AllInWeb3

A report says Lukoil’s “multi-billion-dollar deal” involving overseas assets has entered U.S.-Russia negotiations, but the report does not mean approval has been granted, nor does it mean the deal has been closed. On October 3, Reuters, citing The New York Times, said that the U.S.-Russia talks involve a potential transaction that is contingent upon approval by the U.S. government and the Kremlin; as of the time of the report, the White House, the U.S. Treasury, and Lukoil had not responded. The buyer’s arrangements and negotiation details are still media-reported statements from sources, and cannot be written as already-signed facts.

The key boundary in this matter lies in sanctions licensing. Lukoil announced as early as October 27, 2025, that, due to restrictions implemented by some countries, it planned to sell its international assets and began considering potential buyer offers. OFAC’s FAQ 1224, updated on September 18, explains that General License 131J allows negotiations, due diligence, and signing conditional contracts related to the sale of Lukoil International GmbH and its majority-owned subsidiaries, with a deadline of October 22, 2026; however, it clearly does not authorize the actual sale, disposition, or transfer of assets. Any contract would require additional OFAC authorization.

So what’s new today is the reporting thread that “the deal topic has entered U.S.-Russia talks,” not that the sanctions gate is already open. Even if negotiations continue, it still depends on whether OFAC approves it, whether the transaction structure can sever the relationship between LIG and Lukoil, and how the sale proceeds are handled under the sanctions framework. Prior deal offers or buyer rumors cannot replace these conditions.

Next, three verifiable milestones should be monitored: whether the U.S. and Russia sides officially confirm the subject; whether OFAC issues authorization for the specific transaction; and whether Lukoil or the buyer announces the signing and closing. The three represent negotiations, regulatory licensing, and deal completion, respectively, and must not be conflated. For the oil market, even if the news is true, the impact chain is not simply that “the supply changes because assets are sold.” It also depends on the scope of the assets, operational continuity, the buyer’s control, how sale proceeds are frozen or handled, and the sanctions authorizations. Lukoil’s announcement confirms an intention to sell; OFAC documents define the limits of the license; and media reports provide negotiation leads, with different evidentiary standards. At present, there is not enough basis to judge when the transaction will be completed, nor can this be used to infer any one-directional trend in oil prices or related assets. #Lukoil #sanctions

$VELVET squeezes into Binance’s top gainers list at #2. After a short-term pullback, it shows signs of repair, but we still can’t write it as a trend reversal. From my observation, I’m not going to chase longs.

At 19:09 Beijing time on October 3, Binance completed a full scan of 526 USDT perpetual contracts within the specified range. VELVETUSDT’s rolling 24-hour gain is +27.391%, the collection price is 0.08097, ranking #2. At 19:05, the single-coin market price is about 0.08112. Both time points are roughly 15% below the 24-hour high of 0.09569.

The ranking reflects the intensity of the move, not a long signal.

Compared with the previous observation at 17:07 on this account, the incremental update lies in two newly formed complete hourly candles. From 17:00 to 18:00, it opened at 0.08032, surged to 0.08268, then pulled back to close at 0.07620, with trades of about 7.157 million USDT. From 18:00 to 19:00, it dipped to a low of 0.07367, then recovered and closed at 0.08147. Over that single hour, the price rose about 6.93% from the open, and volume was about 8.001 million USDT—roughly 11.8% more than the prior hour. This suggests dip-side bids pulled the price back, but the close still hasn’t broken above the earlier hourly high at 0.08268. A single rebound candle can’t prove that selling pressure has ended.

Positioning and funding-rate boundaries also need to be considered. Binance’s 1-hour position-size sample increased from about 79.14 million coins at 18:00 to about 81.88 million at 19:00—up about 3.47%. OI growth only indicates that open positions have expanded; it doesn’t necessarily mean net long inflows. The most recently settled funding rate is +0.006532%, while the estimated next funding rate is about +0.016903%. The estimated value will change; a positive funding rate means the long side pays the funding cost and cannot be taken as confirmation of an upside move.

Structurally: the most recent four-hour candles from 12:00 to 16:00 closed at 0.07489, with a low at 0.06707. The current 16:00 to 20:00 four-hour candle hasn’t finished yet. The latest update currently visible on the project’s official blog is product integration information dated September 29. I haven’t found a new announcement that can be verified as the direct cause of this round of volatility, and the timing sequence alone can’t establish causality.

Next, we’ll first see whether a full hourly candle can stand above 0.08268. Then we’ll observe whether the reference four-hour high near 0.08398 is reclaimed and whether pullbacks have follow-through. If it falls back below 0.07367, then this repair must be downgraded. For now, it’s more suitable to wait for confirmation rather than chase longs based on the leaderboard. After changes in price, ranking, and unsettled funding rate, the observation points above must be recalculated. The market structure and position snapshot were collected at 19:05 on October 3; the full leaderboard was rechecked at 19:09 before publication. Data comes from Binance’s publicly available USD-M API.

$SAND bounced back and then fell again; I won’t chase it for now. The key is whether the repair can achieve a full close and confirmed trading volume, not whether it is still listed near the front of the gainers.

At 18:14 Beijing time, a full scan covering 526/526 Binance USDT perpetuals shows SANDUSDT ranked #2, with a rolling 24-hour gain of +22.602% and a price of 0.07529; trading volume is about $1.349 billion. At 18:03 the single-coin quote was 0.07704; about 11 minutes later, the scan price was down 2.3%. The rolling gain is affected by the moving 24-hour window, so it can’t be treated as the actual drop over that period. Compared with the scan price of 0.08165 cited in this account’s 13:13 prior post, the scan has pulled back about 7.8%. The latest full hour from 17:00 to 18:00 closed at 0.07636, about 5.4% lower than the 12:00–13:00 close of 0.08070 in the prior post. The rolling 24-hour trading volume is up about 11% versus the prior post, but the flow is mixed active buying and selling, so it can’t be considered net buying.

The hourly path isn’t a one-way decline: the close fell from 0.07987 at 13:00 to 0.07346 at 17:00, then rebounded to 0.07636 from 17:00 to 18:00. However, the rebound hour’s trading volume was about $48.12 million, down about 27.7% from roughly $66.60 million in the prior hour. 0.07222 hasn’t yet been broken by a full hourly close, but the current price at 18:14 is already below the previous hour’s close. The 18:00–19:00 hour isn’t finished yet, so this is only a “in-the-moment” condition on the chart. The reference level from the prior post, 0.07754, is still below it; you can’t call an intrahour brief reclaim the “recovery” of a level that hasn’t closed.

Positioning and fee rates haven’t been given with a clear direction. The hourly OI sample fell from about 448 million coins at 13:00 to about 440 million at 18:00—down around 1.8% net—with a drop first and then a rebound in between. OI doesn’t distinguish long vs short. The funding rate that was settled at 16:00 is -0.4794%; the 00:00 interface forecast for the next period is about -0.2472%, and it hasn’t been settled yet. A negative funding rate means the shorts pay to longs in that period; it doesn’t mean shorts are crowded or a squeeze is imminent.

Coinone and Bithumb lifted the SAND trading warning and resumed deposits/withdrawals on October 2. That is confirmed background already verified in the prior post, not new news for this wave. I didn’t find any explanation for these particular new candles in the hourly chart. Next, we’ll see whether a full hourly close can reclaim 0.07754 alongside an increase in trading volume, and whether 0.07222 can hold near that level. If rebound volume continues to contract or if a full hourly close breaks below the low, then the “repair” assessment should be downgraded. The market moves fast; after 18:14, the evaluation needs to be recalculated with the new data. #SAND

$VVV currently looks more like a weak rebound after a drop. I’ll watch for now and won’t directly equate the “annual emissions reduction” with a price reversal.

As of 17:17 Beijing time on October 3, the VVV/WETH pool on the Base chain Aerodrome is quoting around $27.57. Over the past rolling 24 hours, the pool is down 6.67%, with about $2.18 million in volume. The last 24 closed hourly candlesticks moved from roughly $29.84 to $27.55. In this segment, the high was $30.31 and the low was $27.14. The most recent complete hour closed slightly higher, but the price is still below the prior traded range around $28.19. This suggests there are signs that selling pressure has eased, but buyers have not yet reclaimed the key area.

Note: what’s quoted here is an on-chain pool, not Binance spot pricing. Trading volume within one pool alone can’t represent the whole market.

There’s a supply-side change worth tracking. Venice’s plan updated on August 5 states that VVV’s annualized emissions will fall from 2.5 million tokens to 2.0 million tokens starting October 1—about a 20% reduction. This is a reduction in issuance rate; it doesn’t mean the total supply will immediately contract, nor does it prove that the on-chain parameters have already switched on the day. You still need to verify actual emissions and subsequent circulating supply.

Another arrangement the project announced in July: for every $100 of API quota sold, $5 is used to buy and burn VVV. The real impact depends on the actual quota sales and burn records; you can’t write the rule as guaranteed buying demand.

VVV’s value thesis is tied to Venice AI usage demand. Official materials describe that by staking VVV, you can lock your staked share to mint DIEM; staking DIEM then grants daily API quota. This provides the token’s product utility, but ultimately it still comes down to whether user usage, lockups, and burns are enough to offset emissions and sell pressure. Just because the product mechanism exists doesn’t necessarily mean the token price must rise.

For the short term, I’ll watch two levels: 27.14 is the low observed on this hourly chart. If it breaks down and can’t be reclaimed, the weakness hasn’t been resolved yet. On the upside, I’ll look first at 28.19. At least a complete hourly close back above it is needed; only then can we judge whether a pullback can hold and whether volume keeps up—otherwise it’s still less like a true repair. Snapshot changes can happen quickly; these levels are only for observation and reference, not limit orders or profit guarantees.

$VELVET has bounced strongly on increased volume, but we should still observe for now and not chase. On October 3 at 17:06 Beijing time, Binance’s Futures account scanned 526 USDT perpetual contracts that match the specified range in full. The rolling 24-hour percentage increase is 25.814%, ranking 2nd, with the scan price at 0.08076 USDT. Being near the top of the list does not mean it has already returned to the rising structure from this morning.

The post at 07:14 on this channel was an observation of continuous hourly volume-and-price lifting. Focus points were the prior high at 0.08880 and the prior low at 0.08091. After that, from 07:00 to 08:00 it did indeed close at 0.09427; however from 08:00 to 09:00 it surged to 0.09569 and then pulled back to close at 0.08033, breaking below the earlier observation level. Then from 13:00 to 14:00 it tested down to 0.06707. The key added this time is the repair after two clearly visible waves of retracement—so we cannot keep using the morning explanation of “continuous acceleration.”

The latest completed hour, 16:00 to 17:00, moved up from 0.07489 to 0.08031, an increase of about 7.24%. Trading volume was about 9.86 million USDT, which is 4.98 times the previous hour’s roughly 1.98 million. Compared with the 06:00 to 07:00 volume of about 7.33 million, the repair candle’s volume is larger, but the close is still about 9.4% lower. Increased activity is a valid new piece of information, but for the price to return to the original trend, that needs separate proof.

We also need to check where the repair occurred: the hour’s high was 0.08327, still lower than the 0.08398 high from 13:00 to 14:00. The four-hour candle that has completed from 12:00 to 16:00 ultimately still closed at 0.07489. The four-hour period from 16:00 to 20:00 has not closed yet, so we cannot directly write a one-hour bounce as a four-hour reversal, nor can we automatically explain the long lower wick as just a “shakeout.”

Positions have risen, but the strength is different from the price. In the OI quantity sample, from 16:00 to 17:00 it increased from about 76.39 million to 79.74 million coins, up about 4.39%. This only indicates that the scale of open contracts expanded; it does not mean a net inflow from longs. The 16:00 actual settlement funding rate is +0.006532% per 4 hours, lower than +0.026255% at 12:00. A decrease in the funding rate is not, by itself, a reason to justify buying; the next-period prediction should not be treated as a confirmed, settled result.

I rechecked Binance project announcements and Velvet’s official blog, and I still cannot verify any new catalyst that directly explains this-hour rebound. Updates to old products can only serve as background; they do not provide a strong reason that would fully account for this bullish candle.

Next, what’s more worth watching is the 0.08327–0.08398 area: we need subsequent full-hour closes above it, pullbacks that are met with acceptance, and trading activity that does not quickly fade—those would be evidence that the repair can continue. If it goes up on volume but still doesn’t rise for a long time, or if it loses the low of this hour again at 0.07475, then the current repair interpretation should be downgraded. These are structural observation levels, not guaranteed entry prices based on past signals; after price and window change, the calculation should be redone. Market conditions and position sources come from Binance’s public interface; single-coin evidence collection was at 17:03, and the accompanying chart only draws completed hours.

$AKE Can one go long now? My view is to wait first: after a sharp selloff, a rebound has appeared, but it hasn’t yet completed the confirmation that would justify chasing a long.

This discussion is about AKEDO’s AKEUSDT Binance USDT-margined perpetual contract. As of 16:58 Beijing time on October 3rd, the price is 0.032656 USDT, still up 4.19% over the past 24 hours; but “today’s gain is positive” and “it’s currently suitable to open longs” are two different things. At 17:00, the rechecked quote is about 0.032586, which remains below the confirmation level mentioned below.

First, let’s see where the drop happened. From 15:00 to 16:00, the full hourly candle fell from 0.036356 to 0.033079—down roughly 9.0%—with成交值 (trading value) about 7.4 million USDT, higher than the prior one-hour period of about 5 million. Then, from 16:00 to 16:15 it tested down again to 0.032078. This suggests the selloff after the rally has considerable strength, so you can’t just look at the 24-hour gain and treat the pullback as a low-entry opportunity. Also, trading value cannot directly be equated to net outflow.

Next, check whether the rebound has caught up. Two complete 15-minute candles from 16:15 to 16:30 and from 16:30 to 16:45 show trading values of about 790k and 600k USDT respectively—both below the approximately 2.04 million USDT during the 16:00 to 16:15 decline. The price leaving the low point indicates there is some support/absorption; however, rebound trading volume is decreasing, which is still insufficient to prove that active buying has regained control. Unclosed candles aren’t used to confirm a breakout, and there’s no evidence to attribute this rebound to any new positive catalyst.

Positioning also requires restraint in interpretation. Open interest fell from about 4.91600亿 AKE at 15:00 to about 4.77500亿 AKE at 16:58—a reduction of roughly 2.9%. The price pullback accompanied by declining open interest is compatible with some positions being exited; it doesn’t tell us whether longs are cutting losses, shorts are taking profit, or both occurring together—and it certainly can’t be used to conclude “the shakeout is over.”

I will first observe 0.033229: this is the high of the 16:00–16:15 bearish hourly segment candle. If, after that, there are complete 15-minute candles that close above it, and then later a pullback holds it, forming higher lows, along with成交 at comparable-length window, only then is it worth reassessing the long idea. One needle-like poke up isn’t enough; currently these conditions haven’t all happened at the same time.

For the upside, first look at the already-traded 0.033675–0.03387 zone. On the downside, watch 0.032078. If the low is broken and cannot be reclaimed, this rebound-observation logic fails. Even if the confirmation level is recovered, you still need to set the invalidation price based on the actual pullback low; use the first resistance to estimate potential space. After subtracting fees and expected slippage, if it doesn’t reach at least a 2:1 reward-to-risk, then give up—don’t move the target further just to justify opening a trade.

So the current conclusion is: don’t chase longs yet—wait for confirmation and then recalculate. The levels above come from this market snapshot; they are not permanent pending-order instructions. After the quote and structure change, the assessment must be redone.

Source: Binance’s公开合约 K-line, 24-hour market data, and open interest data. The chart imagery uses only candles that had already closed at the time of collection.

$BTC This round of “rally then give back” has a complete timeline. Binance spot BTCUSDT touched $87,220 on the 1-minute candle at 20:31 on October 2; as of 16:42 on October 3, it’s quoted at $84,620, down about 3.0% from the high point and still below $85,000.

First, align the macro event precisely: The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released the September Non-Farm Payrolls on October 2 at 20:30 (Beijing time), reporting +290,000 jobs and an unemployment rate of 4.2%. Binance’s 20:29 1-minute candle closed at $86,616, and the 20:31 1-minute candle’s high was $87,220. The high came immediately after the release; the minute candles can only show sequence, not causality. For the thesis “weak data pushed BTC,” we need independent evidence—the hot-list headline alone is not causal verification.

What matters more is the later closes: the 20:00–21:00 hour high was $87,220 and it closed at $86,810; 21:00–22:00 closed at $86,565; 22:00–23:00 closed at $85,686.93; 23:00–24:00 closed at $85,326. Then 01:00–02:00 on October 3 closed at $84,774.75, and 02:00–03:00 closed at $84,262.01. The rally didn’t hold at the top; it was gradually unwound afterward. The current rolling 24-hour range is $83,888–$87,220, a drop of about 2.1%. Pulling back from the high is about 3.0%—that’s not the same indicator as the rolling 24-hour move.

This account’s morning post 373133677978444 recorded the price around $84,639, below $85,000; what’s new this time is the path after that—first pushing above $87,000, then returning below $85,000. It doesn’t mean a trend reversal. The conclusion we can draw is limited to the price path: the spike didn’t persist into the present, and you can’t judge the next direction based only on this stretch of action. Next, watch whether the full-hour closes can reclaim $85,000, and whether the area around $83,888 is tested again; intraday quotes don’t count as confirmation. This is observation, not a trading signal. Data as of 16:42 BJT on October 3. #BTC

In the short term, wait and observe first—don’t chase the leaderboard. Regarding <龙虾> (Lobster/ <龙虾USDT> ), don’t take the 4-hour close back above the observation level as confirmation. It fully closed over 4 hours between 12:00—16:00 at 0.04859, above 0.04802; but a full 5 minutes between 16:05—16:10 closed at 0.04788, then another full 5 minutes between 16:10—16:15 closed at 0.04720, with both returning below that level. At 16:18:05 the single-coin quote was 0.04683, still below the observation level. New information isn’t a “breakout,” but rather a failed hold after reclaiming.

The divergence in this round’s short-cycle closes is worth weighting more than the 24-hour leaderboard movement. The latest 4 hours went from 0.04485 to 0.04859, up 8.34%, with a high of 0.04933; but the estimated traded value is about $53.45 million, which is 54.4% less than the previous full 4 hours from 08:00—12:00 at $117.3 million. The traded value from 15:00—16:00 is about $16.71 million, up 26% versus $13.26 million in the prior hour; after that, several subsequent 5-minute candles weakened again. An increase in single-candle traded value doesn’t equal net buying, and you can’t replace sustained stabilization with just one 4-hour close.

The rolling 24-hour numbers change quickly: at 16:02 the Lobster/USDT row was scanned as #1, with a +67.605% rise and a price of 0.04884; at 16:21:56 it was scanned again as #1, with a +46.051% rise and a price of 0.04567. Compared to the 16:02 scan price of 0.04884, it dropped about 6.5% within 20 minutes. The 24-hour rise field is lower by 21.554 percentage points; the latter is also affected by the rolling window update, so it can’t be used as the basis for the current hour’s drawdown. The latest scan price is also below the 0.04703 shown in this post at 14:26—so you can’t treat a top-of-leaderboard percentage (or earlier high percentage) as new momentum.

Positions and funding rates still don’t provide a directional conclusion. The OI sample from about 14:00 to 16:00 rose from ~662.3 million coins to ~667.0 million (about +0.7%), and it doesn’t distinguish long vs. short. The settled funding rate at 16:00 is +0.03217% per 4 hours; a positive value means longs are paying shorts. That’s lower than the +0.03580% at 12:00, but it isn’t a reversal signal. A single order-book snapshot doesn’t represent ongoing acceptance. The Binance futures listing announcement only confirms the underlying asset identity; for this round, no new project announcement explaining the volatility was found.

Next, first watch whether the price can reclaim 0.04802, then see whether there is transaction support in the full hour. If it continues to press below that level and breaks below the recent full-hour low of 0.04511, then the earlier 4-hour close looks even more like a brief reclaim. Leaderboard snapshots across the whole market as of 16:21:56 BJT; single-coin cross-check as of 16:18:05; the 5-minute candles from 16:15—16:20 have not yet completed. #龙虾USDT

[Has OpenAI switched from NVIDIA to Cerebras—did the partnership end? Existing evidence does not support that leap]

Binance’s hot rankings put Cerebras’ nearly 20% drop alongside the claim that “NVIDIA will supply compute power for OpenAI,” but this only shows the market is repricing a key customer—it’s not enough to prove that OpenAI and Cerebras’ collaboration has been canceled. A more accurate breakdown is: the specific hardware arrangement for GPT‑6.1 Sol Ultrafast is still only what research institutions say; meanwhile, the multi-year compute deal Cerebras disclosed earlier remains in public filings.

On September 30, SemiAnalysis wrote on X that GPT‑6.1 Sol Ultrafast is not running on Cerebras, but instead is being run on NVIDIA GPUs in low-volume mode. We checked the original post link, but at the time the X page returned 403, preventing us from independently reading the full context; nor did OpenAI or Cerebras confirm this deployment in any official announcement identified in this round of verification. Therefore, this article treats it as an industry report awaiting verification, rather than presenting it as a fact the company has confirmed, and certainly not using it to claim the partnership was terminated.

Company disclosures that can be directly verified come in two layers. A Cerebras press release in August 2026 states that GPT‑5.6 Sol Ultrafast in the OpenAI API uses compute provided by Cerebras. This shows that a particular model version and tier did use its system, but it cannot be automatically extrapolated to GPT‑6.1. In its SEC filing for Q1 2026, Cerebras states that the two sides signed a multi-year master agreement in December 2025: OpenAI committed to purchasing 750MW of inference compute and related services, with batch deployments expected from 2026 to 2028; there is also an additional purchase option of up to 1.25GW. The option is not a committed capacity, and the document does not list, item by item, the chip routing for each model tier.

All three points can be true at the same time: different model versions and speed tiers may use different hardware; the capacity defined in the contract does not prove that a specific new tier is already going live; and a single deployment rumor cannot, by itself, prove that a big-customer contract was withdrawn. The Q1 10‑Q disclosure also cannot answer whether there were revisions after that.

What could truly change the assessment is later formal clarification by OpenAI or Cerebras about the GPT‑6.1 service path, the deployment and revenue progress in Cerebras’ next filing, and whether the agreement has been publicly amended. The hot-tracker’s claimed stock-price drop and the timing of the hardware rumor are adjacent, but that does not equal proof that a single piece of news caused the entire drop. #AI算力 #OpenAI #Cerebras

Write the conclusion first: observe, don’t chase. The key to this $Lobster USDT leg isn’t treating a 50%+ rise as continuous buy pressure. Before the release at 14:26:16, I scanned and verified all 526/526 Binance USDT-margined perpetuals; $Lobster USDT ranked #2, with a 24h increase of +53.944%. The scan price was 0.04703 and the traded value was about $534 million. It rose from #3 at 14:00:38 to #2, but the ranking change alone doesn’t confirm the trend. The 14:25 scan showed +54.043%, price 0.04706; the 14:18 scan showed +47.837%, price 0.04716. At 14:14, the single-pair snapshot was 0.04692, with a rolling 24h gain of +49.570%. The price is mostly flat while the rolling gain changes, indicating the 24h statistical window is shifting too—so you can’t interpret everything as new buying.

Most striking is the full four-hour window from 08:00–12:00: open 0.03924, close 0.04484, up about 14.3%, yet the range stretched from 0.03500 to 0.05499, leaving a very wide amplitude. The quoted成交 value for that segment was about $117.3 million, roughly 8x the previous full four hours (04:00–08:00, about $14.58 million). Volume and price rise occurred together, but the wide spike-and-fall suggests the path wasn’t smooth; traded value isn’t the same as net-buy statistics.

Looking at hourly closes makes the process clearer: 09:00–10:00 close at 0.04798; 10:00–11:00 close at 0.05025; then 11:00–12:00 fell back to 0.04484; 12:00–13:00 closed at 0.04444; the low was 0.04172. 13:00–14:00 closed at 0.04705—about 5.8% above the open 0.04445. But hourly traded value dropped from $13.21 million to $10.27 million, down about 22%. The 14:14 quote at 0.04692 is slightly below that hourly close, and also below the hourly high 0.04802 and the 24h high 0.05499. At this stage, it can only be called a partial rebound after a pullback.

OI rose from about 650.5 million contracts at ~08:00 to about 662.3 million at ~14:00, up roughly 1.8%. OI can’t distinguish long vs. short. The funding rate settled at 12:00 was +0.035796% per 4 hours. A positive rate means longs pay shorts. It describes crowded positioning cost, but it doesn’t indicate which side will definitely win. In the 14:14 order-book snapshot, the bid/ask around the mid price within 0.5% were about $265k on the buy side and $462k on the sell side; the spread is about 4.27 bps. A single order can be cancelled, so it can’t be taken as evidence of continuous support.

Binance’s March 11 contract announcement describes $Lobster as a Chinese meme coin on the BNB Chain, with a maximum leverage of 5x. That’s only the asset identity and contract rules—not the catalyst for this round. As of 14:18, I haven’t verified any recent project team announcement or exchange news that could explain the sharp surge. Going forward, we need to watch whether the completed 12:00–16:00 four-hour segment can stand above 0.04802, or if it falls back below 0.04172. Whichever direction, confirmation requires subsequent candlestick closes. #LobsterUSDT

NEAR Intents: A key development has emerged in the roughly $3.8 million incident. On October 2, the person in charge, Alex Shevchenko, updated that the funds have been fully returned and that the team has stopped its investigation. This progress differs from what this account’s earlier post 372883493109296 recorded: “identified the parties involved and provided a 48-hour repayment window”—at that time it was still unclear whether the funds had actually arrived. Now the lead’s original post provides a new status, but the items “project confirmation,” “publicly verifiable on-chain amounts,” and “users received compensation” should be separated.

The first layer is the incident ledger. NEAR Intents previously said its preliminary loss was about $3.8 million and promised full compensation. This represents a loss estimate and a commitment to repay; it is not proof of funds having been received.

The second layer is repayment evidence. The Bitcoin refund address published by the administrator received 34.59 BTC between 14:31 and 15:05 UTC on October 2. At that time, this was roughly $852,000 per BTC, totaling about $2.95 million. On BNB Chain, there is also a separate transaction sent to a designated address; the input data states “all funds have been returned.” On-chain, it can prove that this text was written into the transaction, but it cannot confirm the sender’s identity using only an address label. The负责人 later replied to an on-chain researcher’s assessment of other channels: “You’re right—yes, that is the case.”

The third layer still requires caution: the publicly visible Bitcoin inflow is about 78% of the estimated $3.8 million, while the remaining portion did not form an independently verifiable asset list on these already published addresses. The project lead claims full repayment, but what on-chain observers can verify is limited to specific addresses and specific transactions—these forms of evidence cover different scopes. Full repayment also does not mean that affected users have already received compensation. Stopping the team’s investigation does not equal law enforcement closing the case.

What truly deserves to be waited for next is not repeating the attempt to “recover the $3.8 million,” but NEAR Intents’ post-incident report, confirmation that affected users received compensation, and verifiable explanations of the repayment routes for the remaining roughly $850,000. The previously announced 48-hour deadline, the lead’s announcement that the funds had been returned, and the users’ compensation hitting their accounts are three different points in time. #NEAR # security incident

【$SAND 短线先观望、不追：成交降温，收盘确认仍关键】

13:09 Beijing time, the full rescan is still complete at 526/526. SANDUSDT maintains the #1 gain position, up 24 hours by +76.445%, scan price 0.08180, and an estimated trading value of about $1.215 billion. At 13:09:30, the single-coin quote is 0.08165, which is about 10.4% higher than the sampled price of 0.07394 from this account’s earlier post at 11:08. The rolling gain widened by 11.14 percentage points. This is a new change after the acceleration segment in the earlier post, and it does not mean the rally can be extrapolated.

The new structure looks more like raising the closing after topping out, rather than a straight-line surge. From 11:00 to 12:00, the hourly high was 0.08269 and the close was 0.07851; from 12:00 to 13:00, the high was 0.08200 and the low was 0.07754, and the close was 0.08070—about 2.8% higher than the previous hour’s close. However, in the subsequent hour, the contract trading value was about $69.96 million, down about 44% from the prior hour’s $124.9 million. This suggests that when the price is pushed higher, the trading drive weakens. You cannot confirm a breakout just by the close moving up; you need to watch whether it can rise with volume and close above 0.08269, or whether any pullback holds the 0.07754 level.

Derivatives provide positioning context, not proof of direction. The Binance hourly OI quantity sample increased from about 422.4 million around 11:00 to about 448.0 million around 13:00, up roughly 6.1%. OI does not distinguish between longs and shorts. The 08:00 settled funding rate is -0.70582% per 8 hours. As of 13:09, the predicted funding rate for the next interval is -1.11343%, expected to settle around 16:00 but not yet confirmed. A negative funding rate means, under this metric, shorts pay funding to longs; you therefore cannot conclude from this that shorts are crowded or that a short squeeze is inevitable.

At present, no verifiable new announcement has been found that can explain this round of acceleration. The trading warning being lifted is background from the earlier post that was checked, and should not be treated as a new catalyst. What short-term needs verification is whether there are complete hourly closes above 0.08269 with trading support (volume/presence), and whether the funding settlement value deviates significantly from the forecast. If trading continues to shrink and the price breaks below the recent hourly low, the explanation for the current elevated close would need to be reassessed. Data sampling is up to 13:09:30 Beijing time, and the full order-book rescan is at 13:09; the market situation and any yet-to-settle funding rates will continue to change.

[ZEC rebounded about 4% from its intraday low, but is still down about 22% from the stage high]

Binance Square 11:32 (Beijing time) realtime topic leaderboard, ranked #8, quoted: “Zcash has fallen 21% from its September peak.” This percentage needs to be refreshed using the same trading pair and the same price reference. The daily K chart for Binance spot ZECUSDT shows that the high price on September 26 was 1,698 USDT. As of October 3 at 11:48, the latest spot price is 1,323.84, which is about 22.0% lower than that stage high. This only represents the Binance ZECUSDT sample and does not mean a uniform market-wide peak.

On the other hand, the lowest traded price over the rolling 24-hour range is 1,271.09. The latest price is about 4.1% higher than that low; meanwhile, the 24-hour change in the same period is still -0.646%. In other words, both can be true at the same time: there is a rebound during the day, but the pullback from the high can also occur concurrently. The 24-hour high is 1,412.12; the range is wider. Looking only at the percentage of rebound from the low, you cannot conclude that the downtrend has already reversed, nor can you determine which piece of news triggered the rebound.

This re-check brings new data compared with the post at 02:54 in this account (373047484267284): at the time, the recorded price was 1,290.07, with a rolling 24-hour drop of 3.526%, and a pullback of about 24.0% versus the September reference high. Now the price is about 2.6% higher; the 24-hour decline has narrowed, and the pullback is about 22.0%. The direction of change is a repair, not a new low. The calculation benchmark remains the September 26 high of 1,698 from Binance spot daily K; the current price and the 24-hour low come from the ticker at 11:48. You cannot mix these windows into a single daily-candle conclusion.

Another time boundary is also important: the October 3 UTC daily K had not finished collecting at the time of capture, so you cannot count it in advance as a bullish close. Going forward, wait for the complete daily K, then compare it with trading volume and the longer-interval structure. If you only reference the hot-list “21%” without indicating the quote timestamp, the percentage will quickly become outdated. This article only updates the price window and does not confirm any catalyst; it does not constitute a buy or sell judgment.

Emphasizing the definitions one more time: 22.0% is measured by the current price versus the September 26 high; 4.1% is measured from the low of the past 24 hours. The two use different windows and different denominators, so they cannot be added together, and you also cannot write that a short-term rebound means the stage pullback has already been repaired.

【Blast announces a gradual exit, but it still isn’t time to say “the chain is already stopped”】

Binance Square 11:32 (Beijing Time): The real-time ranking focuses on Blast L2’s exit, with it currently at No. 5. In a post on Oct 2, Blast’s official account said that maintenance costs have exceeded network revenue, and the team can’t see a sustainable path forward. Therefore, it decided to wind down the project step by step and asked users to transfer their assets back to the Ethereum mainnet. The most important timeline boundary is this: this announcement is about the exit plan, not a notice that block production on the mainnet has already stopped.

Per the announcement, the first step is to handle assets related to Lido, estimated to take about a week; withdrawals will be temporarily paused during this period. After that, withdrawals are expected to resume, and the waiting period is planned to be shortened to 24 hours. Users can withdraw through the regular Blast interface by Oct 26. After Oct 26, the announcement says assets can still be withdrawn, but users must directly call the Blast Bridge contract deployed on Ethereum L1. The team also promises to provide operating instructions in advance. Therefore, Oct 26 is the deadline for the regular-interface path; it must not be written as an asset expiration date or a day when funds “disappear.”

As of the time of checking Blast’s official status page on Oct 3 (Beijing Time), the page still lists Mainnet, Public RPC, and Block Production as Operational, and shows no incident records for that day. A status page can only reflect the report status of the monitored project; it cannot overturn the team’s exit decision. Conversely, the exit decision does not mean that transfers are impossible right now. The official bridging page still shows entry points for deposits and withdrawals, but the page controls themselves cannot prove that withdrawals are currently available—especially since the announcement explicitly says that withdrawal will be paused during the Lido-handling period.

So far, no published final sequencer shutdown date has been found from the team. Users need to distinguish three things: whether there is currently a withdrawal pause period in the near term, when the regular interface route ends, and when the subsequent contract-withdrawal guide will be published. Acting based solely on the ranking title or older bridge tutorials is not reliable; users should follow Blast’s future official updates. Don’t share seed phrases with customer service via DMs, and don’t interpret a single status page green light as proof that the risk has already been eliminated.

Additionally, the status page covers only the monitoring components it lists, and does not mean that every application, NFT contract, or user self-custodied asset has completed the exit arrangements.

【$BTC /$ETH not spot ETFs: SEC approves listing proposal for 3x futures-based ETP benchmark】

Binance Square 11:32 (Beijing time) real-time topic leaderboard summarizes it as “SEC approves a 3x leveraged Bitcoin and Ethereum ETP.” More precisely: on October 2, the SEC approved a rule change proposed by the Cboe BZX exchange, allowing it to list, under the relevant rules, six commodity trust share classes issued by the VS Trust, including 3x Bitcoin and 3x Ethereum products. This is approval of the listing rules, not an endorsement of crypto assets by the SEC, and it cannot be used to assert that the products have already begun trading; whether trading starts also depends on the exchange and the subsequent arrangements in the offering documents.

The timeline also wasn’t introduced just today. Cboe BZX submitted the proposal on August 10, the SEC opened it for public comment on August 14, and it issued the approval order on October 2. The approval target was the exchange’s rule filing. The products’ objective is: after deducting fees, to seek to reach 3x the “single-day” performance of the corresponding benchmark. The benchmark is calculated based on a combination of specified near-month and next-near-month futures contracts, and the foundation uses assets such as futures and cash. It is not a traditional spot ETF that directly holds spot Bitcoin or Ethereum, and the “3x” is not simply a multiplication of the long-term cumulative gains by three.

This distinction matters for risk understanding. In investor education materials, the SEC notes that most leveraged ETFs reset daily; results after holding for more than one day may diverge noticeably from the benchmark’s contemporaneous gains/losses. The greater the volatility, the more worth paying attention to the path differences. Even if the underlying ultimately returns to its starting point, the product is not guaranteed to return to its original value. Even the legal terminology is easy to misread: while the fund name uses “ETF,” the SEC, in its approval order, discusses these commodity trust share classes in an ETP-like context. What it addresses is how the exchange will list the products—rather than the assessment of fund inflows, price impact, or investment value. The approval itself does not answer the actual listing date, ticker/identifier, fees, or final holdings. One should also verify the fund’s effective documents and the Cboe’s actual listing notices, and not interpret “approved” as “already trading.”

What can be confirmed right now is that the rules have been approved. The impact on the actual listing, product scale, and demand for BTC/ETH spot remains to be determined based on subsequent documentation and trade validation.

【Short-term traders should first observe and wait; don’t chase $SAND : OI and funding rates still can’t point a clear direction】

This is the incremental update following my SAND recap from the 09:16 post. At 11:00:39 Beijing time, a complete scan of 526/526 Binance USDT-margined perpetual contracts showed SANDUSDT as the #1 performer by 24-hour increase, up 65.303%, quoted at 0.07394, with trading volume of about $1.004 billion. The sampled price from the previous post was 0.06901, up 54.662%; as of this initial scan, the price is about 7.1% higher, and the rolling increase is an additional 10.64 percentage points, with trading volume up by about 10.3%. These are snapshots at two time points, so they can’t be directly extrapolated to the next hour.

The volume-and-price incremental effect is concentrated in the just-closed 10:00–11:00 hour: open 0.06524, high 0.07584, low 0.06474, close 0.07355, up about 12.7%. Trading value was about $64.54 million, roughly $44.84 million higher than the previous full hour—an increase of 43.9%. The close is near this hour’s high, but the hour’s range is still wide; it can’t be called a stable breakout based on the bullish candle alone. The 11:00–12:00 hour has not finished yet, so this post doesn’t use intrahour K-line confirmation.

Derivatives also show tension: Binance’s public hourly OI increased from about 395.2 million coins at 08:00 to about 422.4 million at 11:00, up 6.88%. OI only indicates the number of open positions; it doesn’t tell us whether the newly added positions are more long-leaning or short-leaning. The latest settled funding rate corresponding to the 08:00 reading is -0.70582% per 8 hours. An extremely negative value means longs pay funding, but you still can’t conclude that shorts must be getting squeezed. The next-period funding rate shown by the interface has not been settled yet, so it can’t be treated as the final value.

The reason for removing the trading warning from a Korean exchange has already been verified in the previous post, and this round did not package it as a new catalyst. The more important items to re-check now are: when trading activity expands at the hourly level, can price hold around 0.06474? Will the 0.07584 high be retested? And how do OI and the settled funding rate change. If price spikes and then falls back, and trading pressure weakens, or if the new hour drops back into the prior closing range, then the short-term structure needs to be reassessed. This is an observation of perpetual-market structure and does not constitute investment advice. Quotes, order-book levels, and unsettled data will change.

Data: Binance USDⓈ-M spot/perpetual行情 and derivatives public API; sampling around 11:02 BJT; order-book sampling at 11:00:39 BJT.

#The incremental rally in U.S. stocks Friday isn’t just restating that “Nonfarm payrolls rose by 29,000”; it’s about how stocks and bonds sent different signals on the same data over different time horizons.

On October 2, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that September nonfarm payrolls increased by 29,000 and the unemployment rate was 4.2%. This post’s previous entry <c-1/> has already broken down the report’s job figures, revisions, and survey methodology; this article adds the market’s actual reaction after the announcement, without repeating report details, and without using them to infer the trajectory of crypto assets.

AP’s end-of-day data: the S&P 500 rose 0.7% to 7,722.72, the Dow gained 0.5%, and the Nasdaq increased 1.2%. AP linked the early-session rise to traders dialing back their bets on Fed rate hikes this month. Slowing employment could reduce concerns about the economy running “too hot” and continuing hikes—one market interpretation; but a single day’s index gains can neither prove recession risk has disappeared nor prove the Fed has already shifted toward easing.

The intraday path in the bond market reminds us not to read “stocks closed up” as everyone pricing the same kind of loosened conditions. AP said the yield on the 10-year U.S. Treasury fell noticeably first, then rebounded from the drop and closed back at 5.28%, more than 0.10 percentage points higher than the intraday low. Stocks held onto their gains while long-end yields rebounded, suggesting multiple factors—such as rate expectations and term supply—may have been operating at the same time; this is not a causal chain determined by employment data alone.

Next, watch two things: whether subsequent employment data and revisions continue to weaken, and whether long-end yields can stabilize. If you only focus on the nonfarm headline, it’s easy to miss the bond market’s intraday reversal; if you only rely on a one-day close, you also can’t confirm that risk assets have formed a new trend.

#American Community Bankers Association sues the OCC; the issue is whether a national trust bank charter can engage in related non-trust activities. This is currently a newly filed administrative lawsuit, not a court case that has already halted the encrypted bank license.

The timeline should be viewed in three steps. In 2021, the OCC issued an interpretation of Section 1176 discussing certain digital asset custody activities that national banks may undertake. On March 2, 2026, the final rule was published, stating that, in addition to trust business, a national trust bank may also conduct non-trust activities related to operating trust companies; the rule takes effect on April 1. The OCC described this as a clarification of existing authority and said that specific business lines would still be reviewed case by case.

On October 2, the Independent Community Bankers Association (ICBA) announced that it had filed a lawsuit against the OCC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The ICBA argues that the OCC exceeded congressional authorization and asks the court to vacate the rule and the conditional national trust bank charter approval for Protego. These are the plaintiffs’ allegations and requests; information published by the association cannot replace the court’s findings.

Another term that is easy to confuse is “conditional approval.” In its corporate decision to Protego on February 13, the OCC explicitly stated that this was an initial conditional approval—only after pre-opening requirements are met would it grant final opening authorization. A trust bank charter is also not the same as automatically obtaining FDIC deposit insurance. The lawsuit itself does not automatically invalidate the rule or revoke the approval; what happens next depends on whether the court accepts the case, the parties’ legal filings, and the specific rulings.

Therefore, the near-term watch point is not to read trending headlines as a license being ruled illegal, but whether the court will pause enforcement, how it ultimately interprets Section 27(a) of the National Bank Act, and how the OCC’s case-by-case approval is implemented. The legal boundaries of the regulatory path are being tested, and the outcome is still uncertain.

#G7 The key to releasing reserves is not just “100 million barrels,” but when this commitment will translate into deliverable diesel and crude oil.

A G7 leaders’ statement on October 2 said it would coordinate through the International Energy Agency (IEA) to begin releasing 100 million barrels within four months, and bring “substantial diesel” forward to the first 20 days. It is a plan and execution timeline, not an indication that 100 million barrels had entered the market on that day. The statement also asks the IEA to continue tracking the implementation of the March commitment for March 2026.

On the same day, the IEA disclosed that about 325 million barrels of the 400 million barrels of collective action announced in March had already been released. The two sets of numbers come from different announcement nodes and cannot simply be added together to claim that “an additional 500 million barrels” of supply has been added. The G7 text also says consideration should be given to commitments already fulfilled, but it does not list, country by country, the net incremental amount of each barrel in this round, the breakdown by product, or the delivery cadence. Therefore, “up to 100 million barrels” in the trending headline cannot be directly equated with an equivalent immediate increase in readily available diesel in the spot market.

In the short term, the most worth watching is whether diesel deliveries in the first 20 days can be carried out as scheduled, and whether refinery maintenance coordination, member-country inventories, and export arrangements move in sync. When diesel supply is tight, product crack spreads and regional inventory levels may reflect changes earlier than crude oil totals. This is simply the transmission channel, and it cannot be used to conclude that crude prices have already peaked.

The next step is that the G7 asks the IEA to submit a follow-up report 20 days in advance, and to discuss over the following few days whether additional diesel releases are needed. Only if the report provides verifiable information—such as specific countries, product categories, and actual drawdown progress—will the “commitment size” be translated into “verifiable supply.” Until then, 100 million barrels is better understood as a policy plan than as a completed supply shock.

【$MAGMA ：Short-term wait-and-see; don’t chase intra-day rebounds】

This round has two incremental updates. In the 526 Binance USDT perpetual contracts fully scanned at 10:01, MAGMAUSDT ranked #1 by gain, with a +50.923% increase over 24 hours; in the re-scan before the 10:25 release, SAND was still #1, while MAGMA was #2, with a gain of +43.593%. These reflect the ranking positions and gain changes at two timestamps, not a trend reversal.

In my pre-post published at 08:09 (373124919459422), I set 0.35495 as the observation level for the next complete 4-hour candlestick. After that, from 08:00 to 09:00 it closed at 0.32722; from 09:00 to 10:00 it closed at 0.33607, with an hourly rise of 2.70%. Both closes remained below the reference level; the latter full hour’s low was 0.32044. By 10:23:14, the Binance contract price was 0.35784, and the current hour’s high was 0.36622—during the session it climbed back above the reference level by about 0.82%. However, the 10:00–11:00 hourly candle and the 08:00–12:00 four-hour candle did not close, so this is merely a test during the rebound and cannot be written as a “reclaim confirmation.”

Trading volume has picked up somewhat: the contract trading value from 09:00 to 10:00 was about $12.65 million, higher than about $11.43 million in the previous hour. The trading value itself doesn’t indicate whether buyers or sellers were dominant. The OI hourly sample fell from 27.71 million at 09:00 to 27.98 million at 10:00; compared with 08:00, it is still lower by about 0.70%. Even OI for a single contract alone cannot determine the long/short direction. The latest settled funding rate was +0.033619% per 4 hours at 08:00; the 10:23 prediction is about +0.032366%. This is not yet settled—only indicating that under this funding-rate convention, longs are paying; it’s not evidence of a squeeze.

Binance’s official information confirms that this contract corresponds to Magma Finance on Sui. In this round’s review, I couldn’t find any verifiable new catalysts in the Binance announcements and project documentation. Next, observe the 11:00 hourly close and the 12:00 four-hour close: if it closes back above 0.35495, then it counts as a price confirmation; if it falls again, then the intra-day rebound still hasn’t changed the prior post’s observation. The gain leaderboard and intra-day quotes are not guarantees. #MAGMA