美元