小恐龙说趋势

#富兰克林邓普顿xrpl新增1.5亿美元份额
$150 Million in Shares Added to the XRP Ledger—and They’re Still Held by Just 1 Wallet 🦖

🔎 进群看完整分析

On Friday, Franklin Templeton put about $150 million worth of tokenized money market fund shares on the XRP Ledger. The number of shares on the ledger jumped from around 48 million to 193 million, nearly fourfold. At a share price of $1.039, their total value is about $200 million.

All 193 million shares sit in a single wallet. On-chain records show that this wallet shares the same set of eight signing addresses as Franklin’s issuer account. Any two of them can jointly approve a transaction. ⚠️

First, let’s be clear about what this is: Each sgBENJI share represents a Franklin on-chain U.S. dollar short-term money market fund registered in Singapore. Its underlying assets are U.S. Treasury bills, commercial paper, and bank deposits. Returns are reflected directly in the share price—not a subsidy, and not an airdrop, but real interest from short-term debt.

Now for the key point: Franklin Templeton added $150 million worth of shares to the XRPL. That sounds like great news, but putting shares on-chain doesn’t mean anyone is buying XRP.

These shares are recorded on the ledger by the issuer. Redemptions, freezes, and clawbacks all require Franklin’s approval. The issuer retains the power to freeze and claw back shares. Put simply, this is a registry controlled by the issuer, operating on the shell of a public blockchain. Settlement is faster and transparency is greater, but the only truly decentralized part is the ledger itself. 📊

For XRP, the significance is in the numbers. According to RWA.xyz, Ripple’s RLUSD on the XRPL is worth about $930 million, ranking first. Franklin’s approximately $193 million ranks second, and Ondo’s roughly $185 million ranks third. This chain finally has a second real-world asset worth over $100 million.

But what concerns me more is concentration. The on-chain shares of an entire fund are held in one wallet, and the two sides share eight signing addresses. If anything goes wrong at any one point, there’s no sign of diversification on the ledger. It’s common for custodians to hold many clients’ shares in a single account, but to on-chain observers, that’s no different from a single whale. 💥

So here’s the right way to read this kind of news: It shows that institutions are willing to put real assets on a public blockchain. But it doesn’t show that demand for XRP has increased. Benefiting from the narrative around this blockchain and benefiting from this token’s price are two different things.

The next number to watch is when this fund gets a second wallet on the XRPL. That’s when we’ll know real distribution has begun.

Let’s talk in the comments: Do you think institutions moving funds on-chain will eventually create demand for the token, or is it just a new place to keep records?

I bring you the latest XRP and RWA developments every day—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind the headlines. 👀🚀

Tap my profile picture to watch the livestream

He lost eight figures in a single day—but says the worst losses actually came after that 🦖

⚡ 有大动静群里说

Trader Bonk Guy looks back on October 10 last year, when multiple major trading platforms suffered systemic failures at the same time. Within minutes, he took the biggest single-day loss of his career: eight figures in USD. But the worst was yet to come. Over the following weeks and months, he lost millions more by constantly jumping back into trades.

His own conclusion is counterintuitive: the best move at the time would have been to step away for a few months—at least six—and stay away from the trading terminal. The urge to win back his losses and the need to prove he was still good enough pushed him back to the screen again and again.

Then he looked at the numbers across a full cycle. Crypto bull markets last an average of around 1,060 days, or 74% of the cycle, while bear markets last around 380 days, or 26%. But if you define a bull market as Bitcoin being above its 200-day moving average with strong momentum, the truly favorable trading window shrinks to just around 237 days—16% of the cycle.

Put simply: liquidation is only the first bill. The second is overtrading during recovery. For the remaining 84% of the time, the goal shouldn’t be to hunt for opportunities everywhere—it should be to avoid handing over your principal again. Define the same market differently, and the opportunity window shrinks from 1,060 days to 237—more than four times shorter. That’s why many people feel like they’re always missing out, when in reality they’re just pushing hard at the wrong time 💥

This is especially timely now. Bitcoin briefly fell below $80,000 on Saturday, hitting a low of 79,280. More than $800 million in positions were liquidated across the market in 24 hours. The price has now recovered to around $81,000, and the Fed meets next week. Markets are pricing in just a 10% chance of a rate hike, but volatility hasn’t gone away.

Leverage has never been most dangerous when you get the direction wrong—it’s when you get it wrong and immediately try to win it all back. The market won’t compensate you just because you’ve lost money. It only cares whether your next trade is right or wrong ⚠️

After getting liquidated, did you step away—or immediately add to your position to try to make it back? Share your thoughts in the comments.

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream.

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

#股票财报季
A company that got its start mining Ethereum plunged nearly 25% in a week—and dragged the entire AI stock sector down with it 🦖

🔍 进群聊行情

CoreWeave (ticker: CRWV) saw yields on its unsecured bonds surge to around 15% in mid-October. Its bonds due in 2031 briefly topped 16%. On October 14, the stock fell 15.5% in a single day, closing at $65.78. By October 16, it was down nearly 25% for the week. A company with $100 billion in orders was being hammered by the bond market.

Its origins are very much in crypto. In 2017, three commodities and energy traders founded Atlantic Crypto and used GPUs to mine Ethereum. After Ethereum’s Merge in 2022, they decisively shut down mining and repurposed the machines for AI computing. CoreWeave went public on March 28, 2025, at $40 per share.

The impressive part is the order book: Microsoft accounted for about 67% of revenue in 2025. OpenAI’s contract is worth up to about $22.4 billion, and Meta signed a deal worth about $21 billion this April, running through 2032. Add Anthropic and Nvidia, and remaining performance obligations total $103.7 billion, with about 41% expected to be recognized within 24 months.

The ugly part is the balance sheet. Second-quarter revenue was $2.575 billion, up 112% year over year, while net losses reached $626 million. Net interest expense was $640 million—2.4 times the figure for the same period last year. Debt stood at $35.6 billion at the end of June.

The market isn’t worried that AI demand will disappear. It’s worried this financing structure can’t hold up 💥

The contagion has already begun. On October 16, Nebius fell about 10%, while Applied Digital and IREN each dropped about 9%. The biggest shock of earnings season was Meta’s negative free cash flow of $2.12 billion in the third quarter. Gartner says $3.5 trillion of AI infrastructure could face impairment by the end of 2030. Covering costs and earning a 12% return would require $8.5 trillion in revenue, but no more than $3.6 trillion can be attributed to it. Gartner also expects that 80% of neocloud providers won’t survive as independent operators.

Since going public, the three founders have sold about $3.3 billion worth of shares, including $2.4 billion this year ⚠️

The significance for crypto isn’t CoreWeave itself. It’s a blueprint for publicly listed mining companies shifting to AI data centers. IREN and Applied Digital are both on this path. But the denominator has changed. After inflation data came out, expectations of rate hikes rose. When financing costs increase, highly leveraged computing companies feel the pain first. And when credit spreads widen, the first thing to get shut down will be the shift from mining to renting out GPUs.

AI demand is still there. Cheap money isn’t. That’s the real reason valuations are getting crushed 📉

Do you think miners pivoting to AI are being unfairly punished, or is the bubble only just starting to deflate? Let’s talk in the comments.

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

110 wallets generated 7.79 million payments, but moved just $7,722 in total 🦖

📊 进群看每日策略

This striking contrast comes from Bitquery’s 30-day tracking of RLUSD on the XRP Ledger, covering September 19 to October 18. These 110 wallets generated about 7.79 million payments, accounting for 99.6% of the 7.82 million RLUSD transactions across the network during that period. Yet the total value of all their transfers was just $7,722.

That works out to 0.00099 RLUSD per payment on average—not even one-tenth of a cent 💥

Even stranger was the pattern: these wallets sent a payment to three fixed addresses almost exactly every 30 seconds. Their funding sources and consolidation addresses were highly similar. On-chain records show that some of the addresses were labeled as wallets belonging to an exchange, and some funds passed through deposit accounts commonly used by exchanges. Bitquery said it could not identify who controlled this group of wallets, and did not confirm any involvement by an exchange or Ripple.

The peak came on September 26, with 573,589 RLUSD payments that day. Only 388 of them were worth at least $1. From October 8 to 14, this group of wallets accounted for 45.6% of all account-to-account payments on the XRP Ledger.

Then it stopped on its own. Activity began to fall on October 14 and was almost completely gone by October 16—right after Cross River Bank announced on October 15 that it was supporting RLUSD. Bitquery stressed that there was no protocol upgrade or surge in fees to explain the abrupt halt.

The high-value transactions tell a different story. After excluding payments under $1, there were only 14,600 transactions over the 30 days, totaling about $7.33 billion. Ten wallets accounted for 82% of the settlement value, much of which came from issuer minting and redemption—not retail payments 📊

The key takeaway from these figures isn’t wash activity; it’s a reminder to anyone looking at on-chain metrics: transaction counts can be generated very cheaply. The 8.6 million operations involving RLUSD and XRP consumed only 495 XRP in fees, worth about $648 at the time. In other words, less than $700 in fees plus a little over $7,000 in principal was enough to make nearly half the payment count on a public blockchain your own. If you use transaction counts as a measure of adoption, you can get the wrong picture entirely.

For XRP, this also isn’t a reason to expect buying pressure. Fee consumption is almost negligible. What really determines the scale of RLUSD is institutional settlement and minting and redemption. That activity is indeed reflected in the $7.33 billion—but it’s concentrated in just ten wallets 🔍

Let’s discuss in the comments: when you look at on-chain data, do you check transaction counts or transaction values first?

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

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream

Borrowed $1.94 million, bought two seats, and emptied a project’s treasury on the spot

📈 进群一起分析行情

X 100 Global suffered a governance attack on Ethereum on Saturday. The attacker took control of two of the three senate seats and withdrew around $4.85 million in USDT and 550,000 X tokens from the treasury. The token plunged from over $50 to $1.75—a drop of more than 96% 💥

This wasn’t a code exploit; the rules were bought. The attacker first borrowed around $1.94 million in USDT through an Aave flash loan, used the funds to buy X tokens, then registered auxiliary contracts to take over two seats. Because the governance system had no voting snapshot, minimum holding period, or execution delay, gaining voting power meant they could immediately submit and execute a malicious proposal 🦖

In one transaction, 400,000 X tokens were transferred from the project’s Freezer treasury into a liquidity pool controlled by the attacker, leaving the treasury with only around $36. The tokens were then sold through regular Uniswap V3 pools. Across three operations, the attacker walked away with around $4.85 million in USDT and 550,000 X tokens. On-chain data shows that around 12.2 million X tokens remain in Freezer. The project has yet to issue an official response, and the incident is still unfolding.

What I think is most worth remembering about this case isn’t the amount, but the attack path. People used to focus on contract vulnerabilities; now, someone can simply buy governance power. Three seats sound distributed, but in practice, it’s like handing the keys to the highest bidder. Without a snapshot, lockup, or delay, a flash loan can seize control in minutes. This is a design flaw, not a matter of luck ⚖️

The second-order impact on the market is even more direct. After the token dropped 96%, DEX liquidity was down to just a few dollars. Holders who want to sell can’t even find buyers. Market makers and institutions will likely downgrade projects like this, because the governance structure itself is a risk exposure 📉

Let’s talk in the comments: do you think this counts as a hack, or as arbitrage allowed by the rules? 👀

Every day, I bring you the latest in crypto security—not just what happened, but the logic and opportunities behind the headlines 🚀

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream

$404 Million in Long Positions Wiped Out in 4 Hours—Bitcoin Fell Just $1,360

💥 ⏰ 消息群里第一时间说

On Saturday, October 24, Bitcoin fell below $80,000 intraday, touching a low of $79,280 before recovering to $80,138 by 1 p.m. ET. It was down 1.9% over 24 hours. Ethereum fell 3.8% to $2,314—twice Bitcoin’s decline. What really got wiped out wasn’t the price, but leverage 🦖

CoinGlass data shows that in the four hours leading up to 1 p.m. ET, $436.44 million in positions were liquidated across the market. Long positions accounted for $404.15 million, or 92.6%. This sell-off almost exclusively hit bulls, while bears were largely unscathed 💥

Liquidations came in two waves. The first began at 10:15 a.m., when $208.21 million in longs were wiped out in 15 minutes, sending Bitcoin from $80,640 to $80,100. The second started at 11:15 a.m., liquidating another $131.17 million in just 15 minutes. In the four hours from 8 a.m. to noon, $401.91 million in longs were liquidated—the worst wipeout since the $505.57 million liquidated on the night of October 14.

Ethereum is even more noteworthy. It saw $136.72 million in liquidations over four hours, compared with Bitcoin’s $158.45 million—a difference of just $22 million. Yet Ethereum’s market cap is only 18% of Bitcoin’s. Longs made up 92.7% of Ethereum liquidations, showing that leverage wasn’t evenly distributed—it was concentrated in ETH. The largest single liquidation was an $11.85 million ETH long, forcibly closed at $2,307.65 ⚠️

Liquidations were also concentrated by platform. One exchange accounted for $226.07 million over four hours, 96% of it in longs. The on-chain perpetuals platform Hyperliquid saw $70.47 million liquidated, with longs making up 99.8%. The more on-chain the trading, the more overwhelmingly bullish it was.

Over the past 24 hours, $815.26 million in positions were liquidated across the market, up 218% from the previous day, wiping out 201,012 traders. But total market open interest fell by just 2.2%, to $140.1 billion. That figure matters: if open interest had been cut in half, that would mean deleveraging and a full flush-out. A drop of only 2.2% suggests positions changed hands through forced liquidations rather than voluntary exits. The money is still in the market.

ETFs are also seeing outflows. Spot Bitcoin ETFs saw net outflows of $635.49 million on Thursday and another $137.94 million on Friday. BlackRock’s IBIT alone accounted for $110.34 million, or 80% of Friday’s outflows. But inflows from Monday through Wednesday totaled $1.078 billion, leaving the week with net inflows of $304.73 million. Total assets stood at $104.43 billion, essentially flat. Ethereum ETFs saw net outflows on 14 of the 17 trading days in October, totaling $1.175 billion.

My take: this isn’t a trend reversal, but a targeted flush of long positions. The price fell just 1.7%, yet $400 million was wiped out. That suggests many traders had their stop-losses and liquidation prices clustered at the same levels. The key thing to watch next is open interest. If the price can’t get back above $81,000 and open interest starts building again, these new longs could become fuel for the next wave of liquidations.

Do you think this is just a shakeout, or the start of a downturn? Let’s talk in the comments 👀

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream

Every day, I’ll keep you up to date on crypto trends—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind it 👀🚀

169,000 ETH vanished from exchanges in a single day, while the price edges toward $2,300 🐋

🚨 行情变了群里说

Data from Santiment on October 24 shows that Ethereum saw a net outflow of 169,770 ETH in a single day—the largest in more than four months. At $2,316 per ETH, that’s worth about $393 million. The last time withdrawals reached this scale was June 5. After that, the price bottomed out and then staged a rally, so many people are reading this as the same signal 🦖

But two things are telling a different story at the same time.

First, an early holder is selling. An investor who had held ETH for nine years sold 3,000 ETH, worth about $7.23 million. They bought in at $18.83, making a return of roughly 128x. Choosing to cash out after holding for nine years says more than any indicator could.

Second, the futures market still belongs to the bears. Ethereum’s taker buy/sell volume delta on CryptoQuant remains persistently bearish, which means aggressive sell orders continue to outweigh aggressive buy orders. ETH is being withdrawn from spot exchanges, while it’s being sold on the futures market. The two sides are telling very different stories.

Third, the price has just lost a key level. Ethereum climbed to $2,540.68 but couldn’t hold there, then fell back to $2,376.62, losing the $2,385.62 level. The Parabolic SAR is still above price at $2,509.93, and the MACD histogram is at -8.90. The overall structure remains bearish 📉

Looking at the broader market, $192 million in positions were liquidated across the crypto market in the past hour, including $57.7 million in Bitcoin liquidations. Bitcoin is currently at $80,180, down 1.77%, with a market cap of $1.61 trillion and a dominance of 59.56%. Ethereum is at $2,316.88, down 3.65%, with a market cap of $282.9 billion. Solana is at $100.47, down 3.89%. Risk appetite is contracting across the board.

My take: don’t treat exchange net outflows as an automatic bullish signal. Withdrawals only show that the coins are no longer sitting on exchange books; they don’t mean those coins can’t return via OTC desks, custodians, or derivatives. The real line in the sand is $2,385. If ETH reclaims it, the net outflows may count as accumulation. If it can’t, $2,300 will become the next level to test.

What’s even more worth watching is that these withdrawals and the whale’s sale happened in the same week. One party is moving coins off exchanges; another is turning nine-year-old holdings into cash. The actions look opposite, but both are reducing their immediate risk exposure.

Do you think this is bottom accumulation, or are big players using the withdrawal narrative to distribute? Let’s talk in the comments 👀

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream.

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

136,000 bitcoins borrowed at 12% interest

📈 进群看今日思路

A report from Fidelity Digital Assets dated October 24 estimates that since 2025, financing tools such as preferred stock have helped treasury companies buy 135,979 bitcoins.

In 20 months, that’s more than 0.5% of Bitcoin’s total supply. The price? Dividends that have to be paid every year 💰

This channel is now worth around $12 billion—tiny enough to be almost negligible in the $150 trillion global fixed-income market. But it’s the marginal buyer in this rally that’s easiest to overlook.

Strategy is the clearest example. It has five classes of preferred stock. The first, STRK, only listed in February 2025. STRC’s dividend yield is now around 12%, and it raised $7.5 billion by the end of July 2026. The more it raises, the heavier its annual fixed costs become 🧮

The real turning point came last week, when the company spent $193 million buying back STRC and bought just 267 bitcoins over the same period. It also raised its preferred-stock buyback authorization to $3 billion.

Buying back shares while almost stopping bitcoin purchases—that move says more than any statement could.

The reason is easy to understand: preferred stock is easiest to sell when it trades near par. When its price falls below par, issuing more becomes uneconomical, and the company can only turn to buybacks. But buybacks and bitcoin purchases compete for the same pool of money. Fidelity also noted that the company had previously sold some of its bitcoin to pay dividends.

For the past two years, the flywheel worked like this in a favorable market: a premium share price, issue preferred stock, buy bitcoin, increase the bitcoin held per share, and push the share price higher. In a downturn, the sequence runs in reverse. The denominator is dividends payable in dollars; the numerator is a volatile bitcoin price 📉

It’s clearer when you compare the two channels. U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs have seen about $57 billion in cumulative net inflows and hold around $106 billion in assets. Their buying follows inflows and outflows, with no ongoing obligation to pay interest. Preferred stock, by contrast, hands the decision to buy bitcoin to company management—it amplifies purchases in good times and scales them back in bad times.

So my take is that this isn’t necessarily a crash signal, but it could well mark a turning point in the pace of bitcoin buying. The old rhythm of announcing purchases of thousands of coins in a week may gradually shift to hundreds—or even pause for a while 🦖

Bitcoin is now at $79,732, down 2.26% in 24 hours. Ethereum is at $2,304, down 4.14%. Solana is at $99.70, down 4.67%. The lower prices fall, the more pressure these companies face from dividend payments—and the greater the temptation to sell coins to pay them ⚠️

One fewer buyer on the supply side and one more seller on the demand side are two sides of the same coin.

Do you think treasury companies will suspend dividends first, or sell bitcoin first? Let’s talk in the comments.

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream.

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

It took 16 years to reach $100,000. Now some say the next $100K could take half the time 🦖

🧭 群里聊方向

On October 24, Zack Wainwright, a research analyst at Fidelity Digital Assets, made that prediction. He believes Bitcoin’s climb from $100,000 to $200,000 will be much faster than its rise from $0 to $100,000. His reasoning: as of October 12, Bitcoin had rebounded nearly 50% from this year’s bear-market low of around $58,000 in June, following a recovery path very similar to the one after the 2022 bear market.

But at the very same time he was speaking, the market was telling a different story. Bitcoin briefly fell below $80,000 intraday and is now trading at $80,139, down 1.83% in 24 hours, with a market cap of $1.61 trillion. Ethereum is at $2,339, down 2.65%, and Solana is at $100.33, down 4.07%. 📉

Put those two things together and it gets interesting. On one hand, an analyst is talking about $200,000. On the other, Bitcoin could only hold the $80,000 level today after bouncing back intraday. Bitcoin is still up about 38% from $58,000, but it’s only around 25% away from $100,000, while reaching $200,000 would require a gain of nearly 150%. In other words, the analyst is talking about the next leg up, while the market is still trying to figure out where the bottom of this leg is.

Wainwright also added a word of caution: Bitcoin’s returns have diminished with each cycle, and past performance is no guarantee of future returns. ⚠️

I think that’s the key point—and far more important than the $200,000 figure. In each of the previous cycles, the percentage gains have gotten smaller. Even starting from the bottom, doubling this time around will take longer and require more capital. If this pattern holds, $200,000 isn’t impossible, but the more likely path is a long stretch of shaking out holders who bought above $80,000 before prices gradually move higher. Pullbacks along the way could be deeper than in the previous cycle, and altcoins could see even sharper divergence. Today’s larger drops in Ethereum and Solana compared with Bitcoin are a small preview of that.

So what’s really worth watching isn’t the round-number target of $200,000. It’s whether buyers step in during each pullback within this uptrend that started at $58,000. The $80,000 level has been tested repeatedly this week. Whether it holds won’t determine if Bitcoin can reach $200,000—it will determine who leads the next leg of the market.

Do you think this cycle can still repeat the kind of multiples we saw last time, or are we left with a slow bull market and ever-smaller gains? Let’s discuss in the comments.

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream.

Every day, I’ll keep you up to date on Bitcoin’s hottest stories—not just what’s happening, but also the logic and opportunities behind it. 👀🚀

#市场定价美联储下周加息概率仅10%
They’re pouring in $800 billion, but the returns haven’t shown up yet. Next week, earnings reports and the Fed will put them both under the microscope 🦖

🔭 进群看资金去哪

The Fed meets on Wednesday next week to decide on rates. Markets are currently pricing in less than a 10% chance of a rate hike at this meeting, but the odds of a hike at the December meeting have already reached 80%. In the same week, about a third of the S&P 500 will report earnings—Microsoft, Amazon, and Alphabet among them. The Nasdaq just recorded its biggest one-day drop since June on Thursday.

The real risk next week is the collision of these two events—not Wednesday’s decision itself.

First, the data. According to LSEG IBES, among the more than 100 companies that have already reported, overall S&P 500 third-quarter earnings are expected to grow more than 32% year over year. That’s a solid number. But the market isn’t focused on how much they’ve earned—it wants to know whether they can keep pouring money into AI. Hyperscalers are expected to spend about $800 billion on capital expenditures this year, while financing costs are rising. So every CEO has to answer the same question: when will this investment start paying off? 😬

As for the Fed, it already raised rates by 25 basis points in September, bringing them to 3.75%–4.00%. That was the first rate hike since July 2023. The consensus now is that it will hold steady this time, but the risk of a hike has been pushed entirely to December. 80% is no small number. It means that as long as inflation data doesn’t surprise to the upside, there’s a good chance of another tightening before year-end.

Crypto markets are already reacting. Bitcoin is currently at $80,618, down 1.61% over 24 hours, with a market cap of $1.62 trillion. Ethereum is at $2,365.90, down 1.98%. SOL is at $101.31, down 3.57%. Altcoins are falling harder than Bitcoin, suggesting that money is taking shelter in safer bets 📉

My take: Wednesday’s decision probably won’t be the market’s turning point. The real turning point will be the wording at Warsh’s press conference. If he talks only about this meeting and says nothing about December, the market will interpret that 80% as a done deal, and risk assets will likely take another leg down. On the other hand, if he leaves room for a “data-dependent” approach, this pullback will be seen as a window to build positions.

One more thing people are overlooking: crypto is tracking the Nasdaq right now—not the halving or on-chain narratives. If the AI trade starts to unwind after earnings, Bitcoin will likely come under pressure too. So what you should be watching next week isn’t the charts, but the capital expenditure guidance from those big cloud companies.

Are you planning to wait until Wednesday or until December before making a move with your positions? Let’s talk in the comments 👀

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream.

Every day, I’ll help you follow the major macroeconomic developments—not just what’s happening in the news, but also the logic and opportunities behind it 👀🚀

A new kind of Hong Kong dollar has appeared in 3.3 million wallets. But it isn't a deposit, and it isn't covered by deposit protection.

⚡ 有大动静群里说

On Friday, HSBC added RedCoin directly to its PayMe app. Over the next few days, more than 3.3 million users will be able to activate it on their phones, pay at over 100,000 merchants, and send it to friends—all without opening an account with a crypto exchange.

It's a Hong Kong dollar stablecoin, ticker RCHKD. Each coin is pegged to one Hong Kong dollar. The license was issued by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority in April, after it beat out at least 36 competing companies.

Soon after launch, HSBC's own reserve-tracking page showed about $10.2 million in circulation, backed by $10.4 million in cash—a full reserve. But the details matter: it runs on HSBC's own private ledger, not a public blockchain like Ethereum. You can't even transfer the balance from PayMe to HSBC's mobile banking app. And it's not a bank deposit, so Hong Kong's Deposit Protection Scheme doesn't cover it. 🦖

For comparison, Tether and Circle's stablecoins underpin a market worth more than $300 billion. Most of that money sits on trading platforms, not in neighborhood noodle shops. HSBC's $10.2 million is barely a drop in the bucket—but it occupies a completely different position: one side has liquidity, the other a merchant-acquiring network.

That's the real significance of this story. Stablecoin competition is shifting from issuing coins to distributing them. Whoever has real users and merchants can turn on-chain money into everyday payments. That's also why 21 banks, including Goldman Sachs and Bank of America, announced in September that they would jointly develop a U.S. dollar stablecoin, targeting a launch in the first half of 2027. 🏦

My take: don't rush to call this a stablecoin victory. It's more like a prepaid card dressed up as a stablecoin. It can't move freely between wallets, it has no deposit protection, and its first independent reserve attestation won't be available until after the fourth quarter of 2026. For now, you're trusting those three letters—HSBC—not the code. ⚠️

The real thing to watch is the next step at the end of the year: HSBC plans to move RedCoin into its Hong Kong mobile banking app and launch tokenized shares in its own Hong Kong dollar money market fund. That's when it moves beyond payments and into wealth management. If it works, the ones feeling the most pressure won't be Tether—they'll be banks' checking deposits. 💰

Let's talk in the comments: would you convert your spare cash into a bank-issued stablecoin, or would you rather keep it on an exchange?

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream.

Every day, we bring you the latest on stablecoins and payments—not just what happened, but the logic and opportunities behind it. 👀🚀

A flaw spanning versions 6.0 to 6.8.0: one unchecked length let a zero-knowledge proof sign off on fake books

🕐 最新解读群里更新

Succinct’s SP1 is a zkVM for verifiable execution of Rust programs. Its native Rust verifier was found to have a high-severity reliability vulnerability that could allow the mainnet Prover Network to accept invalid proofs.

A malicious prover could submit a result for an execution that never happened, and the network’s verifier would accept it as genuine. That’s exactly what should never happen with zero-knowledge proofs. 🦖

The vulnerability, GHSA-p7v2-jjv3-8p8f, was discovered by Vitalis Salis and reported through the Immunefi bug bounty program. The issue was in deserialization: the verifier uses Tensors to store multidimensional data, which include both the elements actually stored and the declared dimensions. Normally, the stored length must equal the product of the dimensions—but older versions never checked this. ⚠️

An attacker could therefore forge labels so that different verification stages read different parts of the same Tensor. Earlier checks used the declared dimensions, while later calculations used the actual storage. Once consistency was broken, an invalid execution could pass verification. Put simply, it didn’t calculate incorrectly—it was convinced.

The affected scope is clearly stated: only Core and Compressed proofs submitted directly to the affected native Rust verifier were impacted. Groth16 and Plonk proofs wrapped with fixed shapes were not affected, and the on-chain Solidity verifier was also safe. In other words, the on-chain settlement path wasn’t compromised; the issue was in the off-chain verification layer.

The timeline is also worth noting. Version 6.8.1 was released on September 24, adding a deserialization length check. The fix was deployed to the mainnet Prover Network that same day, but this advisory was only made public today—a full month later. The mainnet had already been patched, but teams running their own verifiers that haven’t been upgraded are still at risk. 📉

My take: zero-knowledge proofs have long been sold on a very strong promise: trust no one, trust only mathematics. This incident is a reminder that while the math may be sound, implementation code can have gaps. The proof system is one layer; the verifier implementation is another. The one that actually signs off is the latter. No financial losses have been reported so far, and 6.8.1 is already available—but images, containers, and self-hosted nodes running versions 6.0 to 6.8.0 won’t update themselves. 🐋

Let’s discuss in the comments: would you rather put verification in an on-chain contract, or trust an off-chain Rust verifier?

Every day, we bring you the latest in crypto security—not just what happened, but also the logic and opportunities behind the news. 👀🚀

#btc
Bought back 5,183 Bitcoin in a week—yet the price fell below $81,000 🦖

💡 群里更新数据解读

The latest analyst figures show that U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs saw a combined net inflow of 5,183 BTC this week, worth about $420 million at $81,000 per coin. More importantly, cumulative net inflows for all of 2026 have officially turned positive 📈

A week ago, almost no one would have dared imagine this number. On Thursday alone, there were still $636 million in net outflows, and October’s monthly total briefly slipped back into negative territory. The narrative then was that institutions were pulling out, while Bitcoin slid from $82,000 to below $81,000.

The reversal came in the final two trading days. To swing weekly net flows from more than $600 million in outflows to a positive 5,183 BTC, over $1 billion in spot buying had to come in during the second half of the week. That’s not the kind of volume retail investors can generate. In other words, the same institutional allocators who sold last week may well have been buying this week—they simply waited until the price reached a level they considered cheap.

What I find more interesting is the timing. This buying didn’t come in at a new high. It came during the same week that stagflation fears intensified, oil surged to its highest level since March, and gold fell below $4,000 for the first time since July. The same pool of capital was cutting its gold exposure while adding to Bitcoin. That move is more worth watching than the price itself ⚠️

But don’t rush to call it a reversal. Turning positive for a single week has only filled the hole dug earlier this year. Spot Ethereum ETFs just posted their worst month of the year, Bitmine hit its hard 5% cap and found no buyers, and Solana ETFs also recorded their worst month since launch. This shows that capital isn’t indiscriminately buying everything—it’s crowding into Bitcoin. That concentration is both support and risk.

My view: there are two things to watch next. Historically, after ETF flows turn positive for a week, it usually takes three to four consecutive weeks of net inflows to confirm a genuine trend reversal. First, can next week bring a second consecutive week of net inflows? Second, can the $80,000 level hold? If inflows dry up, these 5,183 BTC could quickly shift from support to fuel for sellers looking to exit into a rebound.

Do you think this ETF flow reversal is a signal that investors are buying the dip, or just a false move? 💥

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream

Every day, I’ll keep you up to date on Bitcoin and ETF flow trends—not just what’s happening, but also the logic and opportunities behind it 👀🚀

Three institutions have filed paperwork. They can open in 30 days without waiting for the SEC’s approval 🦖

📣 盘面异动群里喊

The SEC’s September innovation exemption for tokenized securities trading venues allows eligible companies to trade tokenized U.S. stocks directly without registering as traditional securities exchanges. But it left one loophole: the blockchain must be public and permissionless, without clarifying exactly what those four words mean.

So far, three institutions have submitted notices of intent to operate. One plans to use Canton Network, known for its privacy features; the other two plan to use Ethereum Layer 2 networks developed by their respective groups. Under the same set of rules, three technical approaches are competing for the same interpretive authority ⚖️

On Thursday, the Solana Policy Institute submitted a comment letter calling on the SEC to tighten its definition of “permissionless.” The key issue isn’t what a blockchain is called, but who actually controls it: Who can validate or block transactions? Who can change the network’s rules? Once you ask those three questions, many so-called public blockchains don’t hold up.

Hedera takes the exact opposite position. It argues that the exemption should be expanded, saying that only approved entities can participate in validation and that this characteristic shouldn’t disqualify it. One side wants tighter rules, the other wants looser ones—but the real question is the same: Does a list of validators count as centralization?

SIFMA, representing Wall Street, added another layer. It wants the SEC to clearly identify which blockchains qualify, and questions whether tokenized stocks should require the explicit consent of the issuing companies, rather than making each company opt out individually. Financial regulatory advocacy group Better Markets went further, calling for the entire exemption to be withdrawn and for the SEC to pursue formal rulemaking instead.

An SEC official said that as long as companies meet the requirements, they can begin operating 30 days after submitting a notice, without waiting for approval. That doesn’t mean the SEC endorses the blockchain they choose. The definition was deliberately left broad to give companies room to experiment. The SEC may later issue FAQs, but any substantive changes would have to be made by the Commission 🏛️

The numbers on the other side are even more striking. As of Friday, 22 of the 62 companies listed as tokenized had already objected—more than a third. New additions include Wells Fargo, Arm, and Intuit. But what will determine how this plays out isn’t those 22 objections; it’s who gets to define “permissionless.”

My take is simple: If the definition is tightened to focus on validator access, company-built Layer 2 networks will probably be ruled out, while consortium blockchains will have the advantage. If the definition stays broad, it effectively hands the bar for operating a securities exchange over to a smart contract audit report. Either outcome could be significant, but the biggest impact won’t be on retail investors—it’ll be on asset managers looking to sell funds through on-chain channels 📈

The short-term impact on ordinary token holders will be close to zero. But this will decide something much more far-reaching: When you buy U.S. stocks on-chain in the future, will the trade settle on a ledger anyone can inspect and verify, or on one where the operator can change the rules at any time?

Do you think the SEC will tighten its definition of “permissionless,” or keep the door wide open? Let’s talk in the comments.

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream.

Every day, I’ll keep you up to date on hot topics in crypto regulation—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind it 👀🚀

#比特币算力创七个月新高
Bitcoin is down 30%, yet network hashrate has hit a seven-month high: 1,228 EH/s 🦖
On October 24, Bitcoin’s average daily hashrate came in at 1,228.4 EH/s. The previous peak was 1,188.4 EH/s on March 6, making this 3.4% higher. Meanwhile, Bitcoin is trading at $80,631, down another 1.29% over the past 24 hours and 30.7% from its peak of $116,300.

💬 群里一起聊行情

More machines are coming online as prices keep falling. The fact that both are happening at once is what really makes this data stand out. ⛏️

First, difficulty: network difficulty is now 140.58T. The last adjustment raised it by 5.92%, and the next one is expected to add another 5.62%. There are 823 blocks to go, or about 5.7 days. In other words, with the same machines, miners will earn even fewer coins per day five days from now.

Let’s do the math. The network produces about 450 new bitcoins a day. At $80,631 each, that’s roughly $36.3 million. Spread across 1,228 EH/s of hashrate, each petahash earns less than $30 a day—a much thinner margin than at the start of the year. 📉

So why are miners still adding machines? Three reasons. First, newer machines are more energy-efficient, delivering more hashrate for the same electricity cost. Second, many mining farms have already locked in long-term power contracts, so their electricity prices don’t fluctuate with Bitcoin’s price every day. Third, some mining companies are redirecting excess power to AI data centers, using that additional revenue stream to support their mining operations.

But here’s the counterintuitive part: record hashrate is often interpreted as a sign of stronger network security. In the long run, that’s true. In the short term, though, it looks more like the tail end of an expansion on the supply side. Difficulty rising repeatedly means marginal miners are facing higher costs. If Bitcoin’s price falls further, the first miners to buckle will be the ones who sell their coins. Historically, miner capitulation has never started with hashrate falling. It starts when hashrate is still high, but mining revenue is no longer enough to cover electricity bills. ⚠️

So this data point is neither bullish nor bearish. It’s more like a timer. If Bitcoin’s price holds steady, this is expansion. If it falls another 5% to 10%, those same machines could become a source of selling pressure. The only question is when.

Do you think miners will capitulate first this time, or hold on? Share your thoughts in the comments.

Every day, we bring you the latest in Bitcoin mining and hashrate—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind it. 👀🚀

$22.28 million: The veteran who’s been one of crypto’s loudest bulls just sold his coins

📢 ⏰ 消息群里第一时间说

On October 24, the on-chain monitoring account Lookonchain flagged an address that had sold approximately $22.28 million worth of tokens over a recent period. That included 6,400 ETH worth $15.2 million; 14 million ENA worth $2.76 million; 323,000 UNI worth $2.24 million; 1.89 million ETHFI worth $1.23 million; 546,600 AERO worth $398,000; 120,000 PENDLE worth $244,000; and 3 million ZAMA worth $214,000.

The address belongs to Arthur Hayes, founder of the Maelstrom fund. At around the same time, he posted bluntly on X that he had closed out Maelstrom’s directional trading positions, taking profits on ETH, ENA, UNI, and other altcoins because of macroeconomic uncertainty. He wants to step aside for now and return when there are clear signs that the risks have subsided. He also offered his outlook: the market may need to fall for a while before it can rise again. 🦖

The key detail here is that he closed out Maelstrom’s directional trading positions—that is, the portion involving leverage and clear bullish or bearish bets. The announcement doesn’t say what he did with his personal long-term holdings. On-chain data shows $22.28 million in sales, but not the size of his total portfolio. So interpreting this as a complete exit would be an overstatement; it’s more accurate to see it as a reduction in risk exposure.

The second detail is the composition of the sales. Ethereum alone accounted for $15.2 million, or roughly 70%. Altcoins made up less than 30% combined. This suggests he cut the most liquid and easiest-to-sell assets, rather than dealing with the hardest-to-sell tail-end of his holdings. People who are truly in a hurry to get out usually sell what they can sell first. 💥

Now look at the market’s response. Bitcoin is currently at $80,636, down 1.03% over 24 hours. Ethereum is at $2,371, down 1.1%. UNI is down 5.47%, ENA 5.28%, and SOL 2.3%. Altcoins are generally falling two to five times as much as Bitcoin. That lines up with his view that the market could fall first and rise later. Risk appetite is shrinking, and money is retreating from the edges toward the center. 📉

In my view, public statements like this often do more damage to sentiment than the selling pressure from the $22.28 million itself. When someone who has been bullish for a long time says they’re stepping off the ride, those still on board may rethink their positions. But the real sign of a turning point isn’t the day he says he’s back—it’s whether altcoins can first stop falling relative to Bitcoin. That’s the evidence that investors are willing to move back out to the riskier parts of the market. 👀

Let’s discuss in the comments: do you think this is a temporary move to avoid risk, or has this rally really run its course? Would you reduce your positions too?

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

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream

#黄金自7月以来首次跌破4000美元
Gold falls below $4,000 for the first time in seven months
On the same day, Bitcoin slipped below $81,000, currently at $80,717, down 1.3% in 24 hours. A safe-haven asset and a risk asset, hand in hand on the way down.

📊 进群看每日策略

The market isn’t seeking safety—it’s draining liquidity 🦖

Gold hit an intraday low of $3,986, a level last seen on July 29. Bitcoin fell 3.2% on Thursday alone, sinking to a low of $80,840. Over $280 million in long positions were liquidated within 24 hours 💥
Even more striking is the money flow: Bitcoin spot ETFs saw net outflows of $636 million in a single day, wiping out all the money that had flowed in during the previous trading session. Marginal buyers are backing away.
At the same time, Brent crude surged to its highest level since March, nearing $100 a barrel. AI data center operator CoreWeave fell 15.5% in a week, as institutions slashed its price target from $74 to $51. South Korea’s KOSPI dropped to 5,305 intraday, its lowest level since late July.

Three markets are falling at once, but the logic is really just one thing: higher oil prices push inflation up, which keeps interest rates from falling. Higher discount rates weigh on all non-yielding assets. Gold and Bitcoin may look like two different kinds of assets, but when it comes to liquidity, they’re in the same category 📉
There’s another, less visible layer: when credit stress emerges in the AI sector, institutions need to meet margin calls. They sell whatever is easiest to sell first. Bitcoin trades around the clock, making it the perfect first ATM.

Three levels are worth watching: Bitcoin’s $80,000 psychological support and 50-day moving average; gold’s previous low of $3,980; and oil at $100. If oil breaks above $100, this won’t be a simple technical pullback—it’ll be the start of a stagflation trade.

My take: people buying the dip now are betting that liquidity will return. But with ETFs seeing outflows and long positions just liquidated, when both happen at the same time, the rebound is usually weaker than people expect.

Do you think this is a liquidity drain, or the beginning of a stagflation trade? Let’s talk in the comments 👀
Every day, I bring you the latest stories in the crypto market—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind it 🚀

25x leverage, 315 Ethereum, less than $30,000 left in the account

🚨 行情变了群里说

Machi Big Brother Huang Licheng’s long position in Ethereum was down 70% by noon on October 24. His entry price was $2,447.57, and his liquidation price is $2,336.9. ETH is currently at $2,374.05, leaving just 1.6% between it and liquidation 🦖

The position has a notional value of around $770,000, with only $28,000 in margin remaining. That means if the price drops another $37, the system will forcibly liquidate all 315 ETH. He lost $360,000 over the past seven days, bringing his total losses to $35.35 million ⚠️

The numbers make it clearer: 315 ETH multiplied by $2,447.57 gives a notional exposure of around $771,000. He’s using $28,000 to back a $770,000 position, leaving a margin buffer of just 3.6%—equivalent to a price move of $37. That distance can sometimes be covered by a single candlestick lasting just a few minutes. That’s the brutality of 25x leverage: a 4% move in the wrong direction can theoretically wipe out your principal 💥

The next move was even more extreme: to free up liquidity, he sold two Mutant Ape NFTs for 1 ETH each. He originally bought them for 6.13 ETH and 7.5 ETH, respectively, losing a total of 11.28 ETH—around 85%. Selling collectibles to cover margin is the classic last resort for leveraged traders. When all that’s left to sell is your profile-picture NFTs and your position, what you’re really selling is your way out 📉

The broader market hasn’t been kind either. Ethereum is down 1.03% over 24 hours, while Bitcoin is trading at $80,632, down 1.27%. U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs saw net outflows of $137.9 million yesterday, marking two consecutive trading days of heavy outflows. Ethereum ETFs, meanwhile, saw net inflows of $4.4 million. Institutions are adding modestly to their Ethereum positions, while a retail trader’s 25x leveraged position is being pushed to the liquidation line. Same price, two very different fates.

My take: one account’s liquidation won’t change the trend. 315 ETH, worth around $750,000, is barely a ripple compared with Ethereum’s daily trading volume. But the $2,336–$2,340 range is worth watching, because forced liquidations send those tokens straight into buy orders. If ETH breaks below this zone, short-term selling pressure could spike. If buyers hold the line, it would show that spot demand is still there, and the leverage flush may be nearing its end.

Let’s hear it in the comments: do you think this wick will hit $2,336, or will we bounce back to $2,400 first?

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream.

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

$150 million on-chain, but the entire chain has just one wallet holding it—and the keys? Still those same 8 controlled by the issuer

⚡ 有大动静群里说

Asset management giant Franklin Templeton moved about $150 million worth of tokenized money market fund shares onto the XRP Ledger this week. Two subscription receipts, each for $75 million, were recorded on-chain first, followed by the shares arriving in two batches of about 72.18 million each, priced at $1.039 per share. The number of shares on the chain jumped from about 48 million to 193 million—worth roughly $200 million at the transaction price, nearly four times as much. 🐋

But there’s one detail in the on-chain records: all the shares are sitting in a single address. The number of wallets holding this fund has been 1 from start to finish.

More importantly, there’s the question of control. This wallet and Franklin’s issuer account have the same set of authorized signers: eight addresses in total. Any two of them can jointly approve a transaction. In other words, whether that $200 million moves or stays put is up to any two of those eight addresses.

Don’t rush to call this a loophole. Franklin’s fund documents are explicit: holdings require approval from the issuer, which can also freeze balances or even claw back tokens. That’s what tokenized funds are selling: approval, freezing, and recovery. For institutions, these are features, not flaws. ⚖️

And one more thing: one wallet doesn’t necessarily mean one investor. Brokerages and custodians often pool shares belonging to many clients in a single account, then keep track of ownership off-chain. Franklin didn’t answer CoinDesk’s questions about whether this is an omnibus account or how many investors contributed. So the one wallet we see on-chain could belong to one person—or represent a whole group of clients.

What’s really worth watching is how the meaning of moving assets on-chain is starting to split in two.

One camp believes moving assets to a public blockchain means cutting out intermediaries. The other, like Franklin, treats a public blockchain as a cheaper system for record-keeping and settlement. Ownership, approvals, and freezes all remain in place. The trade-off is that settlement goes from two days to a few minutes.

The rankings make this even clearer. Franklin’s tokenized assets on the chain, at about $193 million, rank second. Ahead is RLUSD at about $930 million, followed by Ondo at $185 million. All three combined are still worth less than a fraction of a mid-sized stablecoin—which shows how early this market still is.

My take: the signal isn’t the amount of money, but the structure. Institutions are showing you their priorities through their wallet design: efficiency first, control second, decentralization last. For the narrative, this is a pretty honest reality check. 🦖

One more detail: when this Singapore-based structure launched last November, the minimum subscription was $20, and it was initially available only to wealth management and accredited clients. The barrier to entry is coming down as the product grows. This combination usually shows up when institutions are genuinely testing the waters.

What do you think? Are tokenized funds that can be frozen and clawed back a bridge for institutions to enter the market—or do they pull decentralization back toward centralization? Let’s talk in the comments.

I bring you the latest on RWA and tokenization every day—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind the headlines. 👀🚀

Tap my profile picture to watch the livestream