小恐龙说趋势

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

$31,000 Turned into $238 Million: A Position Opened 12 Years Ago Just Moved

👥 一起来群里抬杠

On-chain monitoring firm Lookonchain revealed that an ancient wallet that bought 100,000 ETH at an average price of $0.31 during Ethereum’s 2014 ICO sold 1,000 ETH seven hours ago. At the current price of $2,379, that sale was worth about $2.38 million.

The key isn’t how much he sold, but that he sold just 1% 🐋

This wallet still holds 99,000 ETH, worth about $235 million at current prices. The entire position is up roughly 7,674x. From a cost basis of $31,000 to a market value of $238 million, Ethereum has delivered a return of nearly 8,000x over twelve years.

But what’s really worth watching is the timing, not the numbers themselves.

ICO-era holders have a near-zero cost basis. For them, selling at any price means a profit. So to judge whether they’re about to exit, you can’t just look at how much they sold—you need to look at how they’re selling. Selling everything at once is bearish; selling in batches to test the waters is a way to gauge liquidity. This time, he moved just 1%—more like putting a small amount on the order book to see how much the market can absorb before deciding the size of the next batch.

And the timing is particularly interesting. Ethereum is currently at $2,379, down 1.19% over 24 hours. Bitcoin is at $80,863, down 1.14% over 24 hours. The whole market is moving sideways in weak conditions. He didn’t choose to sell into a rebound; he tested the waters as trading volume dwindled ⚠️

My take: this trade alone won’t make waves. $2.38 million is barely a ripple in Ethereum’s order book. But its significance as a signal outweighs its financial impact. Ancient wallets are among the market’s last diamond hands. When they start moving, it suggests that even people with virtually no cost basis are reassessing the cost of holding.

A more practical point: if this wallet sells at a pace of 1,000 ETH per week, that would amount to 52,000 ETH in a year—nearly half the position. This kind of selling doesn’t need to crash the price all at once, but it can keep putting a ceiling on every rebound 📉

So don’t rush to treat this as bearish, but don’t dismiss it as irrelevant either. What really matters is whether this wallet makes a second or third sale over the next week. If this was just a one-off test, it’s normal portfolio rebalancing. If the selling becomes consistent, that’s a whole different story 🦖

Do you think this is an old-school investor cashing out, or an early exit ahead of a bear market? Let’s talk in the comments.

Every day, I bring you updates on on-chain whales and Ethereum developments. It’s not just about what’s happening in the news—I’ll also help you understand the logic and opportunities behind it 👀🚀

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream

More than 1,500 phishing sites are already live, targeting the private keys on your phone

🕐 最新解读群里更新

On the morning of October 24, SlowMist’s Cosine issued two alerts in a row. The first said that MistEye threat intelligence hunting had discovered more than 1,500 DarkSword phishing sites deployed across the internet. They target e-commerce, impersonate major trading platforms and wallets, and cover gaming and crypto-to-crypto exchanges. The second was more direct: DarkSword is carrying out targeted attacks on crypto users with iPhones and iPads. This is no longer just about tricking you into clicking a link—it exploits iOS vulnerabilities to break out of the sandbox.

⚠️ The words “break out of the sandbox” are the key point. Apple’s sandbox is meant to isolate each app, so one app can’t access another app’s data or read its Keychain. Once that wall is bypassed, the nature of what attackers can get changes: passwords stored in the Keychain, private key files for wallets stored locally, even seed phrases in your Notes app—all on the same device. Your phone hasn’t been lost, and you haven’t told anyone your password, yet your assets may already be gone.

What makes this even more concerning is the point of entry. SlowMist says this attack primarily infects apps that are already installed. You don’t need to click an unfamiliar link or scan a QR code. An app you installed long ago could become a conduit after an update. This is a whole different level of risk from the fake airdrop-site phishing of the past: the first relies on you making a mistake; the second only requires you to do nothing.

The timeline is worth a look, too. On October 19, SlowMist published a report saying that public code had been weaponized and that iOS crypto wallets were at risk. On September 25, their position was still that they couldn’t confirm whether iPhone Safari attacks had led to stolen assets. In less than a month, the situation went from unconfirmed to 1,500 sites across the internet and targeted attacks. That escalation is faster than most people imagine when it comes to phone security.

Now look at the market. Over the past 24 hours, $498 million in positions were liquidated across the crypto market 💥—$340 million in longs and $158 million in shorts. Bitcoin long liquidations totaled $81.33 million, and Ethereum long liquidations totaled $50.55 million. Bitcoin is around $80,800, down 1.23% over 24 hours. The market is falling and people are panicking. Phishing sites are at their most effective in moments like these: you’re rushing to add to your position or switch chains, and all it takes is one domain that looks right.

What this really changes isn’t just the risk of getting hacked once—it’s the assumption that your phone is a safe place for your wallet. People used to assume that not clicking links meant they were safe. That assumption no longer holds. Wallet providers will likely rethink how they store private keys locally. Hardware wallets, multisig, and keeping assets on separate devices will come back into focus. For everyday users, the steps are simple: update your operating system, avoid installing apps from untrusted sources, and don’t keep large amounts of assets in a hot wallet on an internet-connected phone for long 🦖

Those 1,500 sites weren’t set up in a day. The fact that they’re still active shows that this operation remains highly profitable.

How many wallet apps do you have on your phone? Have you ever wondered if one of them could be the entry point? Let’s talk in the comments.

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream.

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

$415,000 a month, approximately $6.3 million in total—a senator wants Tether to hand over wallet addresses 🦖

📣 盘面异动群里喊

On October 22, U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal wrote to Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino, launching an investigation into the stablecoin issuer’s payment of approximately $6.3 million to consulting firm Nxum. He demanded contracts, cryptocurrency payment records, wallet addresses, and communications, with a response due by November 6.

Nxum was co-founded by Bo Hines, former executive director of the White House Digital Assets Advisory Committee. He owns roughly one-third of the company. That’s the heart of the issue: during the same period, he helped shape digital asset rules in government while also holding a stake in a firm paid consulting fees by a stablecoin company. The senator also noted that Hines continued coordinating with Nxum via encrypted messaging apps while in office.

The flow of funds is also quite specific. Starting in May 2025, Tether paid Nxum $415,000 a month for strategic communications, lobbying, and public relations. The senator further questioned whether Tether first transferred cryptocurrency through marketing firm Notorious, after which Nxum shareholders distributed it. After August 2025, Tether began contracting directly with Nxum and also hired Bo Hines to lead its newly established U.S. operations. ⚖️

The real point isn’t the $6.3 million. For a stablecoin giant, that figure isn’t outrageous. The real signal is those three words: wallet addresses. In the past, regulators asked stablecoin issuers for proof of reserves and audit reports. This time, they’re asking for the on-chain path taken by the funds. If this precedent is established, every issuer will have to explain every outgoing payment to the same standard as a bank. Who has connections in Washington and what those connections cost could all become public record.

In the short term, this will have almost no effect on USDT’s peg or liquidity. A letter from Congress won’t change the demand for stablecoin settlement. In the medium term, stablecoin compliance costs will spread from reserves to politics. The larger the issuer, the harder it will be to hide lobbying expenses inside consulting contracts. The capital accumulated through crypto payments is precisely what leaves the hardest-to-erase records. 💥

Let’s discuss in the comments: Do you think stablecoin companies spending big on Washington PR is normal business, or should they be required to disclose every transaction? 💬

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream

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

The buyback cap rose from $30 million to $100 million, yet this company’s own stock fell 33% in a month 🦖

📈 进群一起分析行情

On Friday, Hyperliquid Strategies expanded its share repurchase authorization from $30 million to $100 million, with about $72 million in capacity still available. It also extended the expiration date directly from December 5, 2026, to October 31, 2027. A listed company that props up its market cap by stockpiling HYPE has chosen to double down on buying back its own shares at the ugliest point for its stock.

First, just how ugly has the decline been? PURR was trading around $8.80 on Friday, down about 33% from its October 5 high of $13.05. Over the same period, the HYPE it has stockpiled fell from nearly $95 to around $77, a drop of more than 18%. Meanwhile, Bitcoin moved between $80,000 and $87,000 in October, with a maximum drawdown of about 6%. In the same month, Bitcoin moved sideways, HYPE stepped down, and the stock of a crypto-hoarding company fell even harder than the token itself ⚠️

Now, let’s look at the balance sheet. The company’s dashboard shows that it holds about 38.8 million HYPE, worth roughly $2.96 billion at current prices. It calls itself the largest digital asset treasury in the HYPE sector. Yet even the full $100 million buyback cap amounts to only 3.4% of the market value of its holdings. In other words, this is a statement of intent, not a purchase large enough to change supply and demand.

My take: this isn’t a signal that the stock has bottomed; it’s the DAT model catching up on its homework. Once the share price falls below the value of the tokens represented by each share, a buyback is the most direct tool for narrowing that discount—and more useful than a press release. But even the handiest tool can’t stop the underlying asset from falling. The real leverage has never been the buyback authorization; it’s the price of HYPE.

There’s another easy-to-miss detail: supply hasn’t stopped flowing out. On October 23, U.S. spot HYPE ETFs saw net outflows of $7.8788 million in a single day, while HYPE is still down 1.62% intraday. Cash is being used to buy back shares on one side, while money is flowing out through the ETF channel on the other. In this setup, $100 million can support sentiment, not the price 💥

Two levels are worth watching: first, whether PURR’s discount to the HYPE value represented by each share can narrow; second, whether HYPE can reclaim its October high of $95. The first will test management’s execution; the second will determine whether this business model still works.

Let’s talk in the comments: do you think the buyback can support the share price, or is it just buying a few more months before the decline continues? 👀

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream

Every day, we help you follow the biggest developments in the crypto market—not just what’s happening in the news, but also the logic and opportunities behind it 👀🚀

#pepe上涨14%领涨山寨币反弹
Bitcoin rose just 0.5%, while a frog meme coin jumped 9% in four hours. Short sellers were forced to close $2.4 million in positions 🐸

👉 进群看盘面

On October 23, PEPE climbed from the local resistance level of $0.00000476 to $0.00000502, gaining around 9% in four hours. At the same time, Bitcoin moved just 0.5%, hovering around $81,700, while other major altcoins failed to keep pace.

This rally wasn’t driven by a sudden surge in buying—it was short sellers who buckled first. According to CoinGlass liquidation data, around $2.4 million in 1000PEPE short positions were liquidated over the past 24 hours, compared with just $1.3 million in long positions. Shorts accounted for 65% of all liquidations 💥

That dynamic shaped the rally. When shorts are forced to close, they have to buy at market price. The higher the price goes, the more they buy—and the more they buy, the higher the price goes—creating a self-reinforcing squeeze. Several on-chain observers also noted that PEPE balances on centralized exchanges are declining, but public data doesn’t make clear how much those outflows contributed to the price gain.

My take is straightforward: this was a classic short-covering rally, not an influx of new money. The broader market numbers back that up. Total market capitalization is around $2.71 trillion, with $64.7 billion in 24-hour trading volume. Bitcoin dominance is 60.1%, Ethereum’s is 10.7%, and the Fear & Greed Index is just 47. Investors are still sitting on the sidelines; only a small pool of high-risk-tolerance capital is willing to take a punt on meme coins 🦖

So the key level to watch is the former resistance at $0.00000476. If it turns into support, it suggests the rotation into meme coins could continue. If the price falls back below that level, then this 9% move was just a false signal caused by liquidations—and anyone who chased the rally could be left holding the bag.

Meme coins have never been about fundamentals. It’s all about who’s still willing to buy at the last moment. $2.4 million in short positions can fuel a green candle—and turn into a tombstone for longs in the next reversal.

Do you still hold any meme coins? Are you chasing this rally?

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream

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

74.12% of SOL is locked in staking, leaving only 152.6 million tokens actually circulating in the market 🦖

🚨 行情变了群里说

On-chain data shows that as of the evening of October 23, a total of 437,116,782 SOL was staked, compared with a circulating supply of 589,708,989—a staking rate of 74.12%. In other words, only 152,592,207 tokens are available to trade each day. At $103.55 per SOL, that’s worth about $15.8 billion. Trading volume over the past 24 hours was $2.02 billion, equivalent to 12.8% of the freely circulating supply—in other words, one-eighth of the float changed hands in a single day.

This isn’t a lockup by a single institution. These are delegated stake positions spread across 664 active validators. The nominal annual yield is 4.84%, and the median validator commission is 5%, bringing the net yield to about 4.60%. Protocol inflation is 3.5889%, and the Foundation’s share has already fallen to zero. About 21.16 million new tokens are issued each year, or 57,980 per day—around $6 million of new supply at current prices.

What really determines the short-term pace is the epoch. Staking and unstaking aren’t measured by the day, but by the epoch. The current epoch is 1066, with 359,954 slots remaining. Each slot takes about 0.211 seconds in practice, so it will be roughly 21 hours before the epoch changes. If you request an unstake today, you’ll still have to wait for this epoch to end before the tokens can actually be sold. Many people think staking is mainly about yield, but first and foremost, it’s a liquidity issue.

Then there’s concentration. 664 validators sounds like a lot of diversification, but just 18 hold more than a third of the voting weight. The top ten account for 24.5% combined. Another 14 validators are flagged as offline, meaning the stake delegated to them hasn’t earned a cent during this period. ⚖️

Put simply, a 74% staking rate is both the best buffer and the most fragile lever. A thin float means small sell orders can’t push the price down much, but large sell orders can cut straight through it. SOL has barely moved over the past seven days, up just 0.08%. It’s down 4.62% over 14 days and 9.63% over 30 days, and remains 64.7% below its all-time high of $293.31. This is what price action typically looks like when the supply is locked up. 📉

A few levels are worth watching. $103.36 is the 30-day low, and Friday’s close was just 0.2% above it. Below that are the 100-day moving average at $96.16 and the 200-day moving average at $88.20. To the upside, the 50-day moving average is at $109.65, while $122.08 was the 30-day high on September 26. These levels aren’t predictions; they simply show where more of the float may become available.

My view is that a high staking rate isn’t a lock—it’s a choice made anew every day by millions of holders. If the yield becomes less attractive relative to other assets, sentiment can reverse within a single epoch. At that point, new supply will hit a market that has grown accustomed to scarcity. Conversely, as long as the real yield remains at 4.60%, this layer of locked-up supply will keep volatility in check—and amplify the move when a direction emerges. 🐋

Is the SOL you hold staked to earn yield, or sitting in your wallet ready to sell at any time? Let’s talk in the comments.

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

22 giants say no as plan to put 62 stocks on-chain is blocked by its own industry right out of the gate 🦖

⚡ 有大动静群里说

This week, Wells Fargo, Arm, and Intuit jointly submitted objections to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Add Microsoft and Google parent Alphabet, which had already objected, and the opposition list is now up to 22 companies. The platform originally named 62 stocks it wanted to put on-chain.

The platform was proposed by a joint venture between a certain exchange and Intercontinental Exchange, the parent company of the New York Stock Exchange. It filed an application with the SEC just this October, using the innovation exemption route. Its co-chair is former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. Under its proposal, U.S. stocks could trade on-chain 24 hours a day and be split into fractional shares.

But 16 of the 22 companies are listed on Nasdaq, while only 6 are listed on the NYSE. That breakdown says a lot. Nasdaq’s September guidance to issuers was quite blunt: proceed with caution before participating, because the impact on liquidity, price discovery, and long-term shareholder value may not become clear until after a lengthy period of experimentation ⚖️

In plain English, the biggest obstacle to tokenized stocks isn’t technology or regulation—it’s the listed companies themselves. Once stocks are on-chain, how will dividends be paid? Who gets the voting rights? How will stock splits and mergers be synchronized? None of these questions has been resolved. Why would a company hand its shares over to a ledger it doesn’t control?

There’s an even more practical issue: if an issuer doesn’t agree, what the platform lists may be price exposure, not actual stock. That would make it a derivative rather than a security, putting it under a completely different regulatory framework. That’s also why these 22 companies would rather upset people now than be the first guinea pigs.

My take: the hype around tokenized stocks in this cycle is overblown. The real bottleneck is corporate governance, not settlement efficiency. With 22 out of 62 companies refusing—a third of the total—the message is clear enough. Of the remaining 40, how many are silent, and how many are still watching from the sidelines? No one knows yet 💼

For the secondary market, this won’t affect Bitcoin in the short term. But it will determine how big the next story about bringing real-world assets on-chain can get. If even U.S. stocks can’t be moved on-chain, projects promising to put everything on-chain will need to rethink their valuation logic.

What do you think: will platforms push tokenized stocks through, or will listed companies have the final say? Let’s talk in the comments.

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

88.9% of the market expects the Fed to hold steady this week, yet $249 million in long positions were liquidated in 24 hours 🦖

🕐 最新解读群里更新

Data from CME FedWatch on October 24 showed an 88.9% probability that the Fed will leave rates unchanged at its October 27–28 meeting, with just an 11.1% chance of a 25-basis-point hike. A month ago, the script was different: the September meeting had already raised rates to 3.75%–4.00%—the first hike since July 2023. Now expectations have suddenly swung back to a wait-and-see stance.

The contrast is on the other side of the market. Coinglass data for the same day showed $325 million in liquidations across the crypto market over the past 24 hours: $249 million in long positions and just $76.38 million in shorts. In other words, prices barely fell, but eager buyers were the first to get flushed out 💥 Bitcoin is currently at $81,193, down just 0.24% over 24 hours. Ethereum is at $2,391 and still edging higher.

What could really undermine that 88.9% figure are two numbers behind it. Brent crude is up 3% today at $112.37, its first time above $112 since May. The 10-year Treasury yield is at 4.98%, right on the doorstep of 5% 🛢️ Oil prices and long-term interest rates are rising together. Core inflation hasn’t reflected this yet, but the market has already made no hike its default assumption.

Now look at the flows. On Thursday, U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs saw $636 million in net outflows, with the largest fund shedding $254.1 million. On one side, leveraged longs are getting liquidated; on the other, ETFs are seeing outflows. This combination usually isn’t a reversal signal—it’s a sign that positions are changing hands. What will really set the direction is whether the statement released in the early hours of October 28 changes its language on energy prices and inflation ⚠️

My take: 88.9% reflects momentum, not confidence. As long as Brent stays above $112 and the 10-year yield doesn’t fall below 4.8%, that probability could be repriced at any moment. The more crowded the positioning, the harder the stampede when a surprise hits 📉

Join the conversation in the comments: do you think the Fed will hold steady this week, or suddenly hike again? Are you using leverage on your positions, or keeping cash on hand?

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream.

Every day, I’ll help you stay on top of Fed and crypto market developments—not just what’s happening, but also the logic and opportunities behind it 👀🚀

#黄金自7月以来首次跌破4000美元
Gold has fallen from $5,586 to $4,000. Bitcoin has also dropped from $116,300 to $81,300. The two strongest safe-haven narratives of the year have broken at the same time 🦖

📣 盘面异动群里喊

On the night of October 23, gold fell below the $4,000 mark for the first time since July, briefly dipping under it. At the same time, Bitcoin was trading near $81,300, down about 30% from its year-to-date high of $116,300 📉

Let’s line up the numbers first. Gold’s 52-week high is $5,586; it’s now at $4,011, down about 28%. Bitcoin has fallen from $116,273 to $81,318, a 30% drop. Meanwhile, Brent crude is at $111.77, up more than 90% from its year-to-date low of $58.72. The 10-year Treasury yield is at 4.98%, nearing 5%, while the S&P Global US Services PMI has also pulled back. Put these five numbers together, and the picture is clear.

Many people’s first reaction is that safe-haven assets have failed. I don’t see it that way. The market has simply shifted to a different pricing logic. Gold isn’t falling because people aren’t afraid; it’s falling because it rallied too much over the past year. Profit-taking at these levels is moving faster than panic buying. With real interest rates hovering near 5%, the opportunity cost of holding non-yielding gold is too high ⚠️

Bitcoin’s decline is more straightforward. It’s now being traded as a high-beta risk asset, not digital gold. When the Nasdaq weakens, Bitcoin weakens first. It hasn’t decoupled during this AI-stock pullback, which shows that investors simply aren’t treating it as a safe haven.

Only two things are really rising: oil and yields. When both climb together, the market is pricing in stagflation—not a flight to safety 🛢️

Stagflation is the worst-case scenario for crypto. With oil above $110, inflation won’t come down. Fed Chair Warsh’s room to cut rates is being squeezed. The federal funds rate is still at 3.75%–4.00%, and it was only just raised once in September. As long as oil prices don’t retreat, valuations of risk assets will remain under pressure.

But there’s one signal pointing the other way. On Thursday, US spot Bitcoin ETFs saw $636 million in net outflows—the largest single-day outflow in October—yet the price fell only around 3%. There was no cascade of liquidations. That suggests this is a reduction in positions, not a collapse in confidence.

Keep an eye on three numbers next: $80,000, the line between bullish and bearish positions in Bitcoin; $4,000, gold’s psychological threshold; and 5%, the key round number for the 10-year yield. If two of the three break, then this stagflation trade will have truly begun.

Do you think this is the start of a stagflation trade, or just another false breakdown? Let’s talk in the comments 👀

Every day, I bring you the latest on the safe-haven battle between gold and Bitcoin—not just what’s happening in the news, but the logic and opportunities behind it 🚀

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream

$1.7 trillion asset management giant starts automatically turning clients’ stock dividends into Bitcoin 🏦

🔎 进群看完整分析

On October 22, Franklin Templeton filed Form 8-A with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, completing the final regulatory step to list two Bitcoin DRIP index ETFs on Nasdaq. The prospectuses are set to become effective on October 27. The stock-focused fund, ticker FBEQ, starts with an allocation of 95% U.S. stocks and 5% Bitcoin. The company’s regular and special dividends will be used to buy Bitcoin directly at market open on the day after the ex-dividend date, gradually increasing the position with each dividend payment.

The part worth paying attention to is the rebalancing rule. Each quarter, if Bitcoin’s share exceeds 5%, it gets cut back to 4.5%. If Bitcoin surges to 20% between rebalances, the fund must bring it back down to 4.5% within two trading days. All the excess money flows back into stocks. In other words, if it rises too fast, the fund is forced to trim its position.

The backdrop is substantial, too. The company manages about $1.7 trillion in assets. It filed for a spot Bitcoin ETF back in September 2023 and launched one in January 2024 under the ticker EZBC. In April this year, it acquired 250 Digital and established Franklin Crypto. The two new products charge 0.09% in fees and have no 12b-1 fees. They track two indexes from VettaFi. As of September 30, the stock-focused fund held 499 U.S. stocks; the innovation-focused fund selects the 100 largest non-financial companies on Nasdaq. The funds do not directly hold on-chain Bitcoin, either. Their exposure comes from Bitcoin ETPs, futures, options, and depositary receipts, with some exposure routed through a Cayman Islands subsidiary.

The contrast emerged on the very same day. On Thursday, U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs saw total net outflows of $636 million, wiping out the previous day’s net inflows in one fell swoop. The largest fund by assets saw a single-day outflow of $254.1 million. 📉

On one side, money is pulling out; on the other, a long-established asset manager is laying the groundwork for automatic buying. My take: this product wasn’t designed for crypto enthusiasts. It was designed for stock investors who would never buy Bitcoin on their own. Here, Bitcoin isn’t a speculative asset—it’s a byproduct of dividends. The allocation starts at 5% and gradually grows through annual dividend payments. The incremental buying won’t come from how much is purchased on the first day of trading, but from the mechanical buying that happens on every future ex-dividend date.

But the hard 20% cap also makes the message clear: even the issuer doesn’t think Bitcoin should be allowed to take up an unlimited share of the portfolio. If it rises too quickly, the fund is required to sell and move the proceeds back into stocks. ⚠️ Also, it doesn’t hold on-chain Bitcoin; it gets exposure through ETPs and derivatives. Be sure to understand the tracking error and counterparty risks. Don’t treat a 5% allocation as a reason to go all in. 🦖

Would you let your stock dividends automatically turn into Bitcoin, or would you rather take the cash? Let’s talk in the comments.

Every day, I bring you the latest on institutional money and Bitcoin. I don’t just report what’s happening—I help you understand the logic and opportunities behind it. 👀🚀

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream