In this round of ZEC's rally, I would first strike out an inference that easily makes people chase the price: 6 million USDT in trading volume does not prove that 6 million in new money entered. Calling this number net capital inflow directly would overstate the weight of the evidence in hand.

From 09:00 to 10:00 on September 6, ZEC's trading volume in a single spot market was 6.0048 million USDT, with 5,620.09 ZEC traded, 4.94 times the number of coins traded in the previous hour. The closing price was 1063.02, up 3.22% from the opening price. Both trading activity and the price increase did indeed occur.

Accumulated trading volume is the total matched transaction amount. Each trade has both a buyer and a seller. If the same pool of money trades repeatedly, it will contribute to trading volume multiple times. This field does not tell us how much net deposits there were, who the buyers were, and it certainly cannot be used to confirm institutional accumulation. To discuss new capital, we need evidence with a clear definition of deposits, withdrawals, or fund flows.

Price also left some disagreement: the intraday high reached 1087.09, then closed back down 24.07, still above the earlier two-hour high of 1038.04. I would record this as a volume-backed upward breakout with some pullback above; to conclude that buying power is exhausted now would be insufficient evidence.

If, later, the 1H closes above 1087.09, and after a retest of this level it still closes above it, continuation is confirmed; if the 1H closes back below 1038.04, this short-term breakout judgment becomes invalid. The source of funds still needs to be verified separately; price breakout alone cannot prove it.

Scope: official v5 API, ZEC-USDT single spot market; only 1H data with confirm=1, as of 2026-09-06 10:00 Beijing time. Price and turnover are denominated in USDT, not the entire market. Not investment advice.

If a chart only provides turnover and does not explain the net inflow methodology, I would give up judging new money entry based on it; do you accept this evidentiary threshold?