大嗯BNB

BTC is trading around 84,500–84,875, reaching its highest level in the past week.
First, an on-chain data point: the number of whale addresses holding more than 100 BTC has hit an all-time high of 20,338.
What does this number mean? It doesn’t mean that a single whale is buying. It means the total number of addresses with “whale-level” holdings has reached a record high. While BTC was pulling back from 87,000 to 79,676, a large number of addresses holding 100 BTC or more emerged, suggesting that beyond institutions, a considerable number of high-net-worth individuals and small-to-medium-sized institutions continued to accumulate during this period.
Meanwhile, a single whale withdrew 1,162 BTC from market maker Wintermute on October 14 and another 1,090 BTC on October 21, for a total of 2,252 BTC (about $187 million). These coins didn’t go to an exchange; they went to new addresses, effectively being quietly stashed away.
On the price front, BTC has rebounded about 6.2% from its October 15 low of 79,732, and the daily RSI is nearing 90 in the short term.
One thing needs to be made clear here: an RSI near 90 is a signal of extremely strong momentum, not a signal to “short immediately.”
An RSI above 90 means buying pressure is far outstripping selling pressure in the short term. Historically, this has usually corresponded to an accelerating trend phase. In October 2020, for example, BTC rose from 13,000 to 20,000 with its RSI around 90. An RSI of 90 doesn’t mean the top is in; it means “bulls are in control during this period, and momentum is very strong.”
But it also means the price has moved quite quickly in the short term, increasing the likelihood of a pullback to test the area around 83,000.
Key figures right now: 84,540 is the resistance at the one-month moving average, as well as the average cost basis for ETF holders (around 84,340). BTC needs to hold above this level to challenge the October high of 87,300. With five days to go until the October 27 FOMC meeting, any unexpectedly hawkish signals during this period could disrupt the current momentum.
But the all-time high in the number of whale addresses is a structural signal—not noise for today, but an indication of the medium-term direction.
Whether BTC can hold above 84,500 before the FOMC is crucial over these next five days.
How are your positions looking right now—have you added or reduced? Let us know.
$BTC

Celestia has launched Eden, an EVM-compatible chain designed specifically for AI Agents. TIA jumped 16% that day, reaching a new price high for 2026.
Eden’s concept isn’t complicated, but it fits the 2026 AI narrative perfectly: enabling AI agents to trade, make payments, and issue tokens onchain autonomously, without human intervention. Eden uses the Celestia mainnet as its data availability layer, and TIA is Eden’s native gas token—every transaction on Eden directly drives demand for TIA.
Block times are 100 milliseconds, or 10 blocks per second. Eden’s first testnet project is called Botfun—AI Agents issue and trade tokens based on narratives they generate themselves. It looks like a pretty wild experiment.
Celestia’s official positioning is measured: it calls Eden “a tool for measuring how much blockspace demand autonomous Agents can create.” Not a promise—just a measurement.
But one data point is worth noting: from September 18 to October 15, the daily volume of data rollup projects submitted to Celestia fell by about 26%. Before Eden launched, Celestia’s actual usage was already shrinking.
So the underlying logic behind this rally is that the AI Agent narrative and expectations of demand for TIA as a gas token have gotten ahead of real usage data.
TIA climbed from $0.47 on October 10 to a high of $0.769, before facing resistance at $0.80. The RSI is nearing 74, suggesting it’s overbought in the short term.
Whether Eden can genuinely drive onchain transaction volume is what will determine if TIA can keep rising. The narrative is already priced in; now it’s time to watch the data.
Can Eden generate real onchain demand from AI Agents? What do you think?
$TIA
#celestia涨16%创2026年新高

#BinancePick
The next day, Ben was still there

Twice a year, the crypto market gets “held hostage” by U.S. stocks: during Q1 and Q3 earnings season. And right now, we’re in the busiest stretch of the latter.
This week (October 19–23) is the peak of the entire Q3 earnings season, with 70 S&P 500 companies reporting results. The main events: SpaceX (Tuesday), Netflix (Tuesday), and Meta and Tesla (both after the market closes on Wednesday).
Why does this matter to crypto?
The short-term correlation between the Nasdaq and BTC has stayed between 0.5 and 0.7 this year. Last week (October 13–17), the Nasdaq fell about 2.5% for the week, and BTC also pulled back to the $80,000 range. The mechanism is simple: when risk appetite rises, institutions add to both BTC and tech stocks; when it falls, they reduce exposure to both.
There are several key points of divergence in this week’s earnings to watch:
Meta: Q2 EPS came in well below expectations ($6.18 vs. the expected $7.19), due to a one-off tax expense—not a deterioration in the business. Ad revenue actually beat expectations. Q3 revenue is expected to be $6.1–6.4 billion, with AI-driven ad efficiency in the market’s spotlight. Its full-year capex guidance of $130–145 billion will also face repeated scrutiny.
Tesla: Q3 deliveries came in at 486,500 vehicles, about 5% above expectations. But revenue is expected to be down roughly 2% year over year, with margins under pressure from pricing. What Musk says on the earnings call often has a bigger impact on the stock’s direction than the numbers themselves.
SpaceX (already reported): It posted its first-ever quarterly profit, while its AI computing rental business grew about ninefold year over year—directly boosting market sentiment toward the AI infrastructure sector.
The structural logic is this: if Meta and Tesla can reassure the market about AI spending, the Nasdaq could recover, increasing the odds that BTC rises alongside it. On the other hand, if guidance is cautious or capex gets out of control, risk appetite could weaken further, and $80,000 may remain a resistance level.
Earnings season isn’t just about individual companies; it’s about the market repricing its consensus on whether “AI spending is still worth it.”
Once this week’s earnings are out, do you think their impact on BTC’s direction will be more bullish or bearish?
$BTC $SPCXB
#股票财报季

CME officially launches UNI futures contracts: standard contracts for 10,000 UNI and micro contracts for 1,000 UNI. Cash-settled, with no on-chain wallet required, and fully compliant with CFTC filing requirements.
The first regulated-channel block trade was completed shortly afterward.
This news may not seem significant on its own, but it looks different when viewed on a timeline.
On February 11 this year, BlackRock connected its $2.2 billion BUIDL tokenized money market fund to UniswapX—the first compliant institutional product to trade on-chain directly through a decentralized exchange. It also bought a batch of UNI governance tokens.
On July 23, Uniswap v4 introduced Permissioned Pools, allowing tokenized funds and securities to make markets on-chain while enforcing investor eligibility checks. Superstate, Securitize, and Dowgo were the first to join.
On September 22, CME announced UNI futures, the 11th single-asset crypto contract, following Cardano, Chainlink, Stellar, Avalanche, and Sui, which had already been listed earlier this year.
They launched on October 19, and the first block trade was completed.
This timeline points to one thing: UNI is gradually shifting from a “DeFi governance token” to an asset that institutions can allocate to compliantly. BlackRock can buy it, CME can trade it, and compliant funds can use Permissioned Pools—the door is open.
On the day UNI futures began trading, the price was around $7.49, down about 25% from its post-announcement peak of $9.70–$10.10 on September 22. A classic “buy the rumor, sell the news” move.
But the real question after the futures launch is: can trading volume pick up? BTC futures also took time to gain traction after they launched.
Do you think UNI futures will follow the same institutional accumulation path that BTC and ETH did after launching on CME?
$UNI #UNI

#uni首笔受监管渠道大宗交易完成

I was looking into ENA recently and came across an interesting timeline.
After ENA peaked last October, its price plunged to an all-time low near $0.09. During the decline, early seed investors kept receiving monthly token unlocks and selling as they unlocked—so the supply pressure never let up.
On August 27, the Ethena Foundation dealt with all of these issues at once. It pushed through four things:
First, it bought out all the locked tokens held by seed investors who had been selling as soon as their tokens unlocked, and sent them on their way. Investors who hadn’t sold were given the opportunity to sell at their original purchase price, but nobody took it—which suggests they’re still bullish.
Second, all remaining investor tokens fully unlocked at once on October 5, bringing the monthly unlock schedule to an end. The ticking time bomb that had been weighing on the price for a year was defused.
Third, the fee switch proposal passed a vote on September 8: 95% of the Foundation’s net revenue will be used to buy back ENA on the open market once USDe’s circulating supply reaches $7.5 billion. It’s currently around $5 billion, so there’s still a $2.5 billion gap—but the direction is clear.
Fourth, the framework for ownership of the protocol’s intellectual property and economic interests (the Master Framework Agreement) is expected to be released this month, firmly directing the value of the protocol to token holders rather than Ethena Labs’ equity holders.
Standard Chartered has picked up on this thesis and set a $2 target price for ENA—about 7x from the reference price of $0.28—with a year-end 2028 time horizon, drawing a comparison to UNI’s price performance after its fee switch.
ENA trending now probably isn’t random—it’s the market repricing the token after all these events came together.
The fee switch won’t actually activate until USDe rebounds to $7.5 billion. That progress is worth watching.
Do you think USDe can surpass $7.5 billion by the end of this year?
$ENA #ENA

After market close on October 20, SpaceX released its Q3 earnings report—its first quarterly profit since going public, with net income of about ¥700 billion (approximately $4.7 billion).
That figure needs some context to understand why it matters.
SpaceX went public this June at an IPO price of $135, raising about $85.7 billion in the largest IPO in history. Its market cap briefly topped $2 trillion on the first day of trading, but then fell by nearly half over the next two months. The reason was simple: Q2 revenue beat expectations ($7.8 billion, up 92% year over year), but the company still posted a net loss of $541 million and spent $18.4 billion on capital expenditures in a single quarter, most of it on AI infrastructure.
The market’s thinking at the time: the company was burning through cash too quickly, and profitability was nowhere in sight.
Q3 broke that assumption.
The main driver of SpaceX’s first-ever profit was its AI business. In Q2, the AI division generated $2.6 billion in revenue, up 247% year over year. Analysts’ Q3 estimate then jumped straight to $6 billion, as the contract for Anthropic to rent the Colossus data center for $1.25 billion a month began to be fully reflected in the results in July, alongside new contracts with customers like Google. The description “AI business revenue 9x” refers to this growth curve.
The business model is straightforward: buy Nvidia GPUs, build data centers, then rent them to companies like Anthropic, Google, and Reflection AI. It’s the same logic as Starlink—build capital-intensive infrastructure and recoup the investment through rental income.
But one detail is worth noting: these AI computing contracts have 90-day termination clauses, so customers can choose not to renew at any time. The revenue surge is real, but whether it can continue will depend on future renewals.
One other variable: about 1.3 billion shares will be unlocked after the Q3 earnings release—more than the entire IPO offering. Even with strong earnings, that potential selling pressure shouldn’t be ignored.
What position is SPCX holding now?
$SPCXB

Is today the first day? How should I play?
Which track has the highest chance of winning?

#BinancePick

Japan was one of the earliest countries to take action on stablecoins, but progress was slow—until it began to accelerate over the past couple of years.
It all started in 2023. That year, Japan amended its Funds Settlement Act, separating stablecoins from crypto assets and defining them as “electronic payment instruments.” Only banks, money transfer service providers, and trust companies are allowed to issue them, and they must be backed 100% by yen deposits or government bonds.
Once the legislation was in place, things started heating up. In October 2025, Japan’s first compliant yen stablecoin, JPYC, went live. Issued by JPYC Inc., it is pegged at 1 yen = 1 JPYC, settles in seconds, and costs less than 1 yen in fees. The country’s three megabanks—MUFG, Sumitomo Mitsui, and Mizuho—have also announced plans to jointly issue a stablecoin by March 2027, with the Financial Services Agency officially backing the initiative.
The Digital Agency is now discussing an even bigger idea: using stablecoins for public benefit payments.
The logic is straightforward. In July 2026, the Japanese government’s “Priority Plan” set out a clear direction: use My Number (the personal identification number system) to create a system for the government to pay citizens directly. Integrating stablecoins into this system would solve the last mile of benefit payments: programmable on-chain payments that are traceable, arrive 24/7, and incur almost no fees.
Compared with traditional bank transfers, the efficiency gains from using stablecoins for benefit payments are clear. The challenge lies with users: cash and credit cards are still the norm in Japan, and stablecoin wallet adoption remains extremely low. In January 2026, SMBC ran a pilot that enabled direct JPYC payments using My Number cards, without requiring users to install a separate wallet app. This approach aims to overcome that final hurdle.
Yen stablecoins are still at an early stage, but the Japanese government is now discussing them as part of its public infrastructure framework. That sends a very different kind of signal.
Do you think yen stablecoins can become a mainstream payment method in Japan within five years?
$USDC

#日本国交相将研究稳定币退税

Last October, NEAR cut its annual issuance rate from 5% to 2.5%. The way it was carried out was interesting: the community vote failed to reach the 66.67% threshold, but the core team pushed the code into an upgrade package anyway, leaving validators 30 days to decide whether to accept it.
It passed in the end. But validators including Chorus One publicly criticized the move: If the vote didn’t pass, what do you call it when you push it through anyway? Governance?
This history matters because the same scenario is now unfolding for a second time.
On September 30, Sal Ternullo, CEO of NEAR treasury company SVRN, proposed a new plan on the governance forum: cut the maximum annual issuance rate from 2.5% to 1.6%, phased in over 24 months, while lowering the annualized staking rate from about 5.4% to 3.5%.
The reasoning behind the numbers: NEAR issues about $140 million worth of new tokens each year, while its TVL is only about $157 million and annual transaction fees are under $3.2 million. Put simply, the network is using high inflation to subsidize security costs, even though there isn’t enough usage to justify those costs. Halving issuance would mean issuing about 970,000 fewer NEAR each year.
But this proposal signals something more far-reaching: SVRN also mentioned the idea of a “fixed supply” on the forum. It’s not part of this vote, but co-founder Illia Polosukhin has already publicly endorsed similar ideas. If NEAR really moves toward a fixed supply, that would mean a completely different valuation model.
The vote is still underway. Clearing the 66.67% threshold is the first hurdle; if it passes, validators will still need to go through another round of the upgrade process.
History tells us that even if the vote fails, the core team might still push it through—but that would provoke a backlash over governance.
The outcome of this contest is worth watching more closely than the “inflation cut” itself.
If you hold NEAR, what impact do you think this vote will have on the price?
$NEAR

#near投票拟将年增发率降至1.6%

On October 21, BTC is hovering around $82,500–$83,000, with the FOMC meeting just six days away.
I dug through the ETF flow data from the past week, and one number made me take a second look:
On October 20, BlackRock’s IBIT saw a net inflow of $665 million in a single day—the largest daily inflow since October 2025.
Pay attention to the timing: BTC had just pulled back from $87,000 to $79,676, both CPI and PPI came in above expectations, and market sentiment dropped from a high of 74 on the “Fear and Greed Index” to 59. Retail traders were asking, “Can $80,000 hold?”
And right then, institutions came in with $665 million in buying in a single day.
What does this tell us? While retail traders are pricing in macro risks—rate-hike odds, inflation data, and FOMC uncertainty—institutional investors are working from a different set of assumptions. In their eyes, prices around $80,000 are worth investing heavily in.
Looking at other figures along the same lines: Strategy currently holds around 848,000 BTC, more than 4% of Bitcoin’s total supply; whale addresses accumulated 85,000 BTC over the past three weeks; and the average cost basis for BTC ETF investors is about $84,340. At $82,500–$83,000, the current price is roughly $1,500 below that level.
Put these four data points together, and they paint a picture of institutional holdings with a lot of cost basis concentrated between $82,000 and $85,000. These investors aren’t likely to sell out quickly after making just 1%–2%—their exit prices should be much higher than today’s.
Of course, the FOMC decision six days from now is the biggest single variable of the year, and any structural analysis should treat the outcome with due caution.
But based on the data we’ve seen so far, it’s already clear who has been buying the dip: not retail traders, but institutions.
Anyone here add to their positions during this pullback, or are you waiting until after the FOMC meeting? Let us know.
$BTC

In my previous post on ZEC, I analyzed the NU7 upgrade and the controversy over 22,000–25,000 coins frozen in the Sprout pool. I initially thought this would create bearish pressure.
Unexpectedly, it surged 8.5% in just 24 hours on October 21.
Looking back at this rally, there are a few clues worth piecing together.
First, the broader privacy narrative is still alive. Naval Ravikant kicked off the first wave last year when he called “ZEC insurance for BTC.” Arthur Hayes later followed with a $10,000 price target, and ZEC climbed from just over $20 in October 2025 to an eight-year high. That narrative hasn’t faded.
Second, Grayscale has already renamed its ZEC trust “The Zcash ETF,” and its NYSE Arca listing application is still awaiting SEC effectiveness. Expectations of institutional investment have continued to build.
Digging further back, ZEC gained 16% in a single day on July 26—the catalyst was Binance announcing its support for the NU7 upgrade and hard fork. Then, just a day later, we saw the same recipe: news of a network upgrade paired with a technical-breakthrough narrative, and ZEC took off.
After the 30% crash in June triggered by the vulnerability scare, the mainnet was fixed within eight weeks, and the price soon reached an eight-year high. The market has been more forgiving of ZEC than expected.
Today’s 8.5% gain was most likely driven by the same combination: the privacy narrative, upgrade expectations, and progress on the Grayscale ETF. It wasn’t a single catalyst—several factors were playing out at once.
Now around $480, with a year-to-date low of $34 and a high of nearly $700—do you think it can hold this level this time?
$ZEC
#zcash24小时上涨8.5%

JPMorgan has made a clear shift in its stance on BTC this year.
In February 2026, JPMorgan Chief Strategist Nikolaos Panigirtzoglou published a report setting BTC’s long-term target at **$266,000**.
The reasoning isn’t bullish sentiment; it’s a very specific quantitative framework: the volatility ratio of BTC to gold has fallen to a historic low of 1.5, suggesting that BTC is maturing as an asset class—its volatility is approaching gold’s, while the gap in market capitalization remains substantial.
Gold’s current market cap is around $28 trillion, while BTC’s is under $2 trillion.
If this volatility gap continues to narrow and institutional investors keep adding BTC to their portfolios, BTC’s theoretical upside is a linear extrapolation based on gold’s market cap—with $266,000 as the figure produced by this model.
Following this line of thinking, in September JPMorgan updated its outlook again: Bitcoin ETFs still have a large amount of open downside-hedging positions (put options), while similar hedges in gold ETFs have largely been unwound. Once this “insurance” weighing on BTC’s price eases, the odds of BTC outperforming gold could rise significantly.
BTC is now trading around $80,000, leaving 230% upside to $266,000.
Of course, this is a long-term target, not a prediction for tomorrow. JPMorgan itself has made that clear: this isn’t a forecast for the next 12 months, but a theoretical value “once volatility has converged,” and the time horizon could be several years.
But what’s interesting is the shift in the underlying logic: from “BTC is a speculative asset” to “BTC is an undervalued store of value.” This change in perspective is more noteworthy than the price target itself.
At the current price of $80,000, do you think this is a chance to get in, or is there still room to fall?
$BTC

#摩根大通预测比特币十年领跑

SpaceX has released its Q3 2026 earnings report, with revenue beating analyst expectations.
This is SpaceX’s second quarterly report since going public. To understand the significance of these numbers, we first need to understand how its businesses are structured.
In June this year, SpaceX listed on Nasdaq under the ticker SPCX. Its IPO was priced at $135 per share and raised about $85.7 billion—the largest IPO in history. On listing day, it briefly made Musk the world’s first trillionaire.
Two months later, on August 4, SpaceX released its Q2 earnings: revenue of $7.8 billion, up 92% year over year and nearly $1 billion above expectations of $6.9 billion. All three business lines beat expectations, but the company reported a net loss of $541 million, and quarterly capital expenditure reached $18.4 billion. The stock instead fell more than 8% after hours.
After Q2, analysts raised their Q3 revenue forecasts to around $13 billion. The reason was straightforward:
Starting in July, Anthropic began paying $1.25 billion per month to rent SpaceX’s Colossus data center. The contract only began to be fully reflected in revenue in Q3. The CFO said it directly on the Q2 earnings call: the AI business could overtake Starlink to become SpaceX’s largest revenue source in Q3. The $6.7 billion in new cloud-services contracts signed in Q2 also began contributing to revenue in October.
Another key factor in Q3 is the lockup expiration: about 1.3 billion shares will become eligible for sale after the Q3 earnings report—more than the entire IPO offering. That means early employees and investors can start selling their shares, no matter how good the earnings numbers are. This was one of the major reasons the stock fell after the Q2 report, and the same pressure applies in Q3.
SpaceX’s story has never been about whether it makes or loses money in a single quarter. It comes down to one question: can the company get from its current quarterly revenue of $13 billion to the $1 trillion in annual revenue Musk has talked about?
Can its three engines—Starlink, AI computing rentals, and Starship launches—all hit their stride at the same time? This Q3 report is the first relatively real data point.
Do you have a position in SPCX at this price?
$SPCXB

An underestimated regulatory signal: Google has opened up crypto advertising in the UAE.
Not for everyone—the bar is clear:
To run crypto ads on Google platforms targeting users in the UAE, you must hold a license from one of these three authorities:
FSRA (Financial Services Regulatory Authority), VARA (Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority), or DFSA (Dubai Financial Services Authority).
You also have to pass Google's own advertising certification and comply with all local UAE legal requirements. Violations won't result in an immediate account ban; you'll first receive a 7-day warning.
This update has two key changes compared with the 2023 version: first, the DFSA has been added to the list of recognized regulators, covering licensed entities under the Dubai International Financial Centre framework; second, the scope of eligible advertising has expanded from “exchanges” to “exchanges + software wallets.”
Major platforms like Binance, OKX, and Crypto.com, along with local players BitOasis, M2, and CoinMENA, can now officially run ads on Google to reach users in the UAE.
The deeper logic behind this:
More than 30% of the UAE's population currently holds cryptocurrency, making it one of the countries with the highest adoption rates in the world. The country's sovereign wealth fund, Mubadala, also invested $436 million in BlackRock's Bitcoin ETF this year. By opening up advertising access, Google is essentially acknowledging that this market is mature enough, and its regulatory framework clear enough, to warrant an official channel for compliant players to reach users.
From a regulatory perspective, this “build a licensing system first, then open advertising channels” approach is much like MiCA's path in Europe: compliant entities get their permits first, and then the ecosystem's infrastructure follows.
Whether crypto advertising is allowed is essentially a reflection of how mature the local regulatory framework is. The UAE has cleared this hurdle. Which major market will be next?
$BTC
#谷歌更新阿联酋加密广告规则

BitMine (NYSE: BMNR) bought another 12,535 ETH this week.
The number is considerably lower than before—the two purchases on October 8 and 10 totaled nearly 44,000 ETH, while this one was just 12,535. Tom Lee had said they would slow the pace, and this figure is in line with that forecast.
But the significance isn’t the size of any single purchase. It’s that BitMine has been buying every week for more than 60 consecutive weeks, without interruption since launching its ETH treasury strategy in June 2025.
Let’s take a closer look at the logic behind BitMine’s approach:
The goal is called “Alchemy of 5%”—Tom Lee’s target is to hold 5% of Ethereum’s total supply. Its current holdings are about 6 million ETH, or roughly 4.9% of the total supply. It needs approximately another 60,000–80,000 ETH to reach 5%.
The holdings are worth about $14.6 billion (based on the current ETH price of around $2,400), making it the world’s largest corporate ETH treasury. Its total digital asset reserves are second only to Strategy’s (Michael Saylor’s BTC treasury).
About 85% of its holdings are staked through MAVAN, its in-house institutional staking platform. Annualized staking rewards are estimated at around $300 million or more, turning staking itself into a revenue stream.
There’s one notable opponent to watch:
In October 2025, short-selling firm Kerrisdale Capital publicly shorted BMNR, questioning BitMine’s business model. The market reaction was significant at the time, and BMNR plunged in a single day. But BitMine continued adding to its holdings afterward, and Tom Lee hasn’t changed his position—he believes ETH will ultimately become the settlement layer for tokenized Wall Street. He has cited a long-term price target of $62,000.
Whether this thesis plays out will depend on the FOMC, the direction of interest rates, and whether on-chain demand for ETH itself can keep pace with the narrative.
A company that dollar-cost averages into its 6-million-ETH treasury every week—do you think this is smart money, or a highly leveraged bet?
$ETH

#bitmine增持12535枚eth

The Treasury Department’s comment period on the GENIUS Act has closed.
This date is worth marking: the first U.S. law dedicated specifically to stablecoins is now entering the crucial rulemaking stage.
The Blockchain Association has several key positions in this round of rulemaking that are worth clarifying:
First, KYC obligations must not be extended without limits.
The GENIUS Act requires stablecoin issuers to establish Customer Identification Programs (CIPs). The Blockchain Association’s position is that this obligation should apply only to direct, primary-market relationships between issuers and their customers—not extend downstream to secondary-market transactions or smart contract interactions.
The reasoning is that transactions on the blockchain are executed automatically through smart contracts, without any involvement from issuers. Requiring issuers to bear KYC responsibility for every on-chain transaction they have no part in is technically impossible and exceeds the authority granted by the GENIUS Act.
Second, the definition of stablecoins must be narrow.
The Association wants the Treasury Department to strictly limit the GENIUS Act’s regulatory scope to “payment stablecoins”—rather than allow regulators to use vague definitions to bring all kinds of tokens under the stablecoin framework.
Third, the ban on interest/yield must not be expanded too far.
The GENIUS Act prohibits stablecoin issuers from paying interest directly to holders—a measure intended to distinguish stablecoins from money market funds. But the banking industry has been pushing to extend this ban to platform-level rewards and yield programs. The Association is firmly opposed: the law bans issuers from paying interest, not platforms.
Fourth, advance a “passporting” regime.
Whether a platform approved at the state level can operate nationwide is currently a gray area. The Association is calling for a federal passporting mechanism to prevent states from fragmenting the stablecoin market with their own licensing requirements.
Since the GENIUS Act was signed in July 2025, the debate has moved from legislation to the details of implementation. How the rules are written will determine the true scope of opportunity in the stablecoin sector.
$USDC

#美国区块链协会提交genius法案意见

Perpetual futures are the largest derivatives market in crypto. In 2025, global trading volume exceeded **$61 trillion**—more than the combined volume of Bitcoin spot and traditional futures.
Despite the market’s enormous size, until now it has operated exclusively on offshore platforms like Binance and Bybit. On May 29 this year, the CFTC approved KalshiEX’s BTC perpetual futures contract (BTCPERP) for listing, marking the first time in U.S. history that perpetual futures were brought under a compliant regulatory framework.
CME (the Chicago Mercantile Exchange) promptly sued the CFTC on June 18.
CME’s core argument: perpetual contracts have no expiration date, so under the Dodd-Frank Act they should be classified as swaps, not futures—meaning the CFTC’s approval of Kalshi was illegal.
This may sound like a technical legal issue, but it strikes at the heart of the business logic: if perpetuals are classified as swaps, new platforms like Kalshi would have to register as swap dealers, dramatically raising the compliance bar. CME’s existing futures business would then face no competitive pressure.
On September 2, the CFTC asked the court to dismiss CME’s lawsuit, responding bluntly:
First, CME itself says its customers don’t need perpetual products. And since Kalshi was approved, trading volume in CME’s BTC/ETH futures has actually increased—so what specific harm have you suffered?
Second, the CFTC says perpetual futures are futures; CME just doesn’t like the “label.”
Third, the CFTC characterized CME’s lawsuit as “lawfare”—rather than compete by innovating, it’s using litigation to tie up its rival.
The outcome of this case will directly determine the shape of the U.S. perpetual futures market. If CME wins, compliance costs for new platforms will skyrocket, and perpetual futures will remain restricted in the U.S. If the CFTC wins, the way will be cleared for Kraken, Coinbase, and Bitnomial, while DeFi perpetual platforms like Hyperliquid could also attract more compliant capital.
The court hasn’t ruled yet, but the CFTC’s “you haven’t been harmed” argument hits the mark. Whether it can get CME thrown out on procedural grounds is the key question right now.
Whose position do you support in this case?
$BTC
#cftc反驳cme永续期货诉讼立场

TSMC delivered the best quarterly results in its history.
Net income surged 68.7% year over year, revenue hit **$46.7 billion**, and the company set a new record for the sixth consecutive quarter. Demand for AI chips accounted for 68% of revenue, its 2nm process has entered mass production and started contributing to revenue, and its full-year outlook was raised.
By all accounts, this was good news. But on the day of the earnings release, TSMC’s U.S.-listed ADRs initially fell nearly 2%.
The reason wasn’t the earnings themselves, but the broader environment: the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield approached 5.23% around the same time, its highest level in nearly 24 years. High interest rates weigh on valuations, and tech growth stocks are no exception. Add in the previous day’s CPI of 3.7% and the earlier PPI reading of 6.3%—both higher than expected—and overall market risk appetite was under pressure.
The earnings news rippled through the market, and chip stocks as a group began attracting buyers. Stocks like AMD, Intel, Navitas, and Wolfspeed rebounded in succession, helping the Nasdaq recover from last week’s lows.
What does this mean for the crypto market?
BTC’s weekly correlation with the Nasdaq has long remained between 0.5 and 0.7. When pressure on the Nasdaq was at its worst, BTC was also trading around $80,000. As chip stocks began to rebound and sentiment toward tech recovered, downward pressure on BTC eased accordingly.
However, there’s a structural paradox worth noting: TSMC reported a blowout quarter with exceptionally strong demand, yet its stock still fell that day. This shows that in the market’s current pricing logic, macro interest rates have taken precedence over fundamentals themselves. As long as inflation doesn’t come down and Treasury yields don’t retreat, even the strongest results will be weighed down.
The same logic applies to BTC.
The FOMC meets on October 28, and the probability of a rate hike is still 28%—that’s the real turning point.
What do you think will happen next?
$BTC

#芯片股反弹带动美股上涨

Two data streams are growing in parallel. Let’s break them down.
First: deposits on crypto cards surpassed $10 billion on July 1 this year.
That $10 billion isn’t transaction volume—it’s the balance users have loaded onto crypto debit card programs, a bit like an Alipay balance, except it’s funded with stablecoins and spent over the Visa/Mastercard networks.
Deposits are up 82% year to date and about 250% year over year. Monthly spending exceeds $900 million, with 88% settled in stablecoins.
Looking back at the growth: average monthly deposits were just over $100 million in 2023. By the end of 2025, they had exceeded $1.5 billion per month—a compound annual growth rate of 106%. Visa now operates more than 130 stablecoin-linked card programs in over 50 countries worldwide.
Second: DeFi yield vaults had reached $9 billion in assets by August.
This money is deposited for a different reason—not to be spent, but to earn stablecoin yields on-chain. With BTC fluctuating around $80,000 and macroeconomic inflation heating up, some capital has moved out of speculative positions and into stable on-chain returns. Bitwise expects this figure to double before year-end.
Both trends reflect the same underlying shift: stablecoins are moving beyond being a trading tool within crypto and becoming financial infrastructure with real-world use cases.
On the crypto card side, everyday users in more than 60 countries are using stablecoins to pay for daily expenses. On the yield vault side, institutional capital is sitting on-chain and earning interest. One gets spent, the other gets saved—and both are driving up the total stablecoin market.
The combined circulating market cap of USDT and USDC has now surpassed $200 billion. Compared with the $10 billion in crypto card deposits, there’s still a long way to go in terms of adoption.
Where do you think this trend is headed?
$USDC
#加密金库存款超100亿美元