Sulaiman 零号猎人
2.5k Posts
LIVESulaiman 零号猎人
Report
Block User
ZeroHunter | Hunting 10X potential in micro-caps & RWA with on-chain research. I show how I check a project's data before I trust it. NFA. #ZeroResearch
Open Trade
Frequent Trader
6.2 Years
146 Following
1.0K+ Followers
2.3K+ Liked
Posts
Portfolio
All
Quotes
Live
PINNED
Article
I lost 750 USDT on LUNA because I skipped one stepDisclosure: I hold no Terra coins (LUNA or LUNC).
I lost around 750 USDT on one coin, and it was my own fault.
The worst part? I bought it without checking anything.
LUNA (the old Terra) was a hero back then. Many people, including me, wanted it in their portfolio.
One morning in May 2022, I woke up and saw it at 3.5 USDT. I did not check the news. I did not ask why. I just bought around 350 USDT worth, fast.
Then I opened X and saw CZ's thread. He said some users kept buying LUNA without understanding the risk.
That was me. 👇
Source: CZ (@cz_binance) on X, May 13, 2022
So I started DCA to "save" my money. I kept buying while the supply kept growing and I saw no clear plan from the team. In my opinion, that silence was a red flag.
Later I looked at the burn mechanism and made a decision. I closed my position with a loss of around 750 USDT.
Here's my advice:
"It was a hero before" is not a reason to buy.
Check first, buy later. Five minutes of research could have saved me.
Buying more of a broken project is not a rescue plan. In my opinion, it only makes the loss bigger.
That day changed how I research. Now, before I trust any project, I check:
Supply: Can new tokens be minted? Who controls it?Holders: Do a few wallets own most of the supply?Liquidity: Can people sell without crashing the price?Team: Does the team respond when there is a problem?Real usage: Are people using it, or only talking about it?
None of these guarantees safety. But skipping them cost me.
I share these checks step by step, so you can learn the process too.
Every project is high risk, big names and micro caps both. I could be wrong, and I have been wrong before.
This is my personal opinion, not financial advice. Do your own research.
What is one mistake that taught you the most?
#ZeroResearch
#CryptoEducation
#DYOR
I lost 750 USDT on LUNA because I skipped one step
Disclosure: I hold no Terra coins (LUNA or LUNC).
I lost around 750 USDT on one coin, and it was my own fault.
The worst part? I bought it without checking anything.
LUNA (the old Terra) was a hero back then. Many people, including me, wanted it in their portfolio.
One morning in May 2022, I woke up and saw it at 3.5 USDT. I did not check the news. I did not ask why. I just bought around 350 USDT worth, fast.
Then I opened X and saw CZ's thread. He said some users kept buying LUNA without understanding the risk.
That was me. 👇
Source: CZ (@cz_binance) on X, May 13, 2022
So I started DCA to "save" my money. I kept buying while the supply kept growing and I saw no clear plan from the team. In my opinion, that silence was a red flag.
Later I looked at the burn mechanism and made a decision. I closed my position with a loss of around 750 USDT.
Here's my advice:
"It was a hero before" is not a reason to buy.
Check first, buy later. Five minutes of research could have saved me.
Buying more of a broken project is not a rescue plan. In my opinion, it only makes the loss bigger.
That day changed how I research. Now, before I trust any project, I check:
Supply: Can new tokens be minted? Who controls it?Holders: Do a few wallets own most of the supply?Liquidity: Can people sell without crashing the price?Team: Does the team respond when there is a problem?Real usage: Are people using it, or only talking about it?
None of these guarantees safety. But skipping them cost me.
I share these checks step by step, so you can learn the process too.
Every project is high risk, big names and micro caps both. I could be wrong, and I have been wrong before.
This is my personal opinion, not financial advice. Do your own research.
What is one mistake that taught you the most?
#ZeroResearch
#CryptoEducation
#DYOR
I lost around 750 USDT on one coin, and it was my own fault.
The worst part? I bought it without checking anything.
LUNA (the old Terra) was a hero back then. Many people, including me, wanted it in their portfolio.
One morning in May 2022, I woke up and saw it at 3.5 USDT. I did not check the news. I did not ask why. I just bought around 350 USDT worth, fast.
Then I opened X and saw CZ's thread. He said some users kept buying LUNA without understanding the risk.
That was me. 👇
Source: CZ (@cz_binance) on X, May 13, 2022
So I started DCA to "save" my money. I kept buying while the supply kept growing and I saw no clear plan from the team. In my opinion, that silence was a red flag.
Later I looked at the burn mechanism and made a decision. I closed my position with a loss of around 750 USDT.
Here's my advice:
"It was a hero before" is not a reason to buy.
Check first, buy later. Five minutes of research could have saved me.
Buying more of a broken project is not a rescue plan. In my opinion, it only makes the loss bigger.
That day changed how I research. Now, before I trust any project, I check:
Supply: Can new tokens be minted? Who controls it?Holders: Do a few wallets own most of the supply?Liquidity: Can people sell without crashing the price?Team: Does the team respond when there is a problem?Real usage: Are people using it, or only talking about it?
None of these guarantees safety. But skipping them cost me.
I share these checks step by step, so you can learn the process too.
Every project is high risk, big names and micro caps both. I could be wrong, and I have been wrong before.
This is my personal opinion, not financial advice. Do your own research.
What is one mistake that taught you the most?
#ZeroResearch
#CryptoEducation
#DYOR
5
7
10
985
🎙️ On-Chain Research • Micro-Caps • RWA • Market Intelligence
LIVE10 listens
2
0
Here's my Binance DCA sheet. -1,633 USDT. And no, it wasn't bad luck. 🔎
Some of you asked about the "DCA" in my last post. This is it, the sheet I kept by hand for my GLMR buys on Binance.
I traded GLMR across 3 exchanges. This sheet is the Binance record, and its bottom line is -1,633 USDT. Across all three, I closed with roughly 2,000 USDT in losses.
I'm not blaming the market. This loss was my fault. Here's why:
## GLMR was a Polkadot bridge play back then. I never asked what happens if that story changes.
## Moonriver's market was strong and Moonbeam looked good at the start. I assumed a bull market would carry it back.
## Some KOLs kept calling it. Every time they said buy, I bought. I followed without checking.
I thought I was averaging down. I was really averaging into a thesis that was already dying.
DCA works when the story is alive. If the story is dead, DCA is just a slower way to lose.
My new rule: if I can't explain why I'm buying in my own words, I don't buy.
What's the one buy you made because someone else sounded sure? 👇
Not financial advice. Just my own mistake, shared honestly.
$GLMR $DOT $MOVR
#GLMR #Moonbeam #DCA #Binance #ZeroResearch
Here's my Binance DCA sheet. -1,633 USDT. And no, it wasn't bad luck. 🔎
Some of you asked about the "DCA" in my last post. This is it, the sheet I kept by hand for my GLMR buys on Binance.
I traded GLMR across 3 exchanges. This sheet is the Binance record, and its bottom line is -1,633 USDT. Across all three, I closed with roughly 2,000 USDT in losses.
I'm not blaming the market. This loss was my fault. Here's why:
## GLMR was a Polkadot bridge play back then. I never asked what happens if that story changes.
## Moonriver's market was strong and Moonbeam looked good at the start. I assumed a bull market would carry it back.
## Some KOLs kept calling it. Every time they said buy, I bought. I followed without checking.
I thought I was averaging down. I was really averaging into a thesis that was already dying.
DCA works when the story is alive. If the story is dead, DCA is just a slower way to lose.
My new rule: if I can't explain why I'm buying in my own words, I don't buy.
What's the one buy you made because someone else sounded sure? 👇
Not financial advice. Just my own mistake, shared honestly.
$GLMR $DOT $MOVR
#GLMR #Moonbeam #DCA #Binance #ZeroResearch
Some of you asked about the "DCA" in my last post. This is it, the sheet I kept by hand for my GLMR buys on Binance.
I traded GLMR across 3 exchanges. This sheet is the Binance record, and its bottom line is -1,633 USDT. Across all three, I closed with roughly 2,000 USDT in losses.
I'm not blaming the market. This loss was my fault. Here's why:
## GLMR was a Polkadot bridge play back then. I never asked what happens if that story changes.
## Moonriver's market was strong and Moonbeam looked good at the start. I assumed a bull market would carry it back.
## Some KOLs kept calling it. Every time they said buy, I bought. I followed without checking.
I thought I was averaging down. I was really averaging into a thesis that was already dying.
DCA works when the story is alive. If the story is dead, DCA is just a slower way to lose.
My new rule: if I can't explain why I'm buying in my own words, I don't buy.
What's the one buy you made because someone else sounded sure? 👇
Not financial advice. Just my own mistake, shared honestly.
$GLMR $DOT $MOVR
#GLMR #Moonbeam #DCA #Binance #ZeroResearch
86
Verified
Saturday's green candle had everyone asking the same thing: "Am I late?"
STRK rose about 23% in 24 hours, to ~$0.05.
One news source says the likely trigger is this: Starknet announced it will cover the bridge fees for the first 100 BTC brought in through strkBTC, with staking rewards on top.
But something else caught my eye.
Everyone is watching the price. I'm watching the volume. Over $88M traded in 24 hours against a market cap of ~$375M. That's roughly 23% of the entire market cap changing hands in a day (my math). That doesn't look like a thin-book pump. People are actually buying.
Still, waiving fees is buying users, not organic demand. It's a marketing cost. The real question is how many stay when the subsidy ends.
My read: the news isn't bad, but the market may have priced a lot of it in already. The price is up ~59% from July's ~$0.032, and RSI is in overbought territory.
Two more things I'm keeping on the radar:
Monthly unlocks are running (~127M STRK, through March 2027). The next one is around Oct 15, though I couldn't confirm the exact date. At today's price that's ~1.7% of market cap. Not a big hit, but in a crowded trade even small news feels big.
A v0.14.4 upgrade is rumored for tomorrow. I haven't verified the date from an official source.
What strengthens this thesis: volume holds after the jump, price breaks and holds above the $0.06 resistance, and strkBTC usage keeps growing after the subsidy.
What breaks it: price drops straight down instead of consolidating, or Starknet's own announcement shows the trigger was something else entirely.
So here's my question: on catalyst days, do you buy early or wait for the price to cool down? And which one has cost you more regret?
#ZeroHunter #STRK #Starknet #BTCFi #ZeroResearch
Saturday's green candle had everyone asking the same thing: "Am I late?"
STRK rose about 23% in 24 hours, to ~$0.05.
One news source says the likely trigger is this: Starknet announced it will cover the bridge fees for the first 100 BTC brought in through strkBTC, with staking rewards on top.
But something else caught my eye.
Everyone is watching the price. I'm watching the volume. Over $88M traded in 24 hours against a market cap of ~$375M. That's roughly 23% of the entire market cap changing hands in a day (my math). That doesn't look like a thin-book pump. People are actually buying.
Still, waiving fees is buying users, not organic demand. It's a marketing cost. The real question is how many stay when the subsidy ends.
My read: the news isn't bad, but the market may have priced a lot of it in already. The price is up ~59% from July's ~$0.032, and RSI is in overbought territory.
Two more things I'm keeping on the radar:
Monthly unlocks are running (~127M STRK, through March 2027). The next one is around Oct 15, though I couldn't confirm the exact date. At today's price that's ~1.7% of market cap. Not a big hit, but in a crowded trade even small news feels big.
A v0.14.4 upgrade is rumored for tomorrow. I haven't verified the date from an official source.
What strengthens this thesis: volume holds after the jump, price breaks and holds above the $0.06 resistance, and strkBTC usage keeps growing after the subsidy.
What breaks it: price drops straight down instead of consolidating, or Starknet's own announcement shows the trigger was something else entirely.
So here's my question: on catalyst days, do you buy early or wait for the price to cool down? And which one has cost you more regret?
#ZeroHunter #STRK #Starknet #BTCFi #ZeroResearch
STRK rose about 23% in 24 hours, to ~$0.05.
One news source says the likely trigger is this: Starknet announced it will cover the bridge fees for the first 100 BTC brought in through strkBTC, with staking rewards on top.
But something else caught my eye.
Everyone is watching the price. I'm watching the volume. Over $88M traded in 24 hours against a market cap of ~$375M. That's roughly 23% of the entire market cap changing hands in a day (my math). That doesn't look like a thin-book pump. People are actually buying.
Still, waiving fees is buying users, not organic demand. It's a marketing cost. The real question is how many stay when the subsidy ends.
My read: the news isn't bad, but the market may have priced a lot of it in already. The price is up ~59% from July's ~$0.032, and RSI is in overbought territory.
Two more things I'm keeping on the radar:
Monthly unlocks are running (~127M STRK, through March 2027). The next one is around Oct 15, though I couldn't confirm the exact date. At today's price that's ~1.7% of market cap. Not a big hit, but in a crowded trade even small news feels big.
A v0.14.4 upgrade is rumored for tomorrow. I haven't verified the date from an official source.
What strengthens this thesis: volume holds after the jump, price breaks and holds above the $0.06 resistance, and strkBTC usage keeps growing after the subsidy.
What breaks it: price drops straight down instead of consolidating, or Starknet's own announcement shows the trigger was something else entirely.
So here's my question: on catalyst days, do you buy early or wait for the price to cool down? And which one has cost you more regret?
#ZeroHunter #STRK #Starknet #BTCFi #ZeroResearch
50
I bought $GLMR at $2.70. 😂
I kept buying for two years. I closed in late 2024 with a 2,000 USDT loss.
Here's the strange part. The token I bought no longer exists in the form I bought it.
I bought a Polkadot parachain token. GLMR paid gas fees on that chain. Then in July 2026, Moonbeam moved the whole token to Base and rebuilt itself as an AI agent network. The original thesis is gone.
When I researched it again in September, I found daily protocol fees of about $13. Market cap around $8M. A pre-revenue bet on a product that wasn't live yet.
Looking back, a few things hurt:
A good story and a good price are not the same thing.
Holding for two years isn't a strategy. Time doesn't fix a thesis that's broken.
I kept buying while the thing I believed in kept changing.
GLMR just jumped almost 40% today. I looked for a reason and couldn't find one. No announcement, no listing. I don't hold it, and a green candle isn't a reason to go back.
I'm not telling anyone what to do. I'm telling you what two years of "I'll wait for it to come back" cost me.
What's the longest you've held a coin after the story behind it had already changed?
Not financial advice. Just my own experience.
#GLMR #Moonbeam #CryptoRisk #ZeroHunter
$MOVR $DOT
I bought $GLMR at $2.70. 😂
I kept buying for two years. I closed in late 2024 with a 2,000 USDT loss.
Here's the strange part. The token I bought no longer exists in the form I bought it.
I bought a Polkadot parachain token. GLMR paid gas fees on that chain. Then in July 2026, Moonbeam moved the whole token to Base and rebuilt itself as an AI agent network. The original thesis is gone.
When I researched it again in September, I found daily protocol fees of about $13. Market cap around $8M. A pre-revenue bet on a product that wasn't live yet.
Looking back, a few things hurt:
A good story and a good price are not the same thing.
Holding for two years isn't a strategy. Time doesn't fix a thesis that's broken.
I kept buying while the thing I believed in kept changing.
GLMR just jumped almost 40% today. I looked for a reason and couldn't find one. No announcement, no listing. I don't hold it, and a green candle isn't a reason to go back.
I'm not telling anyone what to do. I'm telling you what two years of "I'll wait for it to come back" cost me.
What's the longest you've held a coin after the story behind it had already changed?
Not financial advice. Just my own experience.
#GLMR #Moonbeam #CryptoRisk #ZeroHunter
$MOVR $DOT
I kept buying for two years. I closed in late 2024 with a 2,000 USDT loss.
Here's the strange part. The token I bought no longer exists in the form I bought it.
I bought a Polkadot parachain token. GLMR paid gas fees on that chain. Then in July 2026, Moonbeam moved the whole token to Base and rebuilt itself as an AI agent network. The original thesis is gone.
When I researched it again in September, I found daily protocol fees of about $13. Market cap around $8M. A pre-revenue bet on a product that wasn't live yet.
Looking back, a few things hurt:
A good story and a good price are not the same thing.
Holding for two years isn't a strategy. Time doesn't fix a thesis that's broken.
I kept buying while the thing I believed in kept changing.
GLMR just jumped almost 40% today. I looked for a reason and couldn't find one. No announcement, no listing. I don't hold it, and a green candle isn't a reason to go back.
I'm not telling anyone what to do. I'm telling you what two years of "I'll wait for it to come back" cost me.
What's the longest you've held a coin after the story behind it had already changed?
Not financial advice. Just my own experience.
#GLMR #Moonbeam #CryptoRisk #ZeroHunter
$MOVR $DOT
2
1
80
When price moves, we all ask the same thing: "Why?"
Today I'm asking something different: what happens on February 12, 2027?
I'm talking about $ESP (Espresso). It's a real micro-cap now. As of Sep 26 data, market cap is around $67M and FDV is around $347M. That means roughly 5x more tokens are still waiting to enter the market than what's trading today.
Here's the part I keep coming back to.
By my math, Contributors and Investors hold 41.68% of supply (about 1.5B ESP), and all of it is still locked behind a 1-year cliff. TGE was Feb 12, 2026, so the cliff should end around Feb 12, 2027. (That date is derived. I haven't seen an official vesting page.)
Just as an example: if 25% unlocked at once, that's about 374M ESP. More than half of today's circulating supply. But I don't know if it releases as a lump or monthly. This is math, not a prediction.
I'm not saying insiders will sell. There's no evidence of that.
My read: the market is staring at today's candle, while the real question is whether there's enough demand to absorb new supply after Feb 12. Daily volume is only ~3.5% of market cap. A thin book doesn't absorb new supply easily.
What strengthens my thesis: a confirmed lump release at the cliff, with volume staying flat.
What proves me wrong: monthly, smaller releases, or real ESP demand from staking or rollups.
So what would you do: reduce risk before the unlock, or wait and watch how the market handles the date?
#ESP #Espresso #TokenUnlocks #CryptoResearch #ZeroResearch
When price moves, we all ask the same thing: "Why?"
Today I'm asking something different: what happens on February 12, 2027?
I'm talking about $ESP (Espresso). It's a real micro-cap now. As of Sep 26 data, market cap is around $67M and FDV is around $347M. That means roughly 5x more tokens are still waiting to enter the market than what's trading today.
Here's the part I keep coming back to.
By my math, Contributors and Investors hold 41.68% of supply (about 1.5B ESP), and all of it is still locked behind a 1-year cliff. TGE was Feb 12, 2026, so the cliff should end around Feb 12, 2027. (That date is derived. I haven't seen an official vesting page.)
Just as an example: if 25% unlocked at once, that's about 374M ESP. More than half of today's circulating supply. But I don't know if it releases as a lump or monthly. This is math, not a prediction.
I'm not saying insiders will sell. There's no evidence of that.
My read: the market is staring at today's candle, while the real question is whether there's enough demand to absorb new supply after Feb 12. Daily volume is only ~3.5% of market cap. A thin book doesn't absorb new supply easily.
What strengthens my thesis: a confirmed lump release at the cliff, with volume staying flat.
What proves me wrong: monthly, smaller releases, or real ESP demand from staking or rollups.
So what would you do: reduce risk before the unlock, or wait and watch how the market handles the date?
#ESP #Espresso #TokenUnlocks #CryptoResearch #ZeroResearch
Today I'm asking something different: what happens on February 12, 2027?
I'm talking about $ESP (Espresso). It's a real micro-cap now. As of Sep 26 data, market cap is around $67M and FDV is around $347M. That means roughly 5x more tokens are still waiting to enter the market than what's trading today.
Here's the part I keep coming back to.
By my math, Contributors and Investors hold 41.68% of supply (about 1.5B ESP), and all of it is still locked behind a 1-year cliff. TGE was Feb 12, 2026, so the cliff should end around Feb 12, 2027. (That date is derived. I haven't seen an official vesting page.)
Just as an example: if 25% unlocked at once, that's about 374M ESP. More than half of today's circulating supply. But I don't know if it releases as a lump or monthly. This is math, not a prediction.
I'm not saying insiders will sell. There's no evidence of that.
My read: the market is staring at today's candle, while the real question is whether there's enough demand to absorb new supply after Feb 12. Daily volume is only ~3.5% of market cap. A thin book doesn't absorb new supply easily.
What strengthens my thesis: a confirmed lump release at the cliff, with volume staying flat.
What proves me wrong: monthly, smaller releases, or real ESP demand from staking or rollups.
So what would you do: reduce risk before the unlock, or wait and watch how the market handles the date?
#ESP #Espresso #TokenUnlocks #CryptoResearch #ZeroResearch
2
83
@Square-Creator-b47fa46235ac Brother Great Live Room
@神秘小K钱 Brother Great Live Room
神秘小K钱
·
--
$Mystery Little K Line Today is about to kick off a private placement. There is a dividend mechanism. If you're interested, you can join my chat room—200,000 coins per share.
2
109
Verified
The $ENA vote passing and ENA buybacks starting are two different events.
Bottom line: the plan sends 95% of net revenue to buy ENA, but only after a USDe supply trigger is met. At today's supply, that trigger is far away.
How it works
Buybacks start only after the 14-day average USDe supply passes $7.5B.
Numbers
USDe supply now: about $4.04B
Peak: near $15B in Oct 2025, so supply is about 73% below it (my arithmetic)
Trigger: $7.5B, which is about +85% from here (my arithmetic). The sources I read put the needed growth at roughly 50% to 85%.
A Risk Committee advisor said the schedule takes nothing at today's supply.
What I don't like
Revenue sent to buybacks is revenue not paid to sUSDe holders. That yield is what attracts deposits. This suggests the buyback could work against the growth it needs.
I'm also not sure about the exact tiers, because the sources disagree.
What I'm watching
The 14-day average USDe supply. Stronger if it climbs toward the trigger. Weaker if it stays flat or falls.
Can anyone share the tier table from the official proposal?
$ENA
Not financial advice.
#ENA #ethena #USDe
The $ENA vote passing and ENA buybacks starting are two different events.
Bottom line: the plan sends 95% of net revenue to buy ENA, but only after a USDe supply trigger is met. At today's supply, that trigger is far away.
How it works
Buybacks start only after the 14-day average USDe supply passes $7.5B.
Numbers
USDe supply now: about $4.04B
Peak: near $15B in Oct 2025, so supply is about 73% below it (my arithmetic)
Trigger: $7.5B, which is about +85% from here (my arithmetic). The sources I read put the needed growth at roughly 50% to 85%.
A Risk Committee advisor said the schedule takes nothing at today's supply.
What I don't like
Revenue sent to buybacks is revenue not paid to sUSDe holders. That yield is what attracts deposits. This suggests the buyback could work against the growth it needs.
I'm also not sure about the exact tiers, because the sources disagree.
What I'm watching
The 14-day average USDe supply. Stronger if it climbs toward the trigger. Weaker if it stays flat or falls.
Can anyone share the tier table from the official proposal?
$ENA
Not financial advice.
#ENA #ethena #USDe
Bottom line: the plan sends 95% of net revenue to buy ENA, but only after a USDe supply trigger is met. At today's supply, that trigger is far away.
How it works
Buybacks start only after the 14-day average USDe supply passes $7.5B.
Numbers
USDe supply now: about $4.04B
Peak: near $15B in Oct 2025, so supply is about 73% below it (my arithmetic)
Trigger: $7.5B, which is about +85% from here (my arithmetic). The sources I read put the needed growth at roughly 50% to 85%.
A Risk Committee advisor said the schedule takes nothing at today's supply.
What I don't like
Revenue sent to buybacks is revenue not paid to sUSDe holders. That yield is what attracts deposits. This suggests the buyback could work against the growth it needs.
I'm also not sure about the exact tiers, because the sources disagree.
What I'm watching
The 14-day average USDe supply. Stronger if it climbs toward the trigger. Weaker if it stays flat or falls.
Can anyone share the tier table from the official proposal?
$ENA
Not financial advice.
#ENA #ethena #USDe
2
309
Verified
Hyperliquid's second buyback pipe gets its first test today, and it doesn't depend on trading volume.
Bottom line: the new source is real, but its size is still an estimate. The first payout is the test.
How it works
Since Aug 26, about 90% of the reserve yield (after costs) on USDC held on Hyperliquid goes to the Assistance Fund. The fund buys HYPE and burns it. Yield accrues in 30-day cycles and is paid 8 days after each cycle ends. That is why the first payout is due today, Oct 3.
Before this, buybacks came only from trading fees (about 99% of them, per CoinShares). The new pipe depends on USDC balances and interest rates instead.
The numbers
Every figure below is an estimate, not an official number.
Annual buyback from the new source: $135M to $200M
Market cap near Sep 24: about $20.9B
My arithmetic: roughly 0.65% to 1% of market cap per year. For scale only.
For one 30-day cycle, that range is roughly $11M to $16M (my arithmetic). The ~$20M figure I have seen would annualize to above the top of the range, so I treat it as an optimistic case.
I haven't confirmed whether the payout landed.
What I don't like
If rates fall or USDC leaves, the buyback shrinks.
Sources disagree on the rate, from about 3% to 4%.
Platform-wide open interest hit a record $18B on Sep 23, around the Binance listing. That suggests elevated leverage.
Binance applied its Seed Tag, a volatility flag, not a verdict on the project.
I found nothing that separates buyback demand from listing demand.
What would change my mind
Stronger: a payout inside the $11M-$16M range or higher, and a stable USDC balance.
Weaker: a payout well below $11M, or a falling USDC balance.
If anyone has checked the Assistance Fund wallet, what size was the first payout?
$HYPE
{future}(HYPEUSDT)
NFA
#Hyperliquid #HYPE #Buyback
Hyperliquid's second buyback pipe gets its first test today, and it doesn't depend on trading volume.
Bottom line: the new source is real, but its size is still an estimate. The first payout is the test.
How it works
Since Aug 26, about 90% of the reserve yield (after costs) on USDC held on Hyperliquid goes to the Assistance Fund. The fund buys HYPE and burns it. Yield accrues in 30-day cycles and is paid 8 days after each cycle ends. That is why the first payout is due today, Oct 3.
Before this, buybacks came only from trading fees (about 99% of them, per CoinShares). The new pipe depends on USDC balances and interest rates instead.
The numbers
Every figure below is an estimate, not an official number.
Annual buyback from the new source: $135M to $200M
Market cap near Sep 24: about $20.9B
My arithmetic: roughly 0.65% to 1% of market cap per year. For scale only.
For one 30-day cycle, that range is roughly $11M to $16M (my arithmetic). The ~$20M figure I have seen would annualize to above the top of the range, so I treat it as an optimistic case.
I haven't confirmed whether the payout landed.
What I don't like
If rates fall or USDC leaves, the buyback shrinks.
Sources disagree on the rate, from about 3% to 4%.
Platform-wide open interest hit a record $18B on Sep 23, around the Binance listing. That suggests elevated leverage.
Binance applied its Seed Tag, a volatility flag, not a verdict on the project.
I found nothing that separates buyback demand from listing demand.
What would change my mind
Stronger: a payout inside the $11M-$16M range or higher, and a stable USDC balance.
Weaker: a payout well below $11M, or a falling USDC balance.
If anyone has checked the Assistance Fund wallet, what size was the first payout?
$HYPE
NFA
#Hyperliquid #HYPE #Buyback
Bottom line: the new source is real, but its size is still an estimate. The first payout is the test.
How it works
Since Aug 26, about 90% of the reserve yield (after costs) on USDC held on Hyperliquid goes to the Assistance Fund. The fund buys HYPE and burns it. Yield accrues in 30-day cycles and is paid 8 days after each cycle ends. That is why the first payout is due today, Oct 3.
Before this, buybacks came only from trading fees (about 99% of them, per CoinShares). The new pipe depends on USDC balances and interest rates instead.
The numbers
Every figure below is an estimate, not an official number.
Annual buyback from the new source: $135M to $200M
Market cap near Sep 24: about $20.9B
My arithmetic: roughly 0.65% to 1% of market cap per year. For scale only.
For one 30-day cycle, that range is roughly $11M to $16M (my arithmetic). The ~$20M figure I have seen would annualize to above the top of the range, so I treat it as an optimistic case.
I haven't confirmed whether the payout landed.
What I don't like
If rates fall or USDC leaves, the buyback shrinks.
Sources disagree on the rate, from about 3% to 4%.
Platform-wide open interest hit a record $18B on Sep 23, around the Binance listing. That suggests elevated leverage.
Binance applied its Seed Tag, a volatility flag, not a verdict on the project.
I found nothing that separates buyback demand from listing demand.
What would change my mind
Stronger: a payout inside the $11M-$16M range or higher, and a stable USDC balance.
Weaker: a payout well below $11M, or a falling USDC balance.
If anyone has checked the Assistance Fund wallet, what size was the first payout?
$HYPE
NFA
#Hyperliquid #HYPE #Buyback
2
20
🚨 $AIN — LONG SIGNAL
{future}(AINUSDT)
AIN is showing a strong momentum breakout on the 15M chart.
Current: 0.04325
24H High: 0.04414
Key Support: 0.03660
24H Turnover: $2.23M
15M: +21.23%
The move is backed by a sharp volume expansion, not just a slow grind higher.
Trade Setup
🟢 Bias: LONG
🎯 Entry: 0.0420–0.0433
🎯 TP1: 0.0441
🎯 TP2: 0.0470
🎯 TP3: 0.0500
🛑 Invalidation: Sustained 15M weakness below 0.0366
The key now is whether AIN can hold the breakout instead of immediately giving back the move.
Momentum is strong. Risk management stays mandatory.
Signal: LONG 🔥
#AIN #AINUSDT #TradingSignal #CryptoTrading #Perpetuals
🚨 $AIN — LONG SIGNAL
AIN is showing a strong momentum breakout on the 15M chart.
Current: 0.04325
24H High: 0.04414
Key Support: 0.03660
24H Turnover: $2.23M
15M: +21.23%
The move is backed by a sharp volume expansion, not just a slow grind higher.
Trade Setup
🟢 Bias: LONG
🎯 Entry: 0.0420–0.0433
🎯 TP1: 0.0441
🎯 TP2: 0.0470
🎯 TP3: 0.0500
🛑 Invalidation: Sustained 15M weakness below 0.0366
The key now is whether AIN can hold the breakout instead of immediately giving back the move.
Momentum is strong. Risk management stays mandatory.
Signal: LONG 🔥
#AIN #AINUSDT #TradingSignal #CryptoTrading #Perpetuals
AIN is showing a strong momentum breakout on the 15M chart.
Current: 0.04325
24H High: 0.04414
Key Support: 0.03660
24H Turnover: $2.23M
15M: +21.23%
The move is backed by a sharp volume expansion, not just a slow grind higher.
Trade Setup
🟢 Bias: LONG
🎯 Entry: 0.0420–0.0433
🎯 TP1: 0.0441
🎯 TP2: 0.0470
🎯 TP3: 0.0500
🛑 Invalidation: Sustained 15M weakness below 0.0366
The key now is whether AIN can hold the breakout instead of immediately giving back the move.
Momentum is strong. Risk management stays mandatory.
Signal: LONG 🔥
#AIN #AINUSDT #TradingSignal #CryptoTrading #Perpetuals
2
228
Verified
Moonbeam ($GLMR ): Can an AI pivot create real token demand?
Moonbeam’s shift toward AI-agent settlement on Base introduces a new thesis. But a new narrative does not automatically create token value.
The proposed model lets AI agents coordinate jobs and settle payments. GLMR’s planned role includes backing assurance pools that could earn a share of fees.
The critical distinction: proposed utility is not proven demand.
Before treating this as a fundamental turnaround, I want to see three things:
Assurance pools actually live.
Verifiable agent activity generating fees.
Recurring GLMR demand tied to real usage.
The strongest counterargument is straightforward: the product may attract attention without generating enough activity to support its token economics.
What would change my view? Evidence that real users are paying for the service and that activity translates into measurable GLMR demand.
Are you watching GLMR for its new utility, or waiting for usage data first?
Position: Researching only. Not financial advice.
#GLMR #Moonbeam #ZeroResearch
Moonbeam ($GLMR ): Can an AI pivot create real token demand?
Moonbeam’s shift toward AI-agent settlement on Base introduces a new thesis. But a new narrative does not automatically create token value.
The proposed model lets AI agents coordinate jobs and settle payments. GLMR’s planned role includes backing assurance pools that could earn a share of fees.
The critical distinction: proposed utility is not proven demand.
Before treating this as a fundamental turnaround, I want to see three things:
Assurance pools actually live.
Verifiable agent activity generating fees.
Recurring GLMR demand tied to real usage.
The strongest counterargument is straightforward: the product may attract attention without generating enough activity to support its token economics.
What would change my view? Evidence that real users are paying for the service and that activity translates into measurable GLMR demand.
Are you watching GLMR for its new utility, or waiting for usage data first?
Position: Researching only. Not financial advice.
#GLMR #Moonbeam #ZeroResearch
Moonbeam’s shift toward AI-agent settlement on Base introduces a new thesis. But a new narrative does not automatically create token value.
The proposed model lets AI agents coordinate jobs and settle payments. GLMR’s planned role includes backing assurance pools that could earn a share of fees.
The critical distinction: proposed utility is not proven demand.
Before treating this as a fundamental turnaround, I want to see three things:
Assurance pools actually live.
Verifiable agent activity generating fees.
Recurring GLMR demand tied to real usage.
The strongest counterargument is straightforward: the product may attract attention without generating enough activity to support its token economics.
What would change my view? Evidence that real users are paying for the service and that activity translates into measurable GLMR demand.
Are you watching GLMR for its new utility, or waiting for usage data first?
Position: Researching only. Not financial advice.
#GLMR #Moonbeam #ZeroResearch
1
21
Verified
Do The Bank Need the Token?
Everyone is watching the bank deal. I wanted to know one thing first. Do the banks need the token?
The deal is real. On Sept 24, The Clearing House picked Quant to build the tech for its On-Chain Money Initiative. TCH networks clear more than $2T a day. Institutions are expected to get access in the first half of 2027.
That is a big win for the company. But company success and token success are two different things.
Here is what I found. Quant's FAQ says platform fees can be paid in US dollars. QNT is one option for subscriptions. A report says the deal does not require banks to hold or pay in QNT. The actual terms are private, so I'm saying "not shown," not "doesn't exist." The token's role could be bigger than the public papers suggest.
Now the price. QNT went from about $60-70 to a peak near $372 on Sept 27. It is now back below $300, and my screenshot shows $256.88. That is a big move in about two weeks, with the launch still months away. Part of the rally also looked like a futures short squeeze.
What would make me more interested is Quant or TCH publishing a fee model that requires or favors QNT. What would make me back off is confirmation that fees are paid in fiat only.
I also haven't verified the supply numbers. The 14.9M max and 12M+ circulating figures came from a commentator, so check them against official data.
Has anyone seen a contract or term sheet that names QNT as required? That one document would settle most of this.
NFA
#ZeroResearch #ZeroHunter #QNT #RWA
Do The Bank Need the Token?
Everyone is watching the bank deal. I wanted to know one thing first. Do the banks need the token?
The deal is real. On Sept 24, The Clearing House picked Quant to build the tech for its On-Chain Money Initiative. TCH networks clear more than $2T a day. Institutions are expected to get access in the first half of 2027.
That is a big win for the company. But company success and token success are two different things.
Here is what I found. Quant's FAQ says platform fees can be paid in US dollars. QNT is one option for subscriptions. A report says the deal does not require banks to hold or pay in QNT. The actual terms are private, so I'm saying "not shown," not "doesn't exist." The token's role could be bigger than the public papers suggest.
Now the price. QNT went from about $60-70 to a peak near $372 on Sept 27. It is now back below $300, and my screenshot shows $256.88. That is a big move in about two weeks, with the launch still months away. Part of the rally also looked like a futures short squeeze.
What would make me more interested is Quant or TCH publishing a fee model that requires or favors QNT. What would make me back off is confirmation that fees are paid in fiat only.
I also haven't verified the supply numbers. The 14.9M max and 12M+ circulating figures came from a commentator, so check them against official data.
Has anyone seen a contract or term sheet that names QNT as required? That one document would settle most of this.
NFA
#ZeroResearch #ZeroHunter #QNT #RWA
Everyone is watching the bank deal. I wanted to know one thing first. Do the banks need the token?
The deal is real. On Sept 24, The Clearing House picked Quant to build the tech for its On-Chain Money Initiative. TCH networks clear more than $2T a day. Institutions are expected to get access in the first half of 2027.
That is a big win for the company. But company success and token success are two different things.
Here is what I found. Quant's FAQ says platform fees can be paid in US dollars. QNT is one option for subscriptions. A report says the deal does not require banks to hold or pay in QNT. The actual terms are private, so I'm saying "not shown," not "doesn't exist." The token's role could be bigger than the public papers suggest.
Now the price. QNT went from about $60-70 to a peak near $372 on Sept 27. It is now back below $300, and my screenshot shows $256.88. That is a big move in about two weeks, with the launch still months away. Part of the rally also looked like a futures short squeeze.
What would make me more interested is Quant or TCH publishing a fee model that requires or favors QNT. What would make me back off is confirmation that fees are paid in fiat only.
I also haven't verified the supply numbers. The 14.9M max and 12M+ circulating figures came from a commentator, so check them against official data.
Has anyone seen a contract or term sheet that names QNT as required? That one document would settle most of this.
NFA
#ZeroResearch #ZeroHunter #QNT #RWA
1
72
Verified
I got one $SAND number wrong. The corrected story is more useful.
Yesterday $SAND had a huge day. In my earlier post I used a supply number that I have now replaced.
What I got wrong
I said about 500M extra coins appeared, roughly one in six. That came from an early alert. Later counts were much higher. PeckShield reported about 14.9B unbacked coins minted. But they were trapped on Base and BNB Chain after the bridges were shut. Ethereum supply stayed at 3B. The real drain was about 14.75M SAND, around 0.5% of max supply.
The 3 checks I use now
Access. Bithumb's own notice says the Korean caution was lifted on 2 Oct, with deposits and withdrawals set to resume at 16:00. Upbit's notice says the same for SAND/KRW and SAND/BTC, but I only saw it reproduced by a news site. Access came back. That is a real change.
Supply. The Sandbox is repaying affected holders 1:1 from its treasury, with no new tokens minted. That fixes a past problem. It does not create new demand.
Leverage. A 3 Oct report puts open interest near $1.46B across exchanges, about 6.4x the market cap, with about $13.5M in liquidations. Open interest is the total size of open futures bets. When it is that big, a news event can turn into a squeeze.
Not checked yet: where the attacker wallets hold coins today, and Binance-only funding and open interest.
What would change my view: open interest rising while volume fades, the caution returning, or attacker wallets sending coins to exchanges.
A 60%+ day shows attention. It does not show the project got stronger. No price levels from me.
Which of the three checks do you run first on a pumping coin?
I don't hold $SAND
{future}(SANDUSDT)
NFA
#ZeroResearch #ZeroHunter #SAND
I got one $SAND number wrong. The corrected story is more useful.
Yesterday $SAND had a huge day. In my earlier post I used a supply number that I have now replaced.
What I got wrong
I said about 500M extra coins appeared, roughly one in six. That came from an early alert. Later counts were much higher. PeckShield reported about 14.9B unbacked coins minted. But they were trapped on Base and BNB Chain after the bridges were shut. Ethereum supply stayed at 3B. The real drain was about 14.75M SAND, around 0.5% of max supply.
The 3 checks I use now
Access. Bithumb's own notice says the Korean caution was lifted on 2 Oct, with deposits and withdrawals set to resume at 16:00. Upbit's notice says the same for SAND/KRW and SAND/BTC, but I only saw it reproduced by a news site. Access came back. That is a real change.
Supply. The Sandbox is repaying affected holders 1:1 from its treasury, with no new tokens minted. That fixes a past problem. It does not create new demand.
Leverage. A 3 Oct report puts open interest near $1.46B across exchanges, about 6.4x the market cap, with about $13.5M in liquidations. Open interest is the total size of open futures bets. When it is that big, a news event can turn into a squeeze.
Not checked yet: where the attacker wallets hold coins today, and Binance-only funding and open interest.
What would change my view: open interest rising while volume fades, the caution returning, or attacker wallets sending coins to exchanges.
A 60%+ day shows attention. It does not show the project got stronger. No price levels from me.
Which of the three checks do you run first on a pumping coin?
I don't hold $SAND
NFA
#ZeroResearch #ZeroHunter #SAND
Yesterday $SAND had a huge day. In my earlier post I used a supply number that I have now replaced.
What I got wrong
I said about 500M extra coins appeared, roughly one in six. That came from an early alert. Later counts were much higher. PeckShield reported about 14.9B unbacked coins minted. But they were trapped on Base and BNB Chain after the bridges were shut. Ethereum supply stayed at 3B. The real drain was about 14.75M SAND, around 0.5% of max supply.
The 3 checks I use now
Access. Bithumb's own notice says the Korean caution was lifted on 2 Oct, with deposits and withdrawals set to resume at 16:00. Upbit's notice says the same for SAND/KRW and SAND/BTC, but I only saw it reproduced by a news site. Access came back. That is a real change.
Supply. The Sandbox is repaying affected holders 1:1 from its treasury, with no new tokens minted. That fixes a past problem. It does not create new demand.
Leverage. A 3 Oct report puts open interest near $1.46B across exchanges, about 6.4x the market cap, with about $13.5M in liquidations. Open interest is the total size of open futures bets. When it is that big, a news event can turn into a squeeze.
Not checked yet: where the attacker wallets hold coins today, and Binance-only funding and open interest.
What would change my view: open interest rising while volume fades, the caution returning, or attacker wallets sending coins to exchanges.
A 60%+ day shows attention. It does not show the project got stronger. No price levels from me.
Which of the three checks do you run first on a pumping coin?
I don't hold $SAND
NFA
#ZeroResearch #ZeroHunter #SAND
1
153
Verified
How I checked why $SAND jumped 71% today
About one in six. That is how many extra SAND coins appeared after an exploit in late August. Lookonchain, a public tracker, reported more than 500 million new coins. The most SAND can ever exist is 3 billion.
Those coins were not supposed to exist. Soon after, Upbit put a trading caution on SAND, and Bithumb paused deposits and withdrawals. Both are big Korean exchanges. Upbit's review window ran into this week. Today SAND is up about 71%.
So I tried to find out why. I read the exchange notices as reported by news sites. I checked the dates against the price jump on the chart. I also tried to compare price levels from a summary site against the live price. They did not match, so I threw that page out.
Here is what looks odd to me. Some people say the caution was lifted on 2 October. I could not confirm that. I only found the review window. The news sites do not show where the 500 million new coins went either. If they sit untouched, fine. If they move to exchanges, that is a lot of coins that could be sold. I have not yet looked at the public wallet records for this. That is my next check.
One more thing. A 71% day tells you people are excited. It does not tell you the project got stronger.
If you are thinking about trading it, here is how I would think. It only makes sense to me if the exchanges' own notices show the caution is gone. You also need to be able to sell without pushing the price down, and I have not verified that for SAND. I would stay out if trading volume fades fast, if the caution comes back, or if the new coins start moving to exchanges. I have no price levels for you, because the only ones I found were unreliable. Keep the size small enough that losing all of it would not hurt. Borrowed money (leverage) on a day like this is dangerous, because a sharp drop can wipe the trade before you react.
Has anyone seen the official Upbit or Bithumb notice saying the caution was lifted?
I watching $SAND NFA
#sand #ZeroResearch #ZeroHunter
How I checked why $SAND jumped 71% today
About one in six. That is how many extra SAND coins appeared after an exploit in late August. Lookonchain, a public tracker, reported more than 500 million new coins. The most SAND can ever exist is 3 billion.
Those coins were not supposed to exist. Soon after, Upbit put a trading caution on SAND, and Bithumb paused deposits and withdrawals. Both are big Korean exchanges. Upbit's review window ran into this week. Today SAND is up about 71%.
So I tried to find out why. I read the exchange notices as reported by news sites. I checked the dates against the price jump on the chart. I also tried to compare price levels from a summary site against the live price. They did not match, so I threw that page out.
Here is what looks odd to me. Some people say the caution was lifted on 2 October. I could not confirm that. I only found the review window. The news sites do not show where the 500 million new coins went either. If they sit untouched, fine. If they move to exchanges, that is a lot of coins that could be sold. I have not yet looked at the public wallet records for this. That is my next check.
One more thing. A 71% day tells you people are excited. It does not tell you the project got stronger.
If you are thinking about trading it, here is how I would think. It only makes sense to me if the exchanges' own notices show the caution is gone. You also need to be able to sell without pushing the price down, and I have not verified that for SAND. I would stay out if trading volume fades fast, if the caution comes back, or if the new coins start moving to exchanges. I have no price levels for you, because the only ones I found were unreliable. Keep the size small enough that losing all of it would not hurt. Borrowed money (leverage) on a day like this is dangerous, because a sharp drop can wipe the trade before you react.
Has anyone seen the official Upbit or Bithumb notice saying the caution was lifted?
I watching $SAND NFA
#sand #ZeroResearch #ZeroHunter
About one in six. That is how many extra SAND coins appeared after an exploit in late August. Lookonchain, a public tracker, reported more than 500 million new coins. The most SAND can ever exist is 3 billion.
Those coins were not supposed to exist. Soon after, Upbit put a trading caution on SAND, and Bithumb paused deposits and withdrawals. Both are big Korean exchanges. Upbit's review window ran into this week. Today SAND is up about 71%.
So I tried to find out why. I read the exchange notices as reported by news sites. I checked the dates against the price jump on the chart. I also tried to compare price levels from a summary site against the live price. They did not match, so I threw that page out.
Here is what looks odd to me. Some people say the caution was lifted on 2 October. I could not confirm that. I only found the review window. The news sites do not show where the 500 million new coins went either. If they sit untouched, fine. If they move to exchanges, that is a lot of coins that could be sold. I have not yet looked at the public wallet records for this. That is my next check.
One more thing. A 71% day tells you people are excited. It does not tell you the project got stronger.
If you are thinking about trading it, here is how I would think. It only makes sense to me if the exchanges' own notices show the caution is gone. You also need to be able to sell without pushing the price down, and I have not verified that for SAND. I would stay out if trading volume fades fast, if the caution comes back, or if the new coins start moving to exchanges. I have no price levels for you, because the only ones I found were unreliable. Keep the size small enough that losing all of it would not hurt. Borrowed money (leverage) on a day like this is dangerous, because a sharp drop can wipe the trade before you react.
Has anyone seen the official Upbit or Bithumb notice saying the caution was lifted?
I watching $SAND NFA
#sand #ZeroResearch #ZeroHunter
2
65
Verified
What TSLAB actually is, before anyone looks at the price
I went looking for what TSLAB is before I looked at its price. It launched on Binance on June 12, 2026, among the first five bStocks, backed 1:1 by a share held with a regulated custodian. The issuer is BTECH Holdings in ADGM. Holders get a certificate with economic exposure, not shares, and US persons are excluded. I couldn't confirm any other excluded regions or whether it is still listed today.
One risk is specific to this kind of product. The token trades 24/7 while US markets don't, so gaps and a premium or discount to Tesla can open up. On top of that there is issuer and custody structure risk. The only price I found, from DefiLlama, had no timestamp, so I'm leaving it out.
What TSLAB actually is, before anyone looks at the price
I went looking for what TSLAB is before I looked at its price. It launched on Binance on June 12, 2026, among the first five bStocks, backed 1:1 by a share held with a regulated custodian. The issuer is BTECH Holdings in ADGM. Holders get a certificate with economic exposure, not shares, and US persons are excluded. I couldn't confirm any other excluded regions or whether it is still listed today.
One risk is specific to this kind of product. The token trades 24/7 while US markets don't, so gaps and a premium or discount to Tesla can open up. On top of that there is issuer and custody structure risk. The only price I found, from DefiLlama, had no timestamp, so I'm leaving it out.
I went looking for what TSLAB is before I looked at its price. It launched on Binance on June 12, 2026, among the first five bStocks, backed 1:1 by a share held with a regulated custodian. The issuer is BTECH Holdings in ADGM. Holders get a certificate with economic exposure, not shares, and US persons are excluded. I couldn't confirm any other excluded regions or whether it is still listed today.
One risk is specific to this kind of product. The token trades 24/7 while US markets don't, so gaps and a premium or discount to Tesla can open up. On top of that there is issuer and custody structure risk. The only price I found, from DefiLlama, had no timestamp, so I'm leaving it out.
1
42
Verified
Article
Why I am not chasing ZEC after the Grayscale conversionI opened the Binance ZEC/USDT 4h chart this morning and it is trading at about 1,323, under all three moving averages. The 99 sits near 1,486, the 25 near 1,386. On the chart the late-September high looks like about 1,650, so it is roughly 20% off that now.
The background is simple. Grayscale converted its Zcash Trust into a spot product on NYSE Arca under the ticker ZCSH, per a research blog from late August. A crypto news site puts ZEC's gain over the past year at roughly 2,300%. A huge move with an obvious catalyst.
Here is what I checked. That blog for the conversion and the ticker. The same blog for a coinholder vote on NU7 scope, which it describes as signaling, not binding. The Binance spot page for price and volume: about 154,300 ZEC traded in 24 hours, roughly 209M USDT. And a news site for the long/short ratio on Binance, reported below 0.6, meaning shorts were crowded.
What bothers me is that the ratio report has no date. Price has pulled back a lot since the high, and I don't know if those shorts are still there or already closed. I also found no result for the NU7 vote, and the sources disagree on when it happened. One says it opened August 25, the other says it was expected September 14. I found no unlock or emission data either. My read, which is not a verified fact, is that demand here comes from monetary premium and ETP access, with no fees going to holders. If ETP flows slow, I don't see what replaces them.
If you're thinking about trading it, the levels I'd watch on this chart are the 24h low at 1,271 below and the 25 MA near 1,386 above. A reclaim of that MA with volume would make a long easier to argue. A clean break under 1,271 would make me stay out. I would also stay out if you need leverage to make the trade worth it, because after a move this size a squeeze can come from either side. Size it so a full stop-out doesn't bother you.
Has anyone here seen ZEC funding on Binance this week, and was it positive or negative?
I don't hold $ZEC. NFA
#zec #zcash
Why I am not chasing ZEC after the Grayscale conversion
I opened the Binance ZEC/USDT 4h chart this morning and it is trading at about 1,323, under all three moving averages. The 99 sits near 1,486, the 25 near 1,386. On the chart the late-September high looks like about 1,650, so it is roughly 20% off that now.
The background is simple. Grayscale converted its Zcash Trust into a spot product on NYSE Arca under the ticker ZCSH, per a research blog from late August. A crypto news site puts ZEC's gain over the past year at roughly 2,300%. A huge move with an obvious catalyst.
Here is what I checked. That blog for the conversion and the ticker. The same blog for a coinholder vote on NU7 scope, which it describes as signaling, not binding. The Binance spot page for price and volume: about 154,300 ZEC traded in 24 hours, roughly 209M USDT. And a news site for the long/short ratio on Binance, reported below 0.6, meaning shorts were crowded.
What bothers me is that the ratio report has no date. Price has pulled back a lot since the high, and I don't know if those shorts are still there or already closed. I also found no result for the NU7 vote, and the sources disagree on when it happened. One says it opened August 25, the other says it was expected September 14. I found no unlock or emission data either. My read, which is not a verified fact, is that demand here comes from monetary premium and ETP access, with no fees going to holders. If ETP flows slow, I don't see what replaces them.
If you're thinking about trading it, the levels I'd watch on this chart are the 24h low at 1,271 below and the 25 MA near 1,386 above. A reclaim of that MA with volume would make a long easier to argue. A clean break under 1,271 would make me stay out. I would also stay out if you need leverage to make the trade worth it, because after a move this size a squeeze can come from either side. Size it so a full stop-out doesn't bother you.
Has anyone here seen ZEC funding on Binance this week, and was it positive or negative?
I don't hold $ZEC. NFA
#zec #zcash
The background is simple. Grayscale converted its Zcash Trust into a spot product on NYSE Arca under the ticker ZCSH, per a research blog from late August. A crypto news site puts ZEC's gain over the past year at roughly 2,300%. A huge move with an obvious catalyst.
Here is what I checked. That blog for the conversion and the ticker. The same blog for a coinholder vote on NU7 scope, which it describes as signaling, not binding. The Binance spot page for price and volume: about 154,300 ZEC traded in 24 hours, roughly 209M USDT. And a news site for the long/short ratio on Binance, reported below 0.6, meaning shorts were crowded.
What bothers me is that the ratio report has no date. Price has pulled back a lot since the high, and I don't know if those shorts are still there or already closed. I also found no result for the NU7 vote, and the sources disagree on when it happened. One says it opened August 25, the other says it was expected September 14. I found no unlock or emission data either. My read, which is not a verified fact, is that demand here comes from monetary premium and ETP access, with no fees going to holders. If ETP flows slow, I don't see what replaces them.
If you're thinking about trading it, the levels I'd watch on this chart are the 24h low at 1,271 below and the 25 MA near 1,386 above. A reclaim of that MA with volume would make a long easier to argue. A clean break under 1,271 would make me stay out. I would also stay out if you need leverage to make the trade worth it, because after a move this size a squeeze can come from either side. Size it so a full stop-out doesn't bother you.
Has anyone here seen ZEC funding on Binance this week, and was it positive or negative?
I don't hold $ZEC. NFA
#zec #zcash
1
142
Verified
Jupiter buybacks are live, but is the supply actually shrinking?
The popular take on $JUP is that buybacks are running and supply is going down. The forum threads say something narrower. The Net-Zero proposal aimed to cut net new emissions to effectively zero for 2026, with 50% of onchain revenue funding buybacks. Community accounts say it passed in late February, but I haven't confirmed the vote count.
What bothers me is that the bought JUP sits in the Litterbox treasury and is not burned. The 70% share idea is a feedback draft, not a vote. I couldn't verify current unlocks or a dated price, so I'm not going further than this.
Do you count JUP held in a treasury as supply removed?
#JUP #jupiter #solana
Jupiter buybacks are live, but is the supply actually shrinking?
The popular take on $JUP is that buybacks are running and supply is going down. The forum threads say something narrower. The Net-Zero proposal aimed to cut net new emissions to effectively zero for 2026, with 50% of onchain revenue funding buybacks. Community accounts say it passed in late February, but I haven't confirmed the vote count.
What bothers me is that the bought JUP sits in the Litterbox treasury and is not burned. The 70% share idea is a feedback draft, not a vote. I couldn't verify current unlocks or a dated price, so I'm not going further than this.
Do you count JUP held in a treasury as supply removed?
#JUP #jupiter #solana
The popular take on $JUP is that buybacks are running and supply is going down. The forum threads say something narrower. The Net-Zero proposal aimed to cut net new emissions to effectively zero for 2026, with 50% of onchain revenue funding buybacks. Community accounts say it passed in late February, but I haven't confirmed the vote count.
What bothers me is that the bought JUP sits in the Litterbox treasury and is not burned. The 70% share idea is a feedback draft, not a vote. I couldn't verify current unlocks or a dated price, so I'm not going further than this.
Do you count JUP held in a treasury as supply removed?
#JUP #jupiter #solana
1
112
Friend Gaming/Metaverse Narrative Wake Up. Five of the top 10 gainers on my screen are gaming tokens. SAND leads at +50%, then GALA +15%, ENJ +14%, MANA +10%, APE +9%.
The gap bothers me. One token up 50% and the rest at 10 to 16% looks more like SAND leading and the others following than a clean sector move. I couldn't find the reason for SAND's jump yet.
I'd want volume and a second day of follow-through before calling it a narrative, and I'd stay out of the +50% candle itself.
Is volume following in anything besides SAND?
I'm watching $SAND $GALA $MANA NFA
#GamingTokens #SAND #Metaverse
Friend Gaming/Metaverse Narrative Wake Up. Five of the top 10 gainers on my screen are gaming tokens. SAND leads at +50%, then GALA +15%, ENJ +14%, MANA +10%, APE +9%.
The gap bothers me. One token up 50% and the rest at 10 to 16% looks more like SAND leading and the others following than a clean sector move. I couldn't find the reason for SAND's jump yet.
I'd want volume and a second day of follow-through before calling it a narrative, and I'd stay out of the +50% candle itself.
Is volume following in anything besides SAND?
I'm watching $SAND $GALA $MANA NFA
#GamingTokens #SAND #Metaverse
The gap bothers me. One token up 50% and the rest at 10 to 16% looks more like SAND leading and the others following than a clean sector move. I couldn't find the reason for SAND's jump yet.
I'd want volume and a second day of follow-through before calling it a narrative, and I'd stay out of the +50% candle itself.
Is volume following in anything besides SAND?
I'm watching $SAND $GALA $MANA NFA
#GamingTokens #SAND #Metaverse
2
149
Why ZeroHunter? I look at how a token could go to zero before I look at how it could go up. Unlock calendars first, then who actually holds the supply.
It started with LUNA, where I lost about 750 USDT because I skipped one step.
Some weeks the honest post is: I'm staying out.
Which token should I check next?
#ZeroHunter #ZeroResearch #Sulaiman零号猎人 .
$SAND $ENJ $GALA
Why ZeroHunter? I look at how a token could go to zero before I look at how it could go up. Unlock calendars first, then who actually holds the supply.
It started with LUNA, where I lost about 750 USDT because I skipped one step.
Some weeks the honest post is: I'm staying out.
Which token should I check next?
#ZeroHunter #ZeroResearch #Sulaiman零号猎人 .
$SAND $ENJ $GALA
It started with LUNA, where I lost about 750 USDT because I skipped one step.
Some weeks the honest post is: I'm staying out.
Which token should I check next?
#ZeroHunter #ZeroResearch #Sulaiman零号猎人 .
$SAND $ENJ $GALA
1
290
My watchlist until 16 Oct, and what removes each name
Four names on my list, none ready for a trade.
$ZEC . Multicoin disclosed a significant position in May, and the dev team resigned over governance earlier. My data is stale: $493.20 and an $8.32B market cap, rank #14, all from 13 Aug. I move it up when I have fresh price and volume. I drop it if the governance dispute flares again.
$JUP . About half of revenue goes to a buyback trust, and over $70M of 2025 buybacks didn't lift the price. One author says emissions were voted to net zero in February, but that's a single weak source and I haven't confirmed it. I'm watching whether the current buyback pace matters against remaining supply. It's out if emissions resume or the buyback halts.
$CT . I'm keeping this one on the list without a verdict, because I haven't pinned down which token it is yet. I searched and found no clear match, so I'm not quoting a price or a claim. I'll name it once I have a contract address, and it stays off the list if I can't verify it by 16 Oct.
Which of these would you drop first?
Watching ZEC and CT, Holding JUP NFA
#Watchlist #ZEC #HODL #JUP #CT
My watchlist until 16 Oct, and what removes each name
Four names on my list, none ready for a trade.
$ZEC . Multicoin disclosed a significant position in May, and the dev team resigned over governance earlier. My data is stale: $493.20 and an $8.32B market cap, rank #14, all from 13 Aug. I move it up when I have fresh price and volume. I drop it if the governance dispute flares again.
$JUP . About half of revenue goes to a buyback trust, and over $70M of 2025 buybacks didn't lift the price. One author says emissions were voted to net zero in February, but that's a single weak source and I haven't confirmed it. I'm watching whether the current buyback pace matters against remaining supply. It's out if emissions resume or the buyback halts.
$CT . I'm keeping this one on the list without a verdict, because I haven't pinned down which token it is yet. I searched and found no clear match, so I'm not quoting a price or a claim. I'll name it once I have a contract address, and it stays off the list if I can't verify it by 16 Oct.
Which of these would you drop first?
Watching ZEC and CT, Holding JUP NFA
#Watchlist #ZEC #HODL #JUP #CT
Four names on my list, none ready for a trade.
$ZEC . Multicoin disclosed a significant position in May, and the dev team resigned over governance earlier. My data is stale: $493.20 and an $8.32B market cap, rank #14, all from 13 Aug. I move it up when I have fresh price and volume. I drop it if the governance dispute flares again.
$JUP . About half of revenue goes to a buyback trust, and over $70M of 2025 buybacks didn't lift the price. One author says emissions were voted to net zero in February, but that's a single weak source and I haven't confirmed it. I'm watching whether the current buyback pace matters against remaining supply. It's out if emissions resume or the buyback halts.
$CT . I'm keeping this one on the list without a verdict, because I haven't pinned down which token it is yet. I searched and found no clear match, so I'm not quoting a price or a claim. I'll name it once I have a contract address, and it stays off the list if I can't verify it by 16 Oct.
Which of these would you drop first?
Watching ZEC and CT, Holding JUP NFA
#Watchlist #ZEC #HODL #JUP #CT
1
79
Log in to explore more content
Join global crypto users on Binance Square
⚡️ Get latest and useful information about crypto.
💬 Trusted by the world’s largest crypto exchange.
👍 Discover real insights from verified creators.
Email / Phone number
Trending Topics
SECHaltsCryptoETFReviewsAmidFundingLapse
65,033 views
720 Discussing
🚨🔥 BREAKING: SEC FUNDING LAPSE JUST FREEZES NEW CRYPTO ETF REVIEWS! 🇺🇸
⚠️ Following the start of the U.S. fiscal year on October 1, a lapse in federal funding has temporarily disrupted SEC operations.
📄 Reviews and effective approvals for new crypto ETF registration statements are reportedly paused during the funding disruption.
👀 ETF APPROVALS ON HOLD — CRYPTO MARKET WATCHING!
🚀 Could this create a major delay for the next wave of crypto ETFs?
💬 BULLISH OR BEARISH FOR CRYPTO? DROP YOUR TAKE! 👇
🔔 Follow for more SEC, ETF & crypto breaking news.
$AIN $BEAMX $GLMR
#SECHaltsCryptoETFReviewsAmidFundingLapse
Salotra Crypto
·0 Likes
·100 views
ZcashETFPostsFirstWeeklyOutflow$93.6M
66,242 views
205 Discussing
GreekPoliceBustCryptoScamRingArrest17
220,990 views
1,561 Discussing