小恐龙说趋势

Stablecoin supply grew just 0.4%, but payment volume surged 45% — $482 billion changing hands faster in the same pool 🦖

💥 ⏰ 消息群里第一时间说

A new report from blockchain analytics firm Allium shows that stablecoin payment volume reached $482 billion in the first nine months of 2026, up 45% from the same period last year. Over that time, total stablecoin supply stood at around $305 billion, growing just 0.4% since the start of the year. The number of payments, meanwhile, jumped from under 600 million to over 1 billion, a 71% increase 📈

Put these three figures together and you get the key point: the pool has barely grown, but the money in it is moving faster. Stablecoins are shifting from a store-of-value tool that people buy and hold to a payment tool used for everyday transactions.

The clearest example is cards. In the first nine months of this year, spending on stablecoin-linked cards reached $3.9 billion—10 times the amount in the same period last year. Purchases under $50 accounted for 84% of the growth in card transactions. That tells us stablecoins are making their way into everyday spending—coffee, food delivery, subscriptions—not just large transfers between institutions 💳

On Wednesday, three payment giants all made moves. Mastercard launched Global Money Platform, bringing fiat accounts, stablecoin balances, conversions, card spending, and bank payouts together in one interface. It runs on infrastructure from stablecoin company BVNK, acquired in August. Early customers include Nuvei and Marqeta. Stripe, meanwhile, partnered with Plasma to enable one card to support the U.S. dollar, euro, Brazilian real, Mexican peso, Colombian peso, and regulated stablecoins. Its existing card network covers more than 30 countries, with plans to expand to over 100 next year. Visa is also integrating stablecoins into its settlement rails.

My take: the significance isn’t the $482 billion figure, but the contrast between 0.4% and 45%. For the past three years, the stablecoin growth story has been about issuing new coins and gaining market share. Now it’s about increasing the velocity of existing dollars. The former depends on subsidies; the latter on real demand. It’s slower, but more durable ⚠️

But it’s also worth asking who captures the value. Card networks, acquiring banks, and wallets control the points of access, while stablecoin issuers are increasingly becoming back-end clearing layers. They earn interest on reserves, not payment fees. The 84% share from small, frequent transactions sounds impressive, but the profit on each transaction is slim. What will really determine whether this business can grow is whether regulations allow stablecoins to reach merchants directly—and whether issuers can capture a share of payment revenue.

Two figures are worth watching next. First, can total stablecoin supply start growing again? If growth stays at 0.4%, it suggests fresh capital hasn’t come in yet. Second, can the $3.9 billion in card spending double again in the fourth quarter? Seasonal effects could amplify—or obscure—the underlying trend.

Do you know anyone who’s already paying with a stablecoin card, or do you still think of stablecoins as a temporary safe haven on exchanges? Let’s talk in the comments 👀

Every day, I help you make sense of the latest in stablecoins and payments—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind it 🚀

The $100,000 year-end scenario has been torn in half by two institutions 🦖
Bitcoin is currently around $81,465, about 23% short of $100,000. But in the same market, some see it going above $100,000, while others put it at just $85,000–$95,000—a full $15,000 gap 📈

🔭 进群看资金去哪

Today, CoinDesk put the views of two research heads side by side. The divide has never been this stark.

The bull is Bitwise Head of Research Ryan Rasmussen. His exact words: Bitcoin could top $100,000 by year-end. He has three reasons: first, continued buying by ETFs and companies; second, inflation, debt, and currency depreciation are boosting demand for hard assets; and third, clearer regulation has lowered the risks of holding Bitcoin. But he also acknowledges that a possible Fed rate hike in late October and the U.S. midterm elections in November could first trigger a bout of volatility.

The cautious voice is Adam Morgan McCarthy, Head of Research at London-based LO:TECH. His base case is that Bitcoin will end the year between $85,000 and $95,000. The reasoning is solid: the Fed already raised rates by 25 basis points in September, and the odds of another hike in December are still around 75%. On October 14, CPI rose 0.6% month over month, while core CPI rose 0.3%, with gasoline accounting for more than half of the increase. As long as these numbers don’t ease, Bitcoin will struggle to rise ⚠️

He says that for Bitcoin to return to $100,000, expectations of a December hike need to shift from 75% to a pause, while oil prices and inflation both need to come down.

What’s more interesting is positioning, not price. Luca Invernizzi of Laser Digital says this rally from the summer lows hasn’t been convincing: trading volumes are thin, ETF inflows are weakening, and corporate buying is slowing. But leverage has largely been flushed out, speculative money has moved into altcoins, and perpetual futures funding rates are at or below zero. The August rally was driven mainly by short covering, not new long positions. That’s why he says a clean break above $90,000 could trigger another wave of short covering 💥

Put simply: the fuel behind the current rise is short sellers, not buyers.

The flow data tells half the story, too. James Butterfill of CoinShares says there have been $11.1 billion in inflows since mid-July, but they’ve slowed noticeably recently. Citi’s data shows the total crypto market cap rose from $2.1 trillion to nearly $3 trillion in the third quarter. The direction is right, but the pace isn’t keeping up.

My take: the disagreement isn’t about direction, but timing. Reaching $100,000 requires three things to happen at once: no rate hike in December, funding rates turning positive, and sustained net ETF inflows. If even one is missing, Bitcoin could just churn between $80,000 and $90,000. And a break above $90,000 is more likely to be a short squeeze than confirmation of a bull market. Implied volatility is already low, while options still favor downside protection—suggesting big money is buying insurance, not chasing the rally.

Do you think Bitcoin can top $100,000 by year-end, or will it grind along between $80,000 and $90,000? Let’s talk in the comments.

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream.

Every day, I’ll bring you the latest Bitcoin stories—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind it 👀🚀

$1.18 billion stolen in a single quarter—but the real problem isn’t code vulnerabilities 🦖

📊 进群看每日策略

A Q3 report released Thursday by blockchain security firm Hacken found that the crypto industry suffered 107 attacks between July and September, resulting in losses of $1.18 billion 💥—55% more than in Q2. Of that, $906.8 million was linked to vendors, development tools, unpatched software, and components excluded from audit scopes, accounting for 77% of total losses.

In other words, most people assume hackers take money from smart contracts. In reality, nearly 80% of the money leaked through overlooked corners of projects that hadn’t been properly tested ⚠️

The report identified audit scope as the core issue. Hacken co-founder Andrii Matiukhin said it’s too expensive to include every component related to funds and economics in an audit, so teams audit only the core parts. Users see an audit badge and assume the entire system is covered, but then lose money through a private key, a vendor, or a configuration that was never tested.

The biggest single attack was in September, targeting an exchange and causing losses of at least $352 million. The entry point was a third-party security product, not a leaked private key. In addition, the espionage chip incident disclosed by Ledger this week resulted in losses of about $93 million; Liquid Network lost $319 million; Coldcard wallet software lost about $114 million; Tectonic lost at least $75 million; and three cross-chain bridges lost more than $35 million combined in just six hours in July.

One more set of figures deserves a closer look. Hacken examined 12 derivatives trading platforms and found that assets worth more than $700 million at two leading platforms relied on signing arrangements that required three out of four keys, or on administrative keys kept secret by their holders. The report said it found no vulnerabilities currently being exploited, but given the amount of money involved, this kind of key structure isn’t secure enough.

My take: audit labels are becoming a kind of placebo. They show that someone reviewed some code within a certain scope at a certain point in time. They don’t prove that wallets, signing systems, third-party dependencies, and patch statuses are all in good shape. 🔍 The real questions to ask are: What exactly did this audit cover? Were the vulnerabilities found last time patched? How many keys control the funds, and who holds them?

For everyday users, when choosing a project, it’s better to check the scope page of the audit report and the remediation records than just look for an audit. Those two things are much harder to fake than a badge.

When you choose a project, do you read the audit report—or do you feel reassured as soon as you see the word “audited”?

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream.

Every day, I’ll help you keep up with crypto security developments—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind it 👀🚀

$320 million pulled out of Ethereum ETFs in one week, with 93.4% coming from a single fund 🐋

📈 进群一起分析行情

U.S. spot Ethereum ETFs saw net outflows of $320.1 million over the five trading days from October 12 to 16. Over the same period, Bitcoin ETFs had net outflows of $228.4 million—about $91.7 million less than Ethereum ETFs. This is a rare reversal this year. Over the past year, Bitcoin ETFs have usually taken the hit, with Ethereum following behind.

What’s really worth noting is the breakdown. Three of those five trading days accounted for $259.5 million in outflows: $129.5 million on October 14, $60.3 million on the 15th, and $69.7 million on the 16th. BlackRock’s iShares Ethereum Trust (ETHA) alone saw $299 million flow out, accounting for 93.4% of the week’s total. Fidelity’s Ethereum fund, by contrast, had net inflows of $10.5 million. Same week, same type of product—one fund saw outflows, while another saw inflows. 📊

So this looks more like a large redemption than institutions collectively turning bearish on Ethereum. The redemption process involves authorized participants returning shares to the issuer in exchange for the underlying assets or cash. It doesn’t mean an equivalent amount of ETH is immediately dumped on the spot market. The two asset classes saw combined outflows of more than $548 million. Ethereum is currently at $2,414.66, down 0.74% over 24 hours, with a market cap of about $294.9 billion. The Fear and Greed Index is at 53, still in neutral territory.

My take: one week of data isn’t enough to establish a trend, especially when 93.4% of outflows are concentrated in a single fund. One institution’s portfolio rebalance can rewrite the whole picture. Over the next two weeks, watch two things: whether ETHA continues to see one-way outflows, and whether slowing outflows from Bitcoin ETFs actually turn into net inflows. The first will tell us whether this is just a portfolio reshuffle; the second will tell us whether risk appetite is truly returning.

Do you think this Ethereum move is institutions rebalancing, or is Ethereum really in trouble? Let’s talk in the comments. 🦖📉

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream.

Every day, I bring you the latest crypto market trends—not just what’s happening, but also the logic and opportunities behind it. 👀🚀

10 million tokens minted out of thin air overnight—exactly 1% of the total supply, yet worth just $1.18 million at current prices 🦖
Cysic’s cross-chain bridge was breached on Saturday. Exploiting a flaw in the processing flow, the attacker minted 10 million CYS out of thin air on BNB Smart Chain. The project didn’t blacklist the receiving address until 1 hour and 16 minutes later. By then, 2.8 million tokens remained in the address, worth around $330,000 💥

👉 进群看盘面

That’s the timeline in the incident report the project posted on social media Sunday. The minting happened at 12:31 on Saturday; the address was blacklisted at 13:47. The preliminary investigation points to the database supporting the bridge as the source of the breach: someone gained access they shouldn’t have had ⚠️
Cysic says only cross-chain message processing and minting were affected. The mainnet and other systems currently running are safe. CYS and other assets already in users’ wallets were not stolen or transferred without authorization. That distinction matters: it makes this an incident of unauthorized issuance, rather than stolen assets. In the first case, users lose their money; in the second, an unknown batch of tokens is added to circulation.
But the report leaves two more important questions unanswered: How was the database accessed? And how long had this vulnerability been sitting on-chain? A database that can be accessed without authorization can determine how many tokens the bridge mints. The bridge’s permission design itself needs to be reviewed.
The numbers are interesting, too. Out of a total supply of 1 billion tokens, 10 million is exactly 1%. CYS is currently priced at $0.1182, with a market cap of just $18.99 million, and it’s down 6.2% over the past 24 hours. So those 10 million tokens are worth around $1.18 million at current prices, while the 2.8 million left in the address are worth about $330,000. For a chain with a market cap below $20 million, a 1% increase in supply is no small matter—but it’s not enough to instantly crater the market, either.
What’s really been depleted is trust. A cross-chain bridge essentially lends one chain’s credibility to another. Once the ability to mint can be opened up by an outside party, every cross-chain asset transfer that follows comes with a discount. The project has brought in a security firm and says it will publish a follow-up report once the investigation is complete. For now, that’s just a statement of intent, not a conclusion.
I’m watching three things. First, will the blacklist hold? Could the attacker try to move the remaining tokens across chains? Second, what happens to the address holding those 2.8 million tokens—are they being split across new addresses? Third, will the report disclose the specific route used to access the database? If all it says is “external attack,” then the report is worth nothing.
There’s another detail that’s easy to overlook: this chain’s market cap is tiny and its liquidity is thin. With a market worth $19 million, one large sell order could trigger a double-digit drop. So even if the attacker can’t move the tokens, the panic alone could cause further damage 📉
Cysic positions itself as a ComputeFi project, aiming to turn computing power into verifiable on-chain assets. Its total supply is 1 billion tokens. For infrastructure projects like this, the biggest fear isn’t being robbed once—it’s proving that the ability to mint can be opened up by outsiders. Computing power can be rebuilt; trust takes much longer.
Cross-chain bridges have been hit so many times in recent years. The script is almost always the same: pause, investigate, publish a report, then compensate users—or don’t. The only difference this time is that the amount is small and nobody has been pushed to the brink.
How many bridges in the cross-chain sector do you think are still hiding undiscovered vulnerabilities? Let’s talk in the comments.
Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream.
Every day, I bring you the latest in crypto security—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind it 👀🚀

1.35 billion tokens quietly sent to exchanges over two months. The price has already fallen 97% from its peak.

💬 你站哪边？群里说

The InfoFi project BILL was publicly called out on X by on-chain sleuth Specter, who said it was suspected of being a scam. More importantly, the tokens came from the project team’s own multisig wallet 🦖

On-chain records show that over the past two months, 17 addresses that received tokens from team-linked wallets deposited a total of around 988 million BILL to exchanges. This week, another independent deposit address surfaced, depositing 360 million tokens on its own. That brings the total across both batches to 1.348 billion BILL. BILL’s current price is already down about 97% from its all-time high.

17 addresses, not 1. That number is more telling than the price decline. One address could be explained as market making; 17 addresses look more like a set of baskets allocated in advance, each responsible for selling off a portion. The tokens came from the team’s multisig, but were sent to exchanges via deposit addresses, with several layers of addresses in between. The path is visible on-chain, yet it’s difficult to tell in real time who pressed the sell button ⚠️

Another detail is the timing. These deposits were concentrated over the past two months, roughly the same period in which BILL steadily slid 97% from its peak. The price decline and the exchange deposits from team-linked addresses overlapped in time. This doesn’t directly prove a sell-off, but it’s enough to explain why the community is so sensitive right now.

The story behind InfoFi is that attention and discussion can be turned into tradable assets. The problem is that the value of these projects rests almost entirely on their narrative. Once the team exits first, all that’s left of the narrative is the candlestick chart and group chat. Whether it’s 988 million tokens or 360 million, the moment they reach an exchange, they’re no longer ecosystem incentives—they’re potential sell orders.

My take: what matters most right now isn’t how much further BILL could fall, but two things: how many tokens remain untouched in the team’s multisig wallet, and whether new deposit addresses will continue to appear. On-chain data can show where the tokens went, but not why. Still, 17 addresses and a team multisig are no longer noise—they’re a pattern 📉

Before buying a new project, would you check whether its team wallet has been sending tokens to exchanges? 💬

Every day, I’ll bring you the latest risk stories in crypto projects—not just what’s happening, but also the logic and opportunities behind it 👀🚀

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream

Solana came within 4.5 percentage points of a network-wide halt, yet its uptime still shows 100%

🚨 行情变了群里说

At 3:43 a.m. on August 12, a bad route at a data center in Miami knocked about 90 validators offline at the same time. These validators controlled roughly 29% of all staked SOL. Block finalization, normally 13 seconds, stretched to as long as 30 minutes. But the chain didn’t stop. Blocks kept being produced, so every uptime chart showed it as an ordinary day 🦖

Metrika’s postmortem revealed the truly alarming numbers: 28.83% of staked SOL was offline. The network-wide finalization halt threshold was 33.34%. That left a gap of just 4.5 percentage points. Another 4 to 5 points offline, and Solana would have needed a coordinated restart. The outage spread from Miami to London, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Singapore, and Tokyo. Most affected validators’ backup systems never kicked in.

During that half hour, the share of empty blocks surged from less than 1% to over 32%. Non-voting transactions plunged from 1,100–1,300 per second to fewer than 300. No block finalized for half an hour. The backlog was later cleared all at once, with an average of 1,600 seconds from production to confirmation. Your money was still in transit, and no one could tell you when the transaction would become irreversible ⚠️

Two months later, this concentration had barely changed. Fidelity’s FCAT report on October 16 showed that the largest hosting network still accounted for about 29% of stake. Meanwhile, since May 1, the Solana Foundation has required validators to use hosting networks with no more than 25% of stake and data centers with no more than 15%. The problem is that Foundation delegations cover only about 51% of validators, while accounting for just around 4% of active stake. The rules reach many validators, but have little influence.

More subtly, Alpenglow went live on October 21, aiming to cut finalization time from about 12.8 seconds to around 150 milliseconds. That’s fast—but it doesn’t change a thing about where validators run or which networks connect them. At the same time, about 63% of stake runs on Jito software, which still shares the underlying Agave code. A single bug could hit a huge swath of the network at once.

My take: what this incident really exposed isn’t whether Solana can go down. It’s that our definition of an outage is outdated. The chain still producing blocks doesn’t mean your transaction can settle. For people handling payments, clearing, or collateral pricing, 30 minutes of uncertainty is no different from a chain halt 📉

Next time you see a blockchain bragging about 100% uptime, will you ask about uptime first—or finalization? 💬

Every day, I bring you the latest in crypto infrastructure—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind it 👀🚀

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream

#strategy周五股价下跌9%
Stock drops 9% in a day, but founder says it’s not that important 📉
On October 15, MSCI revised the rules for its Global Investable Market Indexes, tightening the definition of non-operating companies and subjecting Bitcoin treasury companies to greater scrutiny.

📊 加入小恐龙聊天室

Strategy wasn’t removed from the index this time, but the real verdict has been pushed to the November index review.

At 3:47 p.m. today, Saylor gave his first direct response in an interview with Bloomberg.
He said the issue wasn’t that important to Strategy because the amount of capital the company controls is relatively small.
But then he added that he was very disappointed with MSCI’s position so far and hoped they would reconsider. 🦖

His reasoning is straightforward:
Oil counts as capital. Natural gas counts as capital. Land counts as capital. Machines count as capital. But somehow, Bitcoin doesn’t.
This isn’t an accounting issue; it’s a value judgment.
He even compared MSCI to an unregistered financial adviser, saying this sets a bad precedent for the entire industry.

There’s really only one core question in this debate:
Does Strategy count as a company with an actual operating business?
Saylor drew comparisons with banks and insurance companies: banks sell credit, and insurance companies sell policies.
Strategy sells digital credit products backed by Bitcoin, so he insists it’s an operating business.

The market has already reacted.
MSTR fell 6.46% on October 16, then dropped another 9% on Friday. It’s now at $136.83.
Bitcoin, meanwhile, barely moved, at $81,548, with a daily change of less than 0.1%.
One asset is falling while the other is going nowhere. That suggests the market is selling leverage and index membership—not Bitcoin.

There’s a mechanism many people overlook:
Being included in an index isn’t an honorary medal; it creates a layer of mechanical buying.
Passive funds buy according to weight, without having to judge whether a company is good or not.
The reverse is also true: if a company is removed, the selling is just as mechanical—and likewise has nothing to do with fundamentals. ⚖️
MSCI says existing constituents are still covered by a buffer mechanism. The specific consequences won’t be clear until the November review.
So October 15 isn’t the end of the story. November is.

My take:
Saylor says it’s not that important, but he’s gone on Bloomberg himself to make his case.
If it really didn’t matter, there’d be no need to explain.
And this rule doesn’t affect just one company. It sets a valuation benchmark for every treasury company that raises money by issuing shares to buy crypto.
Let them stay, and it means acknowledging that Bitcoin can count as operating capital.
Remove them, and it tells passive investors that companies like these don’t belong in mainstream indexes.

Do you think MSCI will ultimately allow them in or remove them?
Should Bitcoin treasury companies be included in mainstream indexes? 🏦

Every day, I bring you the latest Bitcoin and Wall Street stories—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind the headlines. 👀🚀

A Bitcoin transfer costs just 12 cents, but 70,000 transactions are still waiting for confirmation

🔎 进群看完整分析

Bitcoin was trading around $81,645 this morning. The cheapest on-chain fee rate has dropped to 1 satoshi per virtual byte—the absolute floor at which nodes are still willing to relay transactions. A standard exchange withdrawal is about 141 virtual bytes, costing roughly 11.5 cents. To take the fast lane, you can pay 2 sats, which comes to just 23 cents.

Strangely, the mempool isn’t empty: 71,454 transactions are waiting in line, totaling 39.1 million virtual bytes. At 1 million bytes per block, that’s about 39 full blocks—enough to keep miners busy for six and a half hours. The real signal today is the contrast between 70,000 backlogged transactions and floor-level fees.

Break it down and it becomes clear: 38.5 million of those 39.1 million bytes are bidding below 1 sat, accounting for 98.5%. Just 589,000 bytes—1.5%—are bidding 1 sat or more. The average fee rate across the entire pool is only 0.167 sats. In other words, most of the transactions waiting in line are bulk batches and data being pushed onto the blockchain. They’re willing to wait, so you can jump ahead of them just by paying 1 sat. What looks like congestion is really a very long parking lot, not a closed door. 🕵️

Here’s a more direct comparison: for the same withdrawal, at 20 sats it would cost $2.30; at 50 sats, $5.76. Today it costs 11.5 cents—that’s 20 to 50 times less. Consolidating 10 small UTXOs into one transaction costs just 59 cents today, compared with $29.49 during busy periods. The weekend really is a good time to consolidate. 💸

But don’t read this as a bullish signal. Fees measure demand for block space, not demand for Bitcoin itself. Those two things often move in opposite directions. What’s more worth watching is the miners’ side of the equation. Difficulty was just raised by 5.92% on October 16, and the average block time is 10.21 minutes. The next adjustment is forecast to be down 1.77%, at block 973728, around October 30. The current height is 971946. At a block reward of 3.125 BTC and a price of $81,645, a block’s base revenue is about $255,000. Fees are almost negligible. Since the halving, miners have become increasingly dependent on the price of Bitcoin. 🦖

My take: these low fees show that real on-chain demand is weak. It doesn’t mean the network is about to have problems, or that the price is about to rise. If fees are still stuck at the floor after U.S. stocks and futures open on Monday, that would suggest the price around $80,000 is being supported by quotes, not actual trading. Conversely, if fees suddenly climb back above 20 sats, that would be a real sign that money is moving on-chain. ⛏️

How much did you pay the last time you withdrew Bitcoin from an exchange? Let’s talk in the comments. 👀

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream.

Every day, I’ll help you keep up with the latest Bitcoin developments—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind it. 👀🚀

52% of stocks have already fallen into oversold territory, but he insists on waiting until 88% before making a move 🦖

📈 进群看今日思路

BofA chief strategist Hartnett’s bull-bear indicator fell from 8.1 to 7.4 this week, dropping below 8.0. That means the sell signal he issued on May 26 has officially ended.

But in the latest edition of Flow Show, he made one thing very clear: the end of a sell signal does not mean a buy signal. For him to return to tech stocks in mid-November, two conditions must be met—and neither has been fulfilled yet.

First, the Fed needs to hike rates on October 28. The market currently puts the odds of a hike at just 15.5%, down from over 50% a week ago. In other words, the market has already decided the Fed won’t act—which is the exact opposite of the credibility-restoring move he described. ⚖️

The second condition is that concerns about AI financing ease. The reality? We’ve just had the worst week of the year: the Nasdaq 100 fell 5.5% in a single week, its biggest weekly drop in 18 months. The spread on CoreWeave bonds maturing in 2031 briefly exceeded 1,100 basis points over US Treasuries, while its five-year CDS implied a default probability of about 63%. And that’s before you even get to the $1.16 trillion in capital spending hyperscalers are expected to make next year, while free cash flow is projected to worsen from negative $63 billion this year to negative $163 billion. 💥

What stings even more is positioning. Of the S&P 500’s constituents, 355 are more than 10% below their 52-week highs, 188 are down more than 20%, and 93 are down more than 30%. Yet equities make up a record 66.4% of BofA private clients’ portfolios, with cash at just 9.3%. Their overweight in tech stocks is the highest since August 2020. People say they’re scared, but they haven’t actually sold.

This isn’t something crypto can afford to watch from the sidelines. Bitcoin is currently around $81,648, up just 0.22% over 24 hours. Ethereum is at $2,408 and still down over the past 24 hours. Since the start of October, US spot Bitcoin ETFs have seen cumulative net outflows of about $615 million. Rate-hike odds have fallen all the way to 15.5%, yet prices still haven’t lifted. That suggests the market has already priced in the easy-money expectations, and is now waiting for actual money to come in. 🐋

My take: the most important thing to watch right now isn’t what the Fed says, but the 10-year real yield, which is already nearing 3%. Historically, levels around here have coincided with the bursting of the dot-com bubble, the global financial crisis, and Silicon Valley Bank. The other thing to watch is semiconductor prices. If they rise, it means the AI arms race is still on, and risk appetite could return by mid-November. High-beta assets like Bitcoin usually move first. If they fall, that points to tightening AI credit and peaking capital expenditure—and risk assets will be the first to get hit.

So don’t mistake the end of a signal for the starting gun. Cooling sentiment doesn’t mean money is flowing in. A real turning point will have to wait for the real yield and chip prices to show us the way. Until then, treat every rally as just a rally.

How much of your portfolio are you still holding as you wait for November? Let’s talk in the comments.

I bring you the latest crypto market trends every day—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind it. 👀🚀

Tap my profile picture to watch the livestream

Two wallets had been dormant for a full 12 years. Today, they transferred all 417 Bitcoin in a single move, within the same time window 🦖

⚡ 有大动静群里说

On-chain records show that both addresses were last active before 2014. That means they sat through the 2016, 2020, and 2024 halvings, and weathered several bull and bear cycles. At Bitcoin’s current price of $81,717, the 417 BTC transferred this time is worth about $34.08 million 🐋

What fewer people noticed is the coin-days metric. With 417 BTC dormant for more than 4,000 days, roughly 1.83 million coin-days were destroyed in a single day. It’s one of the clearest on-chain measures of old coins becoming active again.

But let’s be clear: the blockchain can prove that the coins moved; it can’t prove they were sold. Consolidating multiple addresses belonging to the same person, switching custodians, handling an inheritance, or reorganizing an exchange’s internal wallets can all look exactly the same on a public ledger. The original report also acknowledges that nobody knows who owns the wallets, where the coins went, or why they moved at this particular time ⚠️

This isn’t the first time an old wallet has come back to life this year. An address that had been inactive for 15 years was activated earlier, and a wallet believed to be among Bitcoin’s earliest also resurfaced. Each time, the market treats it as major news—but often, it turns out to be nothing more than a custody transfer. What matters isn’t the moment the wallet wakes up, but whether funds next flow into exchange deposit addresses. That’s the real early sign of potential selling pressure.

My take: 417 BTC isn’t a huge amount these days. Bitcoin’s market dominance is still around 60%, and a transfer of this size isn’t enough to shift supply and demand. But it’s a reminder that plenty of coins from before 2014 are still sitting dormant. Every time a large batch wakes up, the market’s emotions amplify the event. Don’t assume a wallet waking up means it’s about to dump—the two are separated by one crucial step: a deposit address.

Let’s hear your thoughts in the comments: do you think these two addresses belong to an old miner moving to a new custodian, or are they preparing to sell? 👀

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream.

Every day, we bring you the latest Bitcoin on-chain developments—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind it 👀🚀

15.5% may be October’s biggest trap 🦖

🕐 最新解读群里更新

According to the latest data from the CME FedWatch Tool, the market sees an 84.5% chance that the Fed will leave rates unchanged at its October 28 meeting, and just a 15.5% chance of a 25-basis-point hike. In other words, traders have all but declared in advance that the Fed won’t make a move this month.

The problem is, the data from the past two weeks don’t support this sense of ease.

US PPI rose to 6.3% year over year in September. Brent crude hit $110 for the first time since May. The 10-year Treasury yield climbed back above 5.1%. The Nasdaq 100 fell 5.5% for the week, its biggest weekly drop since the tariff turmoil of April 2025. The Philadelphia Semiconductor Index has fallen for eight straight trading days, its longest losing streak since 2008, with a decline of around 16% over that stretch.

More importantly, Fed Chair Warsh’s remarks last week at the IMF’s annual meeting in Bangkok. He said that capital pouring into AI infrastructure is an economic shock that will push up inflation and interest rates in the short term. And he gave not a single hint about the October 28 meeting ⚠️

That’s the most dangerous thing about the market right now: everyone is treating no rate hike as the default, but nobody is pricing in a hawkish surprise.

Let me put it another way: 15.5% isn’t a forecast. It’s a cheap insurance policy. If the Fed really does hold steady, risk assets will probably breathe a sigh of relief. Bitcoin is at $81,890, up 0.52% over the past 24 hours. Ethereum is at $2,423, virtually flat. That shows even the bulls aren’t daring to celebrate early. But if Warsh officially cites AI capital spending as an inflation risk in the statement, or the dot plot signals another hike this year, that 15.5% tail risk will be repriced in an instant. Crypto’s high-beta assets will feel it first 💥

Don’t forget: the September hike was the first since July 2023. Rates are now at 3.75%–4.00%, and it took the market less than a month to absorb it as background noise.

What you should really be watching isn’t whether rates go up in October, but whether the statement links AI investment to inflation. If that line appears, the impact won’t be limited to October—it will shape the entire rate path for next year.

Do you think the Fed will hold steady on October 28, or will Warsh pull off another surprise attack? Let’s talk in the comments 👀

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream.

Every day, I bring you the latest crypto market trends—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind it 👀🚀

A 22% tax, postponed three times—and now South Korea’s crypto market may finally have to face it 🦖

📣 盘面异动群里喊

The South Korean government has scheduled a meeting for October 20, bringing together representatives from the country’s five major domestic exchanges and executives from industry associations to discuss an issue that’s been delayed for six years: Will the virtual asset income tax, originally set to take effect in January 2027, be postponed again?

The proposal is clear: income from selling or lending crypto will be taxed at 22%—including income tax and local tax—after deducting a basic tax-free allowance of 2.5 million won. That’s about $1,800. In other words, anyone who earns less than that in their account won’t have to pay tax for now.

The real issue isn’t the tax rate. It’s how the cost basis will be calculated.

The tax was proposed in 2020 and has already been postponed three times. The reasons have been much the same each time: exchanges say their systems aren’t ready, while investors say they have no transaction records for coins they bought over the counter years ago. If the cost basis can’t be established, the worst-case scenario is that it’s treated as zero—turning the 22% tax into a tax on the principal ⚠️

South Korea’s National Tax Service is expected to issue a notice in November. Financial regulators are still working on a government draft of the Digital Asset Basic Act, which is due to be completed and put forward for consultation by the end of this month. The timeline is firm, but the October 20 meeting itself leaves the door open to another delay.

On the same day, on the other side of the world, France’s National Assembly passed an amendment to tax stablecoin exchanges by a vote of 38 to 37. Each time you exchange cryptocurrency for a stablecoin, you’ll be subject to a 31.4% capital gains tax. It takes effect on January 1, 2027. Two countries, one tax rate of 22% and the other 31.4%—and both have set their effective dates for the same year 📉

My take: the tax rate is just the surface. Three things will really determine the market’s response: whether the tax-free allowance is high enough, whether cost-basis rules can be applied retroactively, and whether exchanges will have to withhold taxes on behalf of users. If the first two issues aren’t resolved, no matter how detailed the third rule is, it will only push trading off-exchange.

BTC is currently at $81,707 and ETH at $2,413. Retail investors have always made up a large share of South Korea’s crypto market. If withholding takes effect, exchange trading volumes will be the first to tell the story 📊

Do you think South Korea will really introduce the tax this time, or will it be postponed for a fourth time? Let’s talk in the comments.

Every day, I bring you the latest crypto stories—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind the headlines 👀🚀

#circle上半年营收约14亿美元
$150 billion in a quarter is just a warm-up for stablecoins 🦖

📢 ⏰ 消息群里第一时间说

Circle co-founder and CEO Jeremy Allaire and a16z’s Chris Dixon just had a conversation. The most striking thing wasn’t the valuation—it was that Circle minted and redeemed $150 billion in a single quarter. That pipeline is already connected to the global banking system.

First, let’s look at the scale of the business. Circle brought in about $1.4 billion in revenue in the first half of the year. Of that, $819 million went to partners and transaction costs, leaving just $473 million to reinvest. In other words, 58 cents of every dollar earned has to be paid out. Stablecoin issuance is no longer a money-printing machine—it’s a business that relies on scale to spread distribution costs.

So where’s the moat? Allaire pointed to three pillars: the utility and liquidity flywheel of the stablecoin network, regulated infrastructure, and CCTP interoperability. He said CCTP accounts for about half of cross-chain transfer value, reaching as high as 70% in recent quarters. Another part of the picture is the CPN payments network, which already has nearly 200 financial institutions on it.

More importantly, he shared his view of the future: the main users of this system will increasingly be machines, not people. Dixon said he used vibe coding to build a small app running on Arc. A week after launch, it was getting 15,000 visits a day, all from bots looking for environment variables, SSH credentials, and cryptocurrency. In his words: “The machines are already here” ⚠️

My take is that stablecoin competition has shifted from issuance volume to settlement rails and distribution. Whoever can get assets flowing through their own pipes gets the fees. Machine payments will make this market even bigger, because machines don’t care about brands—they care about cost and success rates. But the other side is clear, too: Arc’s validators are known and elected. That’s a compromise made for compliance. Between efficiency and decentralization, it has chosen the former 📈

One more thing: the conversation also mentioned that someone converted neural data from a real fly’s brain into about 16 MB of bytecode and ran it on Arc. It sounds like a joke, but it shows that people are already experimenting with completely different things on-chain—and nobody knows where the limits are.

What do you think: five years from now, will most on-chain transactions be initiated by people or by machines? Let’s talk in the comments 👀

Every day, I bring you the latest on stablecoins and AI—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind the headlines 👀🚀

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream

$630 million, 7 million shares, one thing only: buying Bitcoin 🦖
U.S.-listed Bitcoin treasury company Strive priced its SATS preferred stock IPO at $90 per share, targeting about $630 million in proceeds—exactly 7 million shares. All the money raised will go toward buying more Bitcoin.

🚨 行情变了群里说

It already holds 35,595 Bitcoins, worth about $2.9 billion at $81,500 each. If the offering is fully subscribed, it could add another 7,700 or so, bringing its holdings to around 43,300.
Don’t rush to take this as good news. This time, it’s not common stock but preferred stock. Preferred shares usually pay a fixed dividend and rank ahead of common shares in a liquidation. The upside is less dilution for existing shareholders; the trade-off is an additional bill the company has to pay every year. 💥
In other words, this isn’t free money. It’s trading future fixed expenses for Bitcoin today. If Bitcoin rises, leverage magnifies the gains. If Bitcoin moves sideways, the dividends still have to be paid—and time becomes a cost.
What’s more, the broader environment is full of contradictions. On Friday, Bitcoin treasury companies of the same kind came under pressure across U.S. markets. Strategy fell 9% in a single day, the Nasdaq 100 dropped 5.5% for the week, Brent crude touched $110 for the first time since May, and U.S. PPI rose 6.3% year over year. Money is moving out of high-volatility assets. 📉
On one hand, share prices are taking a hit; on the other, fundraising is accelerating. This suggests these companies can no longer rely on operating cash flow to buy coins. They can only keep issuing new instruments to acquire more. Whoever can secure cheap financing while interest rates remain high can stay in the game.
One more detail: a Wall Street analyst raised the company’s price target by 27%. The share price is falling while the target price is rising. Institutions aren’t looking at this quarter—they’re asking whether the company can keep raising money. ⚠️
My view: the lifeline for these companies isn’t the amount of Bitcoin they hold, but the cost of financing. As long as they can keep issuing preferred shares, the accumulation game can continue. But if demand for new issues dries up, or Bitcoin falls below their average cost, leverage will turn from an accelerator into a drag.
Do you think this preferred-stock-for-Bitcoin model is fuel for the next bull run, or a fuse for the next liquidation? Let’s talk in the comments.
Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream.
Every day, I’ll help you follow Bitcoin and institutional money flows—not just what’s happening in the news, but also the logic and opportunities behind it. 👀🚀

#以太坊跌破2400usdt
2,955 new ETH minted in a day, with just 13.6 burned—the deflationary badge is down to 0.46% 🦖
Ethereum hit an intraday low of $2,397.77 on Saturday, once again falling below the $2,400 mark. It’s now at $2,400.10, down 0.82% over 24 hours. But the on-chain numbers are even more striking than the price.

⚡ 有大动静群里说

Over the past 24 hours, Ethereum’s supply grew by a net 2,955 ETH, while just 13.59 ETH was burned. That’s only 0.46% of the amount newly issued. Seven days ago, the ratio was still 1.03%; over a 30-day period, it was 2.77%. Each successive timeframe shows a lower figure 🔥
The cause isn’t on the issuance side, but on the burn side. Network-wide fees over the past 24 hours came to just $213,200, down from $466,000 the day before—a 54.37% drop in a single day. The weekly high on October 13 was $467,300. Now, only a fraction of that remains.
Why aren’t fees picking up? Because activity has moved to Layer 2 networks. Data blocks show that Layer 2 users pay far less than they would for regular transactions on mainnet. Mainnet blocks aren’t full, so base fees are scraping the floor—and naturally, very little is being burned.
Taking a longer view, the circulating supply rose from 122,051,481 ETH to 122,137,960 ETH over 30 days, a net increase of 86,479 ETH, worth about $215 million at the current price. The net increase over seven days was 20,611 ETH. Around 2,969 new ETH are issued each day, worth about $7.18 million.
The historical comparison is even more striking. Since Ethereum switched to proof of stake in September 2022, the network has burned 2,017,726 ETH, yet the circulating supply has increased by 1,616,921 ETH over the same period. Since EIP-1559 went live, a cumulative 4,641,036 ETH has been burned, worth about $13.11 billion at the current price. The mechanism that once underpinned the “ultrasound money” narrative is now almost at a standstill 📉
My take: supply is certainly a headwind, but it hasn’t reached a point where it can reverse the trend downward. 2,969 ETH issued per day against a supply of 122 million amounts to daily growth of about 0.0024%. The real variable is whether mainnet fees can recover. As long as Layer 2 keeps absorbing activity, the burn rate is unlikely to pick up.
For price levels, the first support to watch is Saturday’s low of $2,397.77. The first resistance above is the weekly high of $2,534.63 on October 12, followed by the 50-day moving average at $2,551.85. If ETH can’t break above those levels, it will remain below the two-month moving average. The monthly high is $2,775.17, still 14.8% above the current price.
Do you think supply is weighing on Ethereum this time, or could a recovery in fees bring the deflationary story back? Share your thoughts in the comments.
Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream.
Every day, we cover the latest in crypto—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind it 👀🚀

From $700 million to $4.3 billion in just one year—this public blockchain has made a serious catch-up in real-world assets 🦖

🕐 最新解读群里更新

According to the latest figures from AMBCrypto, the market cap of RWAs on Solana has risen from around $700 million a year ago to $4.3 billion. Over the same period, Ethereum grew from $15.5 billion to $16.6 billion, an increase of only about 7%. Solana is now 26% the size of Ethereum, but its growth rate is on a completely different scale.

The more compelling numbers are on the application side. Solana app revenue rose about 48% quarter over quarter to $299.1 million, its highest level since Q3 2025. In the same quarter, the value of tokenized stocks hit a record $7.1 billion, with a record $4.4 billion in September alone. Spot DEX trading volume reached around $189 billion, up $7 billion from the previous quarter. On-chain transactions hit a record 14.2 billion, averaging about 1,790 per second.

But let me pour a little cold water on this: a large share of that $299.1 million came from consumer apps and trading activity. Put simply, it’s closely tied to market sentiment and speculative fervor. When the market cools, this revenue can fall too—it’s not the kind of stable cash flow backed by long-term contracts.

The price hasn’t caught up either. When the news came out, SOL was still struggling near the upper end of the $95–$100 demand zone, after recently breaking below a bearish pennant. If this range doesn’t hold, there could be room for further downside. On the other hand, as long as the 100-day and 200-day moving averages remain below the price, the long-term structure is still intact.

My take: the story around this chain has shifted from being cheap and fast to having real business activity. Asset tokenization, app revenue, and DEX trading volume are all rising at the same time—that’s uncommon among public blockchains. But the speculative tilt in its revenue mix also means its valuation can swing sharply with risk appetite. The key thing to watch is next quarter: if the market cools, can app revenue stay above the $200 million mark?

Do you think Solana’s ecosystem has genuinely grown stronger, or has it simply benefited from a rebound in risk appetite? Let’s discuss in the comments 👀

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream.

Every day, we bring you the latest trends in public blockchain ecosystems—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind it 👀🚀

702 cases, 31 deaths: Bitcoin’s strongest line of defense was pried open with a wrench 🦖

🔎 进群看完整分析

On October 16, Bitcoin security researcher Jameson Lopp revealed that his database of physical attacks had doubled from over 300 cases to 702. Behind the increase was a researcher called Pizza Bitcoiner, who used AI-assisted searches to uncover 375 overlooked cases, around 351 of which have already been added to the database.

This isn’t about hackers breaking the encryption algorithm. It’s about people with weapons coming after Bitcoin holders. The database has tracked cases from 2014 through today, including home invasions, robberies, kidnappings, and extortion.

The details are what really send a chill down your spine. Among the 670 verified cases, 413 victims were held against their will, 300 involved injuries, and 31 ended in death. The 447 cases with recorded amounts add up to around $394 million in losses. The cases span 72 countries and cover the period from January 2020 to mid-October this year.

Now look at the trend: there were 37 cases in all of 2020. By 2025, that number had risen to 165. Another 134 cases were recorded by mid-October this year. That’s more than a fourfold increase in just over five years. France has become a clear hotspot, and the US has also seen a large number of cases ⚠️

But there’s an important caveat: a sharp rise in the numbers doesn’t mean crime suddenly quadrupled. Lopp himself acknowledges that search capabilities have improved and language coverage has expanded, bringing many old cases to light for the first time. In other words, the number of attacks that actually happen may have always been higher than the public record suggests.

My take: this shatters an illusion. People tend to think Bitcoin’s risks are on-chain, at exchanges, or in the markets. But the oldest risk has always been off-chain. Your private key can be as long as you like; it won’t stop someone standing at your front door. Institutions have custodians, insurance, and security. Ordinary people have only themselves. So don’t publicly flaunt your holdings, avoid large in-person cash transactions, use multisig and diversify for significant assets, and don’t link your travel plans or home address to your wallet 🐋

Crypto can protect your assets, but it can’t protect you. A lot of people still haven’t grasped that distinction.

What do you think is the biggest risk for Bitcoin holders: market volatility or personal safety? Let’s talk in the comments 👀

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream

Every day, I bring you the latest in crypto security—not just what’s happening, but the reasoning and opportunities behind the headlines 👀🚀

$600 million quietly pulled out, but nobody panicked over Bitcoin ETFs

📈 进群看今日思路

Over the first five trading days of October, U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs saw net outflows of $228.6 million. Outflows for October so far total about $615 million, with some estimates putting the figure close to $618 million.

BlackRock’s IBIT saw the fastest withdrawals, with about $165 million in net outflows in a week. On October 16 alone, $71.8 million was pulled out. Fidelity’s FBTC also saw $10.6 million leave that day. All told, IBIT accounted for more than 70% of this week’s outflows.

The real eye-opener was October 7, when net outflows hit $487.1 million in a single day 💥 That one day accounted for most of the month’s outflows.

That’s no small sum, but in a market worth more than a trillion dollars, it’s hardly a serious blow. Look at the other side of the ledger: these funds still hold $104.29 billion in total assets. This month’s outflows amount to less than 1% of that. Since their launch in January 2024, they’ve seen cumulative net inflows of about $56.88 billion and still hold around 1.276 million bitcoins—roughly 6% of the total supply.

Trading volume hasn’t collapsed either. There were several days in October when daily trading volume topped $2 billion. People are still in the market; it’s just the direction of the money that’s changed.

My take: this doesn’t look like institutions rushing for the exits. It looks more like profit-taking at elevated levels. Redemptions aren’t just numbers on a screen: issuers either have to sell Bitcoin or use cash, and the impact eventually shows up in the spot market. That’s why ETF flows often speak sooner than the price itself. So the key thing to watch isn’t the $600 million headline figure, but whether IBIT’s redemptions are slowing down or speeding up—and whether we’ll see another day of nearly $500 million in selling pressure like October 7 🦖

ETFs are the main gateway for institutions entering the market. When that gateway’s valve turns, prices often take a few days to respond. Bitcoin is currently hovering around $81,000, while Ethereum is fluctuating around $2,400. The message from the flow data is just one word: hesitation 📉

Do you think institutions are rebalancing, or is the market about to turn? Let’s talk in the comments 👀

I bring you the latest developments in the crypto market every day—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind it 🚀

38 to 37: France passes it by one vote. From now on, swapping crypto for stablecoins will also incur a 31.4% tax 🦖

💡 群里更新数据解读

On October 17, France’s National Assembly passed amendment I-3898 during debate on the 2027 Finance Bill. The amendment was proposed by MP Nicolas Sansu. Of the Assembly’s 577 seats, only 100 members voted: 38 in favor, 37 against, and 25 abstentions. It was just one vote away from going the other way.

The amendment aims to close a loophole that has existed for years. Until now, swapping Bitcoin for stablecoins hasn’t counted as cashing out, so it hasn’t been subject to capital gains tax. Many French crypto holders have used USDT and USDC to park their profits, then swapped back into euros when the time was right. The rules are now set to change: every swap from crypto into stablecoins will be taxed at a capital gains rate of 31.4%. If the text passes unchanged, it will take effect on January 1, 2027 ⚖️

The French government’s reasoning is straightforward: stablecoins already serve as a means of payment and a store of value, so they should be taxed like money. The amendment also stresses that it would not create any new burden. What really stings is another set of figures: blockchain analytics firm Chainalysis estimates that 90% of crypto gains in France go undeclared. In 2024, just 24,000 French taxpayers declared approximately $427 million in gains. Compared with the size of the overall market, that reporting rate is practically zero 💶

In my view, the key issue isn’t the 31.4% rate. It’s that France is treating stablecoins as money rather than crypto assets for the first time. Once they’re taxed under the rules for money, every time you park your profits becomes a taxable event. The old strategy of moving into stablecoins during a bear market and cashing out again in a bull market is about to get a lot more expensive.

The second-order effects are more interesting than the tax rate itself. French crypto holders will most likely head in three directions: first, commodity-backed digital assets such as tokenized gold; second, self-custody and cross-border transfers; and third, simply converting back to fiat early and taking profits. For stablecoin issuers, retail demand in the eurozone’s second-largest economy will come under pressure. And with on-chain records, combined with the automatic information exchange under DAC8 and CARF, enforcing this tax will be much easier than many people think.

Of course, this isn’t the final word. The Senate will decide next Tuesday whether to advance the amendment. The government itself opposes it and could also remove the provision outright. The 38-to-37 vote shows that it doesn’t even have consensus in Parliament. There’s still plenty of debate ahead.

Do you think France is closing a loophole, or driving crypto users away? If you were there, would you convert back into euros early, or switch to tokenized gold? Let’s talk in the comments.

Every day, I bring you the latest crypto regulation developments—not just what’s happening, but the reasoning and opportunities behind the headlines 👀🚀