乘风Sunshine
355 Posts
乘风Sunshine
Report
Block User
币安合约现货永久八折返佣码：CFCF888 ｜直播时间live:7：00-9：00AM事件合约；22:00-2:00AM永续合约｜X推特@KeShiqing57753｜公众号:莫道行路晚｜接KOL宣发&项目推广｜事件合约悟道写了《大乘密法》，正在写一本永续合约的书《大乘约法》敬请期待。（请进免费聊天室获取财富密码）
Frequent Trader
1.7 Years
392 Following
24.4K+ Followers
9.6K+ Liked
Posts
All
Videos
Live
PINNED
·
--
I’m getting ready to open a night-time events & contract livestream room. We’ll go live at 10 PM—everyone is welcome to come watch in the livestream room～
I’m getting ready to open a night-time events & contract livestream room. We’ll go live at 10 PM—everyone is welcome to come watch in the livestream room～
4.5k
51
360
4.5k
·
--
Yesterday’s News Snapshot / Riding the Sunshine
1️⃣ BTC holds near $79,000 as the market waits for the U.S. CPI
BTC briefly slipped to around $77,700 yesterday, then rebounded to about $79,000. For now, the market’s focus remains on this week’s U.S. inflation data and the Federal Reserve’s policy meeting on September 16.
2️⃣ The U.S. “CLARITY Act” enters a critical stage—procedural votes may come on September 15
The U.S. crypto industry and banking sector are launching a new round of lobbying around the “CLARITY Act.” If passed, the bill would further clarify the regulatory boundaries for digital assets and is seen as an important legislative milestone for the U.S. crypto industry.
3️⃣ Tether launches a $400 million private credit fund, exploring “stablecoins + real-world finance”
Tether and Fasanara Capital have launched a $400 million StableFund. They plan to use the USDT settlement system to participate in private credit for small and medium-sized enterprises, and aim to attract additional third-party capital. Stablecoin applications are expanding from trading settlement into real-world financial business.
4️⃣ ETH shows a “flag-style consolidation” in the short term; the market watches the $3,000 area
ETH has risen about 37% over the past 10 days, with a peak around $2,564. It has since entered a sideways consolidation. Technical analysis suggests that if it breaks out of the current range, the next key target may be near $3,000–$3,060.
5️⃣ Macroeconomic conditions weaken: oil breaks above $100; Treasury yields rise to near multi-year highs
Due to the Middle East situation, Brent crude has regained a level above $100 per barrel. The yield on the U.S. 10-year Treasury has climbed to about 4.84%. High oil prices may push inflation higher again, putting pressure on expectations for Fed rate cuts and on risk assets, including BTC.
Yesterday’s News Snapshot / Riding the Sunshine
1️⃣ BTC holds near $79,000 as the market waits for the U.S. CPI
BTC briefly slipped to around $77,700 yesterday, then rebounded to about $79,000. For now, the market’s focus remains on this week’s U.S. inflation data and the Federal Reserve’s policy meeting on September 16.
2️⃣ The U.S. “CLARITY Act” enters a critical stage—procedural votes may come on September 15
The U.S. crypto industry and banking sector are launching a new round of lobbying around the “CLARITY Act.” If passed, the bill would further clarify the regulatory boundaries for digital assets and is seen as an important legislative milestone for the U.S. crypto industry.
3️⃣ Tether launches a $400 million private credit fund, exploring “stablecoins + real-world finance”
Tether and Fasanara Capital have launched a $400 million StableFund. They plan to use the USDT settlement system to participate in private credit for small and medium-sized enterprises, and aim to attract additional third-party capital. Stablecoin applications are expanding from trading settlement into real-world financial business.
4️⃣ ETH shows a “flag-style consolidation” in the short term; the market watches the $3,000 area
ETH has risen about 37% over the past 10 days, with a peak around $2,564. It has since entered a sideways consolidation. Technical analysis suggests that if it breaks out of the current range, the next key target may be near $3,000–$3,060.
5️⃣ Macroeconomic conditions weaken: oil breaks above $100; Treasury yields rise to near multi-year highs
Due to the Middle East situation, Brent crude has regained a level above $100 per barrel. The yield on the U.S. 10-year Treasury has climbed to about 4.84%. High oil prices may push inflation higher again, putting pressure on expectations for Fed rate cuts and on risk assets, including BTC.
1️⃣ BTC holds near $79,000 as the market waits for the U.S. CPI
BTC briefly slipped to around $77,700 yesterday, then rebounded to about $79,000. For now, the market’s focus remains on this week’s U.S. inflation data and the Federal Reserve’s policy meeting on September 16.
2️⃣ The U.S. “CLARITY Act” enters a critical stage—procedural votes may come on September 15
The U.S. crypto industry and banking sector are launching a new round of lobbying around the “CLARITY Act.” If passed, the bill would further clarify the regulatory boundaries for digital assets and is seen as an important legislative milestone for the U.S. crypto industry.
3️⃣ Tether launches a $400 million private credit fund, exploring “stablecoins + real-world finance”
Tether and Fasanara Capital have launched a $400 million StableFund. They plan to use the USDT settlement system to participate in private credit for small and medium-sized enterprises, and aim to attract additional third-party capital. Stablecoin applications are expanding from trading settlement into real-world financial business.
4️⃣ ETH shows a “flag-style consolidation” in the short term; the market watches the $3,000 area
ETH has risen about 37% over the past 10 days, with a peak around $2,564. It has since entered a sideways consolidation. Technical analysis suggests that if it breaks out of the current range, the next key target may be near $3,000–$3,060.
5️⃣ Macroeconomic conditions weaken: oil breaks above $100; Treasury yields rise to near multi-year highs
Due to the Middle East situation, Brent crude has regained a level above $100 per barrel. The yield on the U.S. 10-year Treasury has climbed to about 4.84%. High oil prices may push inflation higher again, putting pressure on expectations for Fed rate cuts and on risk assets, including BTC.
898
·
--
In mid-September, the real big test for the crypto world is coming.
On September 15–16, three major developments collide within 48 hours:
1️⃣ The CLARITY Act
The Senate will face a crucial procedural vote. With 53 Republican seats, to reach the 60-vote threshold at least 7 Democratic lawmakers would be needed. The core of the fight isn’t just over a few licenses—it’s about who within the SEC/CFTC will have authority, how RWA will be handled, and whether on-chain perpetual contracts can enter the U.S.
2️⃣ A $70 billion cake
The stablecoin market is already over $300 billion in size, and some market forecasts suggest it could reach $2 trillion by 2028. Based on a reserve yield of 3.5%–3.75%, that translates to a theoretical annual interest pool of roughly $70–75 billion.
Banks aren’t afraid of Crypto itself. They’re afraid that stablecoins are starting to take away bank deposits. Exchanges, stablecoin issuers, and banks are competing for the same pot of U.S. dollar liquidity.
3️⃣ The Fed + Circle Arc
On September 16, the FOMC will announce its interest rate decision. The market has already gone through a round of rapid gains: in August, BTC rose by about 25%, and spot ETF net inflows are around $3.5 billion. If regulatory expectations are dashed while liquidity tightens, high-leverage assets may be hit first.
On the same day, Circle’s Arc plans to go live on the mainnet. In Q2, USDC’s circulating supply was about $73.3 billion, and Circle reserve revenue accounted for about 95% of total revenue. What Arc truly wants isn’t “another blockchain”—it’s the infrastructure entry point for the future of stablecoins, RWA, payments, and institutional settlement.
So the drama in September, on the surface, is about whether BTC rises or falls.
At its core, it’s this:
In the U.S. future—digital dollars, on-chain trading, and RWA—who will regulate them, who will control liquidity, and who will capture the profits.
The $70 billion is just the visible cake.
The real big cake is the redistribution that will happen across the entire financial system once everything is moved on-chain.
In mid-September, the real big test for the crypto world is coming.
On September 15–16, three major developments collide within 48 hours:
1️⃣ The CLARITY Act
The Senate will face a crucial procedural vote. With 53 Republican seats, to reach the 60-vote threshold at least 7 Democratic lawmakers would be needed. The core of the fight isn’t just over a few licenses—it’s about who within the SEC/CFTC will have authority, how RWA will be handled, and whether on-chain perpetual contracts can enter the U.S.
2️⃣ A $70 billion cake
The stablecoin market is already over $300 billion in size, and some market forecasts suggest it could reach $2 trillion by 2028. Based on a reserve yield of 3.5%–3.75%, that translates to a theoretical annual interest pool of roughly $70–75 billion.
Banks aren’t afraid of Crypto itself. They’re afraid that stablecoins are starting to take away bank deposits. Exchanges, stablecoin issuers, and banks are competing for the same pot of U.S. dollar liquidity.
3️⃣ The Fed + Circle Arc
On September 16, the FOMC will announce its interest rate decision. The market has already gone through a round of rapid gains: in August, BTC rose by about 25%, and spot ETF net inflows are around $3.5 billion. If regulatory expectations are dashed while liquidity tightens, high-leverage assets may be hit first.
On the same day, Circle’s Arc plans to go live on the mainnet. In Q2, USDC’s circulating supply was about $73.3 billion, and Circle reserve revenue accounted for about 95% of total revenue. What Arc truly wants isn’t “another blockchain”—it’s the infrastructure entry point for the future of stablecoins, RWA, payments, and institutional settlement.
So the drama in September, on the surface, is about whether BTC rises or falls.
At its core, it’s this:
In the U.S. future—digital dollars, on-chain trading, and RWA—who will regulate them, who will control liquidity, and who will capture the profits.
The $70 billion is just the visible cake.
The real big cake is the redistribution that will happen across the entire financial system once everything is moved on-chain.
On September 15–16, three major developments collide within 48 hours:
1️⃣ The CLARITY Act
The Senate will face a crucial procedural vote. With 53 Republican seats, to reach the 60-vote threshold at least 7 Democratic lawmakers would be needed. The core of the fight isn’t just over a few licenses—it’s about who within the SEC/CFTC will have authority, how RWA will be handled, and whether on-chain perpetual contracts can enter the U.S.
2️⃣ A $70 billion cake
The stablecoin market is already over $300 billion in size, and some market forecasts suggest it could reach $2 trillion by 2028. Based on a reserve yield of 3.5%–3.75%, that translates to a theoretical annual interest pool of roughly $70–75 billion.
Banks aren’t afraid of Crypto itself. They’re afraid that stablecoins are starting to take away bank deposits. Exchanges, stablecoin issuers, and banks are competing for the same pot of U.S. dollar liquidity.
3️⃣ The Fed + Circle Arc
On September 16, the FOMC will announce its interest rate decision. The market has already gone through a round of rapid gains: in August, BTC rose by about 25%, and spot ETF net inflows are around $3.5 billion. If regulatory expectations are dashed while liquidity tightens, high-leverage assets may be hit first.
On the same day, Circle’s Arc plans to go live on the mainnet. In Q2, USDC’s circulating supply was about $73.3 billion, and Circle reserve revenue accounted for about 95% of total revenue. What Arc truly wants isn’t “another blockchain”—it’s the infrastructure entry point for the future of stablecoins, RWA, payments, and institutional settlement.
So the drama in September, on the surface, is about whether BTC rises or falls.
At its core, it’s this:
In the U.S. future—digital dollars, on-chain trading, and RWA—who will regulate them, who will control liquidity, and who will capture the profits.
The $70 billion is just the visible cake.
The real big cake is the redistribution that will happen across the entire financial system once everything is moved on-chain.
1
1.7k
·
--
Article
September 15: The real big test for the coin world—who is competing for a $70 billion U.S. dollar financial cake?If we treat the 2026 crypto market as a card game, then mid-September may be the most worth watching round of this year.
From September 15 to 16, within a 48-hour window, the U.S. crypto market will simultaneously face three variables:
First, the CLARITY Act enters a key procedural vote in the Senate;
Second, the Federal Reserve releases its September interest rate decision;
Third, Circle’s Arc public chain plans to officially launch its mainnet.
These three things seem to belong to three completely different fields, but in fact they point to the same underlying issue:
In the coming years, how much of the traditional financial business in the United States is it planning to move onto the blockchain, and ultimately who will take possession of this new stream of financial profits?
September 15: The real big test for the coin world—who is competing for a $70 billion U.S. dollar financial cake?
If we treat the 2026 crypto market as a card game, then mid-September may be the most worth watching round of this year.
From September 15 to 16, within a 48-hour window, the U.S. crypto market will simultaneously face three variables:
First, the CLARITY Act enters a key procedural vote in the Senate;
Second, the Federal Reserve releases its September interest rate decision;
Third, Circle’s Arc public chain plans to officially launch its mainnet.
These three things seem to belong to three completely different fields, but in fact they point to the same underlying issue:
In the coming years, how much of the traditional financial business in the United States is it planning to move onto the blockchain, and ultimately who will take possession of this new stream of financial profits?
From September 15 to 16, within a 48-hour window, the U.S. crypto market will simultaneously face three variables:
First, the CLARITY Act enters a key procedural vote in the Senate;
Second, the Federal Reserve releases its September interest rate decision;
Third, Circle’s Arc public chain plans to officially launch its mainnet.
These three things seem to belong to three completely different fields, but in fact they point to the same underlying issue:
In the coming years, how much of the traditional financial business in the United States is it planning to move onto the blockchain, and ultimately who will take possession of this new stream of financial profits?
1.7k
·
--
Verified
Article
The Dollar’s Next Anchor: Could AI Become the New Foundation of America’s Financial System?Over the past 80 years, the real strength of the dollar has never been just that “the United States can print money.”
The reason the dollar has been able to occupy the core position in the global financial system for so long is that the United States has, again and again, found something that forces the entire world to engage with the dollar, hold the dollar, and use the dollar.
After 1944, this was gold.
After the 1970s, this gradually became oil.
After entering the age of artificial intelligence, a question that is increasingly worth serious discussion has emerged:
What comes next—could something that makes the global economy unable to function without the U.S. dollar be AI?
The Dollar’s Next Anchor: Could AI Become the New Foundation of America’s Financial System?
Over the past 80 years, the real strength of the dollar has never been just that “the United States can print money.”
The reason the dollar has been able to occupy the core position in the global financial system for so long is that the United States has, again and again, found something that forces the entire world to engage with the dollar, hold the dollar, and use the dollar.
After 1944, this was gold.
After the 1970s, this gradually became oil.
After entering the age of artificial intelligence, a question that is increasingly worth serious discussion has emerged:
What comes next—could something that makes the global economy unable to function without the U.S. dollar be AI?
The reason the dollar has been able to occupy the core position in the global financial system for so long is that the United States has, again and again, found something that forces the entire world to engage with the dollar, hold the dollar, and use the dollar.
After 1944, this was gold.
After the 1970s, this gradually became oil.
After entering the age of artificial intelligence, a question that is increasingly worth serious discussion has emerged:
What comes next—could something that makes the global economy unable to function without the U.S. dollar be AI?
1
951
·
--
Verified
Article
From Gold to Oil, and Then to Compute Power: The Dollar Is Betting on a New GameJune 12, 2026 — SpaceX officially listed on the Nasdaq, trading under ticker symbol SPCX. This was not a routine bell-ringing. The offering price was set at $135 per share, raising roughly $75 billion, valuing the company at nearly $1.75 trillion—instantly making it the largest IPO in human history, surpassing the record set by Saudi Aramco in 2019. On its first day, the stock price surged to above $225, then pulled back. As of late August, it still hovered in the range of about $1.8 trillion in market value.
In almost the same time window, another seemingly unrelated development was quietly taking shape in Washington: starting in June 2026, the Trump administration was reportedly in talks with leading AI companies such as OpenAI, with the government taking about 5% equity in these firms. The aim was to establish a "public wealth fund" similar to Alaska’s Permanent Fund, distributing the returns generated by AI directly to the American public. This proposal wasn’t without precedent— in 2025, the U.S. government converted subsidies from the CHIPS Act into equity and obtained roughly a 9.9% stake in Intel; the Pentagon also took an ownership stake in rare-earth miner MP Materials through a similar approach.
From Gold to Oil, and Then to Compute Power: The Dollar Is Betting on a New Game
June 12, 2026 — SpaceX officially listed on the Nasdaq, trading under ticker symbol SPCX. This was not a routine bell-ringing. The offering price was set at $135 per share, raising roughly $75 billion, valuing the company at nearly $1.75 trillion—instantly making it the largest IPO in human history, surpassing the record set by Saudi Aramco in 2019. On its first day, the stock price surged to above $225, then pulled back. As of late August, it still hovered in the range of about $1.8 trillion in market value.
In almost the same time window, another seemingly unrelated development was quietly taking shape in Washington: starting in June 2026, the Trump administration was reportedly in talks with leading AI companies such as OpenAI, with the government taking about 5% equity in these firms. The aim was to establish a "public wealth fund" similar to Alaska’s Permanent Fund, distributing the returns generated by AI directly to the American public. This proposal wasn’t without precedent— in 2025, the U.S. government converted subsidies from the CHIPS Act into equity and obtained roughly a 9.9% stake in Intel; the Pentagon also took an ownership stake in rare-earth miner MP Materials through a similar approach.
In almost the same time window, another seemingly unrelated development was quietly taking shape in Washington: starting in June 2026, the Trump administration was reportedly in talks with leading AI companies such as OpenAI, with the government taking about 5% equity in these firms. The aim was to establish a "public wealth fund" similar to Alaska’s Permanent Fund, distributing the returns generated by AI directly to the American public. This proposal wasn’t without precedent— in 2025, the U.S. government converted subsidies from the CHIPS Act into equity and obtained roughly a 9.9% stake in Intel; the Pentagon also took an ownership stake in rare-earth miner MP Materials through a similar approach.
1
1.5k
·
--
Daily News Roundup｜September 9
1️⃣ BTC (-0.01%) slips to around $78,000, as the market awaits the Fed decision
BTC has pulled back from last week’s highs and is currently trading in a tight range near $78,000. Expectations for the September 16 Federal Reserve rate decision are heating up, and macro policy remains the key variable in the short term.
2️⃣ BTC ETFs continue to see inflows, with net inflows exceeding $1 billion over three days
Over the past three trading days, US spot BTC ETFs have recorded total net inflows of about $1.01 billion. On September 3 alone, daily inflows were approximately $730 million—worth noting as institutional capital appears to be returning.
3️⃣ Robinhood doubles down on prediction markets, teaming up with Crypto.com
Robinhood and Crypto.com have entered into a multi-year cooperation agreement. Robinhood will obtain a minority stake in Crypto.com and OG.com, further expanding its event contracts and prediction market business.
4️⃣ Tokenized stocks controversy escalates: AMC CEO publicly fires at Robinhood
AMC’s CEO has publicly criticized Robinhood’s tokenized stocks model, arguing it could weaken traditional shareholders’ rights and funding mechanisms. The debate has once again brought the question of whether “tokenizing stocks” is truly financial innovation back to the forefront.
5️⃣ BNB ecosystem remains active; AI Agents emerge as a new direction
BNB Chain has been steadily pushing forward the development of AI Agent-related ecosystems. The ongoing Build the Era Hackathon is also focusing on the AI Agent market’s infrastructure. The BNB ecosystem’s “AI + on-chain applications” trajectory is one to watch going forward.
Daily News Roundup｜September 9
1️⃣ BTC (-0.01%) slips to around $78,000, as the market awaits the Fed decision
BTC has pulled back from last week’s highs and is currently trading in a tight range near $78,000. Expectations for the September 16 Federal Reserve rate decision are heating up, and macro policy remains the key variable in the short term.
2️⃣ BTC ETFs continue to see inflows, with net inflows exceeding $1 billion over three days
Over the past three trading days, US spot BTC ETFs have recorded total net inflows of about $1.01 billion. On September 3 alone, daily inflows were approximately $730 million—worth noting as institutional capital appears to be returning.
3️⃣ Robinhood doubles down on prediction markets, teaming up with Crypto.com
Robinhood and Crypto.com have entered into a multi-year cooperation agreement. Robinhood will obtain a minority stake in Crypto.com and OG.com, further expanding its event contracts and prediction market business.
4️⃣ Tokenized stocks controversy escalates: AMC CEO publicly fires at Robinhood
AMC’s CEO has publicly criticized Robinhood’s tokenized stocks model, arguing it could weaken traditional shareholders’ rights and funding mechanisms. The debate has once again brought the question of whether “tokenizing stocks” is truly financial innovation back to the forefront.
5️⃣ BNB ecosystem remains active; AI Agents emerge as a new direction
BNB Chain has been steadily pushing forward the development of AI Agent-related ecosystems. The ongoing Build the Era Hackathon is also focusing on the AI Agent market’s infrastructure. The BNB ecosystem’s “AI + on-chain applications” trajectory is one to watch going forward.
1️⃣ BTC (-0.01%) slips to around $78,000, as the market awaits the Fed decision
BTC has pulled back from last week’s highs and is currently trading in a tight range near $78,000. Expectations for the September 16 Federal Reserve rate decision are heating up, and macro policy remains the key variable in the short term.
2️⃣ BTC ETFs continue to see inflows, with net inflows exceeding $1 billion over three days
Over the past three trading days, US spot BTC ETFs have recorded total net inflows of about $1.01 billion. On September 3 alone, daily inflows were approximately $730 million—worth noting as institutional capital appears to be returning.
3️⃣ Robinhood doubles down on prediction markets, teaming up with Crypto.com
Robinhood and Crypto.com have entered into a multi-year cooperation agreement. Robinhood will obtain a minority stake in Crypto.com and OG.com, further expanding its event contracts and prediction market business.
4️⃣ Tokenized stocks controversy escalates: AMC CEO publicly fires at Robinhood
AMC’s CEO has publicly criticized Robinhood’s tokenized stocks model, arguing it could weaken traditional shareholders’ rights and funding mechanisms. The debate has once again brought the question of whether “tokenizing stocks” is truly financial innovation back to the forefront.
5️⃣ BNB ecosystem remains active; AI Agents emerge as a new direction
BNB Chain has been steadily pushing forward the development of AI Agent-related ecosystems. The ongoing Build the Era Hackathon is also focusing on the AI Agent market’s infrastructure. The BNB ecosystem’s “AI + on-chain applications” trajectory is one to watch going forward.
377
·
--
Why market makers / big institutions / whales must wipe out your stop-loss (08, cd)Stop-loss hunting and liquidity: how large capital can "legally" eat your stop-loss orders
1. A scenario that nearly every trader has encountered
The price precisely plunges toward your stop-loss level, triggers your position closure, and then immediately reverses direction and charges wildly toward the direction you originally judged. Many people attribute this to "bad luck" or "the market maker is watching my orders," but a more accurate explanation is: you’re standing in the middle of a game over liquidity, and your stop-loss order is simply the most easily exploited piece of "fuel" in that game.
In overseas trading communities, this logic has long been systematized, even with specific terminology—"Stop Hunt" (stop-loss hunting), "Liquidity Sweep" (liquidity sweep), and "Liquidity Grab" (liquidity grab). It has also evolved into a complete analytical framework known as "Smart Money Concepts" (SMC).
Why market makers / big institutions / whales must wipe out your stop-loss (08, cd)
Stop-loss hunting and liquidity: how large capital can "legally" eat your stop-loss orders
1. A scenario that nearly every trader has encountered
The price precisely plunges toward your stop-loss level, triggers your position closure, and then immediately reverses direction and charges wildly toward the direction you originally judged. Many people attribute this to "bad luck" or "the market maker is watching my orders," but a more accurate explanation is: you’re standing in the middle of a game over liquidity, and your stop-loss order is simply the most easily exploited piece of "fuel" in that game.
In overseas trading communities, this logic has long been systematized, even with specific terminology—"Stop Hunt" (stop-loss hunting), "Liquidity Sweep" (liquidity sweep), and "Liquidity Grab" (liquidity grab). It has also evolved into a complete analytical framework known as "Smart Money Concepts" (SMC).
1. A scenario that nearly every trader has encountered
The price precisely plunges toward your stop-loss level, triggers your position closure, and then immediately reverses direction and charges wildly toward the direction you originally judged. Many people attribute this to "bad luck" or "the market maker is watching my orders," but a more accurate explanation is: you’re standing in the middle of a game over liquidity, and your stop-loss order is simply the most easily exploited piece of "fuel" in that game.
In overseas trading communities, this logic has long been systematized, even with specific terminology—"Stop Hunt" (stop-loss hunting), "Liquidity Sweep" (liquidity sweep), and "Liquidity Grab" (liquidity grab). It has also evolved into a complete analytical framework known as "Smart Money Concepts" (SMC).
569
·
--
Why market makers/big institutions/giant whales must take out your stop-loss (07, cg)Truly understanding “stop-loss hunting”: the market isn’t targeting you—it’s looking for liquidity
Many traders have had this kind of experience:
I just bought in, the price dips a little, and my stop-loss gets triggered.
After the stop-loss gets hit, the price suddenly surges.
So you start to doubt:
Is the market maker watching my stop-loss?
Actually, most of the time it isn’t.
What the market really watches is never you as a person, but the location of your orders.
If you really have to explain the so-called “stop-loss hunting” in one sentence, I’d rather define it as:
Price moves toward the most liquidity-dense areas, and stop-losses are only one of the important sources of that liquidity.
Why market makers/big institutions/giant whales must take out your stop-loss (07, cg)
Truly understanding “stop-loss hunting”: the market isn’t targeting you—it’s looking for liquidity
Many traders have had this kind of experience:
I just bought in, the price dips a little, and my stop-loss gets triggered.
After the stop-loss gets hit, the price suddenly surges.
So you start to doubt:
Is the market maker watching my stop-loss?
Actually, most of the time it isn’t.
What the market really watches is never you as a person, but the location of your orders.
If you really have to explain the so-called “stop-loss hunting” in one sentence, I’d rather define it as:
Price moves toward the most liquidity-dense areas, and stop-losses are only one of the important sources of that liquidity.
Many traders have had this kind of experience:
I just bought in, the price dips a little, and my stop-loss gets triggered.
After the stop-loss gets hit, the price suddenly surges.
So you start to doubt:
Is the market maker watching my stop-loss?
Actually, most of the time it isn’t.
What the market really watches is never you as a person, but the location of your orders.
If you really have to explain the so-called “stop-loss hunting” in one sentence, I’d rather define it as:
Price moves toward the most liquidity-dense areas, and stop-losses are only one of the important sources of that liquidity.
164
·
--
Why Market Makers / Big Institutions / Big Whales Must Sweep Your Stop Losses (06, gk)The instant stops get swept, many people feel the market is targeting them personally. A closer-to-the-truth description is: the market is finding the counterparty order flow. Big capital needs to buy, so someone has to sell; to sell, someone has to buy. Retail traders place stop losses near previous highs/lows, round-number levels, and trendlines—exactly the kind of “immediate liquidity” that algorithms identify most easily and can then consume in a single pass.
This is not a moral story; it’s about microstructure.
First, separate two things: natural liquidation, and the platform taking buy/sell orders.
In public discussions, “hunting stops” is often framed as a conspiracy. A more accurate way to break it down is that two mechanisms overlap.
Why Market Makers / Big Institutions / Big Whales Must Sweep Your Stop Losses (06, gk)
The instant stops get swept, many people feel the market is targeting them personally. A closer-to-the-truth description is: the market is finding the counterparty order flow. Big capital needs to buy, so someone has to sell; to sell, someone has to buy. Retail traders place stop losses near previous highs/lows, round-number levels, and trendlines—exactly the kind of “immediate liquidity” that algorithms identify most easily and can then consume in a single pass.
This is not a moral story; it’s about microstructure.
First, separate two things: natural liquidation, and the platform taking buy/sell orders.
In public discussions, “hunting stops” is often framed as a conspiracy. A more accurate way to break it down is that two mechanisms overlap.
This is not a moral story; it’s about microstructure.
First, separate two things: natural liquidation, and the platform taking buy/sell orders.
In public discussions, “hunting stops” is often framed as a conspiracy. A more accurate way to break it down is that two mechanisms overlap.
502
·
--
Why market makers / big institutions / giant whales must wipe out your stop-loss (05, km)Your stop-loss order is being "withdrawn": a panoramic dissection of liquidity hunting
## Part 1. A $920.2 million fine—revealing just the tip of the iceberg
In September 2020, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) issued the largest penalty in its history to JPMorgan Chase: $920.2 million, setting a record for the highest amount of compensation, disgorgement, and civil penalties paid by the agency. The charges involved manipulative trading in the precious metals and U.S. Treasury futures markets over an eight-year period, with hundreds of thousands of "spoofing" orders.
In March 2024, the Federal Reserve acted again: JPMorgan Chase was fined about $98.2 million because it failed, between 2014 and 2023, to effectively monitor improper market conduct in its trading activities. The total, when combined with penalties from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), was about $348.2 million.
Why market makers / big institutions / giant whales must wipe out your stop-loss (05, km)
Your stop-loss order is being "withdrawn": a panoramic dissection of liquidity hunting
## Part 1. A $920.2 million fine—revealing just the tip of the iceberg
In September 2020, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) issued the largest penalty in its history to JPMorgan Chase: $920.2 million, setting a record for the highest amount of compensation, disgorgement, and civil penalties paid by the agency. The charges involved manipulative trading in the precious metals and U.S. Treasury futures markets over an eight-year period, with hundreds of thousands of "spoofing" orders.
In March 2024, the Federal Reserve acted again: JPMorgan Chase was fined about $98.2 million because it failed, between 2014 and 2023, to effectively monitor improper market conduct in its trading activities. The total, when combined with penalties from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), was about $348.2 million.
## Part 1. A $920.2 million fine—revealing just the tip of the iceberg
In September 2020, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) issued the largest penalty in its history to JPMorgan Chase: $920.2 million, setting a record for the highest amount of compensation, disgorgement, and civil penalties paid by the agency. The charges involved manipulative trading in the precious metals and U.S. Treasury futures markets over an eight-year period, with hundreds of thousands of "spoofing" orders.
In March 2024, the Federal Reserve acted again: JPMorgan Chase was fined about $98.2 million because it failed, between 2014 and 2023, to effectively monitor improper market conduct in its trading activities. The total, when combined with penalties from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), was about $348.2 million.
490
·
--
Why market makers / big institutions / giant whales must hit your stop-loss (04, yb)Why is your stop-loss always “precisely” hit? A lesson in market microstructure
A plain truth to start with: the market doesn’t know where you are—it only knows where you all are.
Almost every trader has had this moment—the moment their stop-loss gets triggered, and the price immediately turns around, rushing all the way to the original target level. The frustration is so intense that “the big players are specifically targeting me” feels like the most natural explanation.
This explanation is both right and wrong.
The right part is: your stop-loss order, and all the stop-loss orders squeezed at the same price level as it, really were treated as prey. The wrong part is: that’s not some trader sitting in front of a screen watching you—it’s a market mechanism driven by an order book, algorithms, and a cost function. Once you understand this mechanism, you won’t keep asking, “Who’s targeting me?” You’ll start asking a more valuable question:
Why market makers / big institutions / giant whales must hit your stop-loss (04, yb)
Why is your stop-loss always “precisely” hit? A lesson in market microstructure
A plain truth to start with: the market doesn’t know where you are—it only knows where you all are.
Almost every trader has had this moment—the moment their stop-loss gets triggered, and the price immediately turns around, rushing all the way to the original target level. The frustration is so intense that “the big players are specifically targeting me” feels like the most natural explanation.
This explanation is both right and wrong.
The right part is: your stop-loss order, and all the stop-loss orders squeezed at the same price level as it, really were treated as prey. The wrong part is: that’s not some trader sitting in front of a screen watching you—it’s a market mechanism driven by an order book, algorithms, and a cost function. Once you understand this mechanism, you won’t keep asking, “Who’s targeting me?” You’ll start asking a more valuable question:
A plain truth to start with: the market doesn’t know where you are—it only knows where you all are.
Almost every trader has had this moment—the moment their stop-loss gets triggered, and the price immediately turns around, rushing all the way to the original target level. The frustration is so intense that “the big players are specifically targeting me” feels like the most natural explanation.
This explanation is both right and wrong.
The right part is: your stop-loss order, and all the stop-loss orders squeezed at the same price level as it, really were treated as prey. The wrong part is: that’s not some trader sitting in front of a screen watching you—it’s a market mechanism driven by an order book, algorithms, and a cost function. Once you understand this mechanism, you won’t keep asking, “Who’s targeting me?” You’ll start asking a more valuable question:
287
·
--
Why market makers / big institutions / whales definitely have to take out your stop-loss (03, db)Take out the stop-loss: a game of liquidity. It’s not that the main players are specifically watching your orders.
Many traders have experienced this painful kind of market: according to technical analysis, you place your stop-loss just beyond the previous low support. Then price barely dips and precisely punches through your stop, sweeping you out of the position—after which the market immediately turns upward, following the trend you originally expected.
Most people’s first reaction is to think in conspiracy terms: the market has a pair of eyes that specifically targets my stop-loss, doing pinpoint harvesting of retail traders.
But if you understand the market’s microstructure, you’ll find that sweeping stop-losses isn’t aimed at any one particular trader. Instead, institutions and market makers are looking for liquidity—an objective outcome of the capital game. In the market, liquidity comes first; price is merely the surface that appears after the liquidity battle.
Why market makers / big institutions / whales definitely have to take out your stop-loss (03, db)
Take out the stop-loss: a game of liquidity. It’s not that the main players are specifically watching your orders.
Many traders have experienced this painful kind of market: according to technical analysis, you place your stop-loss just beyond the previous low support. Then price barely dips and precisely punches through your stop, sweeping you out of the position—after which the market immediately turns upward, following the trend you originally expected.
Most people’s first reaction is to think in conspiracy terms: the market has a pair of eyes that specifically targets my stop-loss, doing pinpoint harvesting of retail traders.
But if you understand the market’s microstructure, you’ll find that sweeping stop-losses isn’t aimed at any one particular trader. Instead, institutions and market makers are looking for liquidity—an objective outcome of the capital game. In the market, liquidity comes first; price is merely the surface that appears after the liquidity battle.
Many traders have experienced this painful kind of market: according to technical analysis, you place your stop-loss just beyond the previous low support. Then price barely dips and precisely punches through your stop, sweeping you out of the position—after which the market immediately turns upward, following the trend you originally expected.
Most people’s first reaction is to think in conspiracy terms: the market has a pair of eyes that specifically targets my stop-loss, doing pinpoint harvesting of retail traders.
But if you understand the market’s microstructure, you’ll find that sweeping stop-losses isn’t aimed at any one particular trader. Instead, institutions and market makers are looking for liquidity—an objective outcome of the capital game. In the market, liquidity comes first; price is merely the surface that appears after the liquidity battle.
1
340
·
--
Why market makers / big institutions / whales must hit your stop loss (02, ds)A liquidity hunting ground: understand the underlying market logic behind “sweeping stops”
Every trader has experienced moments like this: you carefully analyze, find the perfect setup, set a reasonable stop loss—then the price precisely hits your stop loss and immediately sprints in the direction of your original judgment. This isn’t bad luck; you very likely just went through a “stop hunt” (Stop Hunt).
1. Re-understand the market: to institutions, there is only liquidity
To understand stop hunting, first switch your perspective—stop looking at the market with retail-trader thinking. Try thinking like a hedge fund managing tens of billions of dollars.
Why market makers / big institutions / whales must hit your stop loss (02, ds)
A liquidity hunting ground: understand the underlying market logic behind “sweeping stops”
Every trader has experienced moments like this: you carefully analyze, find the perfect setup, set a reasonable stop loss—then the price precisely hits your stop loss and immediately sprints in the direction of your original judgment. This isn’t bad luck; you very likely just went through a “stop hunt” (Stop Hunt).
1. Re-understand the market: to institutions, there is only liquidity
To understand stop hunting, first switch your perspective—stop looking at the market with retail-trader thinking. Try thinking like a hedge fund managing tens of billions of dollars.
Every trader has experienced moments like this: you carefully analyze, find the perfect setup, set a reasonable stop loss—then the price precisely hits your stop loss and immediately sprints in the direction of your original judgment. This isn’t bad luck; you very likely just went through a “stop hunt” (Stop Hunt).
1. Re-understand the market: to institutions, there is only liquidity
To understand stop hunting, first switch your perspective—stop looking at the market with retail-trader thinking. Try thinking like a hedge fund managing tens of billions of dollars.
263
·
--
Article
Why market makers / big institutions / giant whales must knock out your stop loss (01, zp)Stop-Loss Hunting: The “Invisible Harvester” of Market Liquidity and Retail Traders’ Way to Survive
> Stop-loss hunting is not a malicious act targeted at individuals. Instead, it is an inevitable strategy used by large market participants to efficiently accumulate and distribute positions by leveraging **structural liquidity**. Understanding its nature and logic is the crucial first step for every trader to transform from a “prey” into a “survivor.”
In the undercurrents of financial markets, there is a phenomenon many traders consider “mysticism”: your stop-loss order always seems to be hit precisely by the market, and then the price reverses toward the direction you originally expected. This is not coincidence, and it’s not bad luck. It is a market mechanism known as “stop-loss hunting,” or “liquidity hunting,” at work.
Why market makers / big institutions / giant whales must knock out your stop loss (01, zp)
Stop-Loss Hunting: The “Invisible Harvester” of Market Liquidity and Retail Traders’ Way to Survive
> Stop-loss hunting is not a malicious act targeted at individuals. Instead, it is an inevitable strategy used by large market participants to efficiently accumulate and distribute positions by leveraging **structural liquidity**. Understanding its nature and logic is the crucial first step for every trader to transform from a “prey” into a “survivor.”
In the undercurrents of financial markets, there is a phenomenon many traders consider “mysticism”: your stop-loss order always seems to be hit precisely by the market, and then the price reverses toward the direction you originally expected. This is not coincidence, and it’s not bad luck. It is a market mechanism known as “stop-loss hunting,” or “liquidity hunting,” at work.
> Stop-loss hunting is not a malicious act targeted at individuals. Instead, it is an inevitable strategy used by large market participants to efficiently accumulate and distribute positions by leveraging **structural liquidity**. Understanding its nature and logic is the crucial first step for every trader to transform from a “prey” into a “survivor.”
In the undercurrents of financial markets, there is a phenomenon many traders consider “mysticism”: your stop-loss order always seems to be hit precisely by the market, and then the price reverses toward the direction you originally expected. This is not coincidence, and it’s not bad luck. It is a market mechanism known as “stop-loss hunting,” or “liquidity hunting,” at work.
625
·
--
Do you dare to admit that the voice in your head and in your heart—the one that torments you the most—actually comes from the most hardworking part of you. The person you are today also grows out of that. Fully accept her, and your life will be utterly renewed.
Do you dare to admit that the voice in your head and in your heart—the one that torments you the most—actually comes from the most hardworking part of you. The person you are today also grows out of that. Fully accept her, and your life will be utterly renewed.
541
·
--
🧵 Why do some people "naturally" always win? Data unveils the truth behind the "winner mindset"
1/
Eileen Gu started skiing when she was just 3 months old, and her mother spent more than a dozen consecutive ski seasons driving her to training—an 8-hour round trip each time.
Behind the “natural winner,” it’s often a family that can afford the high cost of trial and error.
Bourdieu’s theory of “habitus” is very clear: this isn’t talent—it’s class-based resources that are produced.
2/
Where does the money go?
In the U.S., in 2024 the average family spent $1,016 on a sport for their child, a 46% increase over five years.
Hockey: $2,583/year; skiing: $2,249/year; gymnastics: $1,580/year.
Top families can sink $9,000+ per year.
3/
Even more brutal is the participation-rate gap:
For households earning <$25,000 vs >$100,000, the difference in children’s sports participation widened from 13.6 percentage points in 2012 to 20.2 percentage points in 2024.
The probability that a child from a high-income family gets into a “travel team” (a key pathway for college recruitment) is twice that of a low-income family.
4/
So how do these gaps eventually cash out?
A Harvard team (Chetty/Opportunity Insights) found that among admissions “preferences” for families in the top 1% income bracket, 24% come directly from athletic recruitment.
For a certain cohort of student-athlete admits at Harvard: 46.3% came from households with annual income of $250,000+, and 83% were White.
5/
How big is the admissions-rate gap?
Harvard’s overall admit rate is about 3.4%; for students classified as recruited athletic “special talents,” the admit rate can reach 80%+.
Resource barriers filter out most people first, and then the remaining “sportsmanship” is packaged as personal character.
6/
The same study also has a cynical twist:
After controlling for school and background, students admitted through sports/“alumni identity” aren’t more likely—sometimes they’re even less likely—to later reach the top income tier or top graduate programs than ordinary students with comparable conditions.
This suggests the pipeline selects for “who has money,” not “who’s stronger.”
7/
So being cautious—never daring to take risks—has never been a “mindset” problem.
When a child dares to bet, it’s usually because the family has already absorbed the consequences of failure.
The real question isn’t “Why aren’t you confident?” but rather: what conditions produce confidence, and why can only a few afford to buy it?
8/
Bourdieu’s point is never to deny effort; it’s to remind us that behind every seemingly “natural” talent lies a history of investment that got erased.
Only by seeing that history clearly can we start talking about how to give more people the right to “win.”
🧵 Why do some people "naturally" always win? Data unveils the truth behind the "winner mindset"
1/
Eileen Gu started skiing when she was just 3 months old, and her mother spent more than a dozen consecutive ski seasons driving her to training—an 8-hour round trip each time.
Behind the “natural winner,” it’s often a family that can afford the high cost of trial and error.
Bourdieu’s theory of “habitus” is very clear: this isn’t talent—it’s class-based resources that are produced.
2/
Where does the money go?
In the U.S., in 2024 the average family spent $1,016 on a sport for their child, a 46% increase over five years.
Hockey: $2,583/year; skiing: $2,249/year; gymnastics: $1,580/year.
Top families can sink $9,000+ per year.
3/
Even more brutal is the participation-rate gap:
For households earning <$25,000 vs >$100,000, the difference in children’s sports participation widened from 13.6 percentage points in 2012 to 20.2 percentage points in 2024.
The probability that a child from a high-income family gets into a “travel team” (a key pathway for college recruitment) is twice that of a low-income family.
4/
So how do these gaps eventually cash out?
A Harvard team (Chetty/Opportunity Insights) found that among admissions “preferences” for families in the top 1% income bracket, 24% come directly from athletic recruitment.
For a certain cohort of student-athlete admits at Harvard: 46.3% came from households with annual income of $250,000+, and 83% were White.
5/
How big is the admissions-rate gap?
Harvard’s overall admit rate is about 3.4%; for students classified as recruited athletic “special talents,” the admit rate can reach 80%+.
Resource barriers filter out most people first, and then the remaining “sportsmanship” is packaged as personal character.
6/
The same study also has a cynical twist:
After controlling for school and background, students admitted through sports/“alumni identity” aren’t more likely—sometimes they’re even less likely—to later reach the top income tier or top graduate programs than ordinary students with comparable conditions.
This suggests the pipeline selects for “who has money,” not “who’s stronger.”
7/
So being cautious—never daring to take risks—has never been a “mindset” problem.
When a child dares to bet, it’s usually because the family has already absorbed the consequences of failure.
The real question isn’t “Why aren’t you confident?” but rather: what conditions produce confidence, and why can only a few afford to buy it?
8/
Bourdieu’s point is never to deny effort; it’s to remind us that behind every seemingly “natural” talent lies a history of investment that got erased.
Only by seeing that history clearly can we start talking about how to give more people the right to “win.”
1/
Eileen Gu started skiing when she was just 3 months old, and her mother spent more than a dozen consecutive ski seasons driving her to training—an 8-hour round trip each time.
Behind the “natural winner,” it’s often a family that can afford the high cost of trial and error.
Bourdieu’s theory of “habitus” is very clear: this isn’t talent—it’s class-based resources that are produced.
2/
Where does the money go?
In the U.S., in 2024 the average family spent $1,016 on a sport for their child, a 46% increase over five years.
Hockey: $2,583/year; skiing: $2,249/year; gymnastics: $1,580/year.
Top families can sink $9,000+ per year.
3/
Even more brutal is the participation-rate gap:
For households earning <$25,000 vs >$100,000, the difference in children’s sports participation widened from 13.6 percentage points in 2012 to 20.2 percentage points in 2024.
The probability that a child from a high-income family gets into a “travel team” (a key pathway for college recruitment) is twice that of a low-income family.
4/
So how do these gaps eventually cash out?
A Harvard team (Chetty/Opportunity Insights) found that among admissions “preferences” for families in the top 1% income bracket, 24% come directly from athletic recruitment.
For a certain cohort of student-athlete admits at Harvard: 46.3% came from households with annual income of $250,000+, and 83% were White.
5/
How big is the admissions-rate gap?
Harvard’s overall admit rate is about 3.4%; for students classified as recruited athletic “special talents,” the admit rate can reach 80%+.
Resource barriers filter out most people first, and then the remaining “sportsmanship” is packaged as personal character.
6/
The same study also has a cynical twist:
After controlling for school and background, students admitted through sports/“alumni identity” aren’t more likely—sometimes they’re even less likely—to later reach the top income tier or top graduate programs than ordinary students with comparable conditions.
This suggests the pipeline selects for “who has money,” not “who’s stronger.”
7/
So being cautious—never daring to take risks—has never been a “mindset” problem.
When a child dares to bet, it’s usually because the family has already absorbed the consequences of failure.
The real question isn’t “Why aren’t you confident?” but rather: what conditions produce confidence, and why can only a few afford to buy it?
8/
Bourdieu’s point is never to deny effort; it’s to remind us that behind every seemingly “natural” talent lies a history of investment that got erased.
Only by seeing that history clearly can we start talking about how to give more people the right to “win.”
1
1
3
886
·
--
Article
Why do some people “seem born” to win?—Unmasking the truth behind the “winner mindset” using public dataI. “The feel of winning” is never a matter of mysticism.
After completing her routine on the competition floor, Gu Ailing smiled at the camera. Someone is always saying with admiration: “That’s the innate winner’s presence.”
But if you look into her growth trajectory, you’ll find that the word “born” doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Public records show that at three months old she began to ski with her mother; at age three she started systematic training. Her mother, Gu Yan, is a workplace elite who graduated from Peking University with a degree in biochemistry, then went to Stanford for an MBA, and previously worked in the United States on biological genetics research as well as risk investment. To ensure her daughter could train, Gu Yan drove back and forth for about eight hours every weekend and on holidays across more than ten consecutive ski seasons, taking her to ski resorts around Lake Tahoe. Behind this are coaching fees, equipment costs, and season travel expenses—along with a family structure capable of bearing these costs year-round and also providing study-and-training companionship.
Why do some people “seem born” to win?—Unmasking the truth behind the “winner mindset” using public data
I. “The feel of winning” is never a matter of mysticism.
After completing her routine on the competition floor, Gu Ailing smiled at the camera. Someone is always saying with admiration: “That’s the innate winner’s presence.”
But if you look into her growth trajectory, you’ll find that the word “born” doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Public records show that at three months old she began to ski with her mother; at age three she started systematic training. Her mother, Gu Yan, is a workplace elite who graduated from Peking University with a degree in biochemistry, then went to Stanford for an MBA, and previously worked in the United States on biological genetics research as well as risk investment. To ensure her daughter could train, Gu Yan drove back and forth for about eight hours every weekend and on holidays across more than ten consecutive ski seasons, taking her to ski resorts around Lake Tahoe. Behind this are coaching fees, equipment costs, and season travel expenses—along with a family structure capable of bearing these costs year-round and also providing study-and-training companionship.
After completing her routine on the competition floor, Gu Ailing smiled at the camera. Someone is always saying with admiration: “That’s the innate winner’s presence.”
But if you look into her growth trajectory, you’ll find that the word “born” doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Public records show that at three months old she began to ski with her mother; at age three she started systematic training. Her mother, Gu Yan, is a workplace elite who graduated from Peking University with a degree in biochemistry, then went to Stanford for an MBA, and previously worked in the United States on biological genetics research as well as risk investment. To ensure her daughter could train, Gu Yan drove back and forth for about eight hours every weekend and on holidays across more than ten consecutive ski seasons, taking her to ski resorts around Lake Tahoe. Behind this are coaching fees, equipment costs, and season travel expenses—along with a family structure capable of bearing these costs year-round and also providing study-and-training companionship.
4
734
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
USAugustPPIRisesLessThanExpected
7,932 views
261 Discussing
🚨 US AUG PPI: Rises LESS Than Expected! Bullish for Crypto? 🚀
PPI +0.4% MoM as expected, but CORE PPI only +0.2% vs +0.3% expected - cooling!
What it means:
• Wholesale inflation softer than feared
• Fed rate hike chance now 62% - but dovish signals coming
• Core PCE revisions expected downward - bullish
• BTC usually pumps on softer PPI
Fed meeting Sep 15-16 - Market now expects pause, not hike?
Is this the green light for Q4 rally?
#Bitcoin #PPI #Fed #CryptoNews #BTC#usaugustppiriseslessthanexpected
True News
·1 Likes
·1.1k views
SECApprovesNasdaqTexasCommodityTrustRule
6,998 views
270 Discussing
ECBRaisesRatesSecondTimeTo2.5%
4,290 views
186 Discussing