痞子范
1.3k Posts
痞子范
Report
Block User
🔸推特：@0xpizi🔸web3扫链佛系选手，低倍合约爱好者，现货囤币执行者🔸币安手续费8折邀请码：PZ666🔸
Frequent Trader
8.9 Years
332 Following
5.8K+ Followers
6.2K+ Liked
Posts
All
Quotes
Videos
Live
PINNED
·
--
Bullish
I've been calling out $NEAR every day. I wonder if you guys have gotten on board yet? Those who haven't will regret it one day.
{future}(NEARUSDT)
I've been calling out $NEAR every day. I wonder if you guys have gotten on board yet? Those who haven't will regret it one day.
1
1
174
PINNED
·
--
Article
Where does the money in the next cycle come from?Let’s say something blunt: most of the time in the crypto space, money doesn’t grow out of "narrative"—it grows out of "there are people outside who genuinely need this thing."
Narrative is the megaphone; demand is the engine. What was the engine in the last cycle? DeFi LEGO + liquidity mining. The cycle before that? An ICO shell game. It’s the same every time—first people really use it, then the narrative chases after it, and finally the narrative runs ahead of demand, and that’s when the bubble comes.
At this point in time, I see two main storylines that have engines, two more that are still looking for engines. And I’ll add a few more that others haven’t mentioned but that I think should be mentioned.
Where does the money in the next cycle come from?
Let’s say something blunt: most of the time in the crypto space, money doesn’t grow out of "narrative"—it grows out of "there are people outside who genuinely need this thing."
Narrative is the megaphone; demand is the engine. What was the engine in the last cycle? DeFi LEGO + liquidity mining. The cycle before that? An ICO shell game. It’s the same every time—first people really use it, then the narrative chases after it, and finally the narrative runs ahead of demand, and that’s when the bubble comes.
At this point in time, I see two main storylines that have engines, two more that are still looking for engines. And I’ll add a few more that others haven’t mentioned but that I think should be mentioned.
Narrative is the megaphone; demand is the engine. What was the engine in the last cycle? DeFi LEGO + liquidity mining. The cycle before that? An ICO shell game. It’s the same every time—first people really use it, then the narrative chases after it, and finally the narrative runs ahead of demand, and that’s when the bubble comes.
At this point in time, I see two main storylines that have engines, two more that are still looking for engines. And I’ll add a few more that others haven’t mentioned but that I think should be mentioned.
1
1.8k
·
--
Whales are watching this:
Circle burned 50 million USDC on Ethereum.
Burns generally correspond to redemptions; repeated burns could signal a contraction in liquidity.
$BTC is worth keeping an eye on.
Whales are watching this:
Circle burned 50 million USDC on Ethereum.
Burns generally correspond to redemptions; repeated burns could signal a contraction in liquidity.
$BTC is worth keeping an eye on.
Circle burned 50 million USDC on Ethereum.
Burns generally correspond to redemptions; repeated burns could signal a contraction in liquidity.
$BTC is worth keeping an eye on.
61
·
--
Rascal’s Crypto + AI Morning Brief · 2026-10-22【Crypto】
1 | Lighter seeks U.S. license, for institutions only
It’s been negotiating with the CFTC for a long time and will submit its application next month. The review could take up to 280 days. Once approved, it won’t be open to retail investors—only institutions. LIT briefly rose 15% in 24 hours.
→ The earliest launch is in the second half of 2027. That 15% is pricing in eligibility, not revenue. Keep an eye on whether the Robinhood path reopens.
2 | OCC drops stablecoin yield restrictions; bankers’ association turns against it
The GENIUS Act’s final rules drop the proposed yield restrictions on stablecoins, drawing ire from the American Bankers Association. Its CEO says it’s wrong to wait until deposits start flowing out to address the issue.
Rascal’s Crypto + AI Morning Brief · 2026-10-22
【Crypto】
1 | Lighter seeks U.S. license, for institutions only
It’s been negotiating with the CFTC for a long time and will submit its application next month. The review could take up to 280 days. Once approved, it won’t be open to retail investors—only institutions. LIT briefly rose 15% in 24 hours.
→ The earliest launch is in the second half of 2027. That 15% is pricing in eligibility, not revenue. Keep an eye on whether the Robinhood path reopens.
2 | OCC drops stablecoin yield restrictions; bankers’ association turns against it
The GENIUS Act’s final rules drop the proposed yield restrictions on stablecoins, drawing ire from the American Bankers Association. Its CEO says it’s wrong to wait until deposits start flowing out to address the issue.
1 | Lighter seeks U.S. license, for institutions only
It’s been negotiating with the CFTC for a long time and will submit its application next month. The review could take up to 280 days. Once approved, it won’t be open to retail investors—only institutions. LIT briefly rose 15% in 24 hours.
→ The earliest launch is in the second half of 2027. That 15% is pricing in eligibility, not revenue. Keep an eye on whether the Robinhood path reopens.
2 | OCC drops stablecoin yield restrictions; bankers’ association turns against it
The GENIUS Act’s final rules drop the proposed yield restrictions on stablecoins, drawing ire from the American Bankers Association. Its CEO says it’s wrong to wait until deposits start flowing out to address the issue.
367
·
--
Article
As of publication (10-22 08:02), BTC is trading at 84,176 USDT, up 1.48% over 24 hours, with an intraday high of 84,898 and a low of 82,635. The Fear and Greed Index is 68, up from 63 yesterday.First, the takeaway: Yesterday’s article identified 83,439 as a key confirmation level. On both October 20 and 21, the price was capped there, leading to the view that “a sustained break above it, alongside a recovery in OI, would turn the rebound into an offensive move.” Looking back this morning, both conditions have been met: the price not only broke above 83,439 but pushed all the way to 84,898; OI rose in tandem from 95,026 BTC to a peak of 98,971, expanding by about 3.9% in 12 hours. This rally was driven by new positions entering the market, not merely by short covering.
But only half the picture has played out. After peaking, OI began to fall and now stands at 98,002, down about 1% from its peak. On the 1-hour chart, the MACD histogram has contracted from 37.3 to -45.5, signaling that short-term momentum is cooling. The price is still above 84,000, but it has yet to muster enough momentum to break through 84,900. So there’s just one key question today: Is the area above 83,439 the start of a new trend, or another overhang that the market will need to absorb repeatedly?
As of publication (10-22 08:02), BTC is trading at 84,176 USDT, up 1.48% over 24 hours, with an intraday high of 84,898 and a low of 82,635. The Fear and Greed Index is 68, up from 63 yesterday.
First, the takeaway: Yesterday’s article identified 83,439 as a key confirmation level. On both October 20 and 21, the price was capped there, leading to the view that “a sustained break above it, alongside a recovery in OI, would turn the rebound into an offensive move.” Looking back this morning, both conditions have been met: the price not only broke above 83,439 but pushed all the way to 84,898; OI rose in tandem from 95,026 BTC to a peak of 98,971, expanding by about 3.9% in 12 hours. This rally was driven by new positions entering the market, not merely by short covering.
But only half the picture has played out. After peaking, OI began to fall and now stands at 98,002, down about 1% from its peak. On the 1-hour chart, the MACD histogram has contracted from 37.3 to -45.5, signaling that short-term momentum is cooling. The price is still above 84,000, but it has yet to muster enough momentum to break through 84,900. So there’s just one key question today: Is the area above 83,439 the start of a new trend, or another overhang that the market will need to absorb repeatedly?
But only half the picture has played out. After peaking, OI began to fall and now stands at 98,002, down about 1% from its peak. On the 1-hour chart, the MACD histogram has contracted from 37.3 to -45.5, signaling that short-term momentum is cooling. The price is still above 84,000, but it has yet to muster enough momentum to break through 84,900. So there’s just one key question today: Is the area above 83,439 the start of a new trend, or another overhang that the market will need to absorb repeatedly?
1.2k
·
--
The bull market is back—hurry back!
near:native zcash:native ethereum:0xca14007eff0db1f8135f4c25b34de49ab0d42766 base:0xacfe6019ed1a7dc6f7b508c02d1b04ec88cc21bf ethereum:0x232ce3bd40fcd6f80f3d55a522d03f25df784ee2
The bull market is back—hurry back!
near:native zcash:native ethereum:0xca14007eff0db1f8135f4c25b34de49ab0d42766 base:0xacfe6019ed1a7dc6f7b508c02d1b04ec88cc21bf ethereum:0x232ce3bd40fcd6f80f3d55a522d03f25df784ee2
near:native zcash:native ethereum:0xca14007eff0db1f8135f4c25b34de49ab0d42766 base:0xacfe6019ed1a7dc6f7b508c02d1b04ec88cc21bf ethereum:0x232ce3bd40fcd6f80f3d55a522d03f25df784ee2
727
·
--
Bullish
$STRK is also a pretty good target
{future}(STRKUSDT)
$STRK is also a pretty good target
1
338
·
--
Bullish
The bull is back—come back quickly! $BTC
{future}(BTCUSDT)
The bull is back—come back quickly! $BTC
120
·
--
Zuckerberg says Musk was right to cut 80% of Twitter’s workforce.
He actually said this on the Lex Fridman podcast in 2023. He praised three main things: making the company more tech-focused, reducing management layers, and bringing engineers closer to the people making decisions. As for whether Musk cut too many or too few people, his exact words were, “It’s hard for outsiders to judge, and it’s not my place to comment.”
But I think one thing he said really hit the mark: a lot of bosses had long felt that the company needed this kind of change—they just didn’t dare make the first move. Musk did, and then a whole bunch of companies followed suit and cut middle management.
Twitter went from more than 7,500 employees to around 1,500. Back then, everyone was waiting to see it collapse, but it’s still running. That said, the cost over these past three years has been substantial: a lot of advertisers left, there have been several outages, and many of the people who were laid off still haven’t found suitable jobs.
My own feeling is that jobs built around “hierarchies” and “meetings” will get harder and harder to hold on to—and AI is accelerating that shift. People who can directly build things and take responsibility for the results will be more valuable.
Rather than worry about getting laid off, ask yourself every day: if the company kept only 20% of its people tomorrow, would I be one of them?
Zuckerberg says Musk was right to cut 80% of Twitter’s workforce.
He actually said this on the Lex Fridman podcast in 2023. He praised three main things: making the company more tech-focused, reducing management layers, and bringing engineers closer to the people making decisions. As for whether Musk cut too many or too few people, his exact words were, “It’s hard for outsiders to judge, and it’s not my place to comment.”
But I think one thing he said really hit the mark: a lot of bosses had long felt that the company needed this kind of change—they just didn’t dare make the first move. Musk did, and then a whole bunch of companies followed suit and cut middle management.
Twitter went from more than 7,500 employees to around 1,500. Back then, everyone was waiting to see it collapse, but it’s still running. That said, the cost over these past three years has been substantial: a lot of advertisers left, there have been several outages, and many of the people who were laid off still haven’t found suitable jobs.
My own feeling is that jobs built around “hierarchies” and “meetings” will get harder and harder to hold on to—and AI is accelerating that shift. People who can directly build things and take responsibility for the results will be more valuable.
Rather than worry about getting laid off, ask yourself every day: if the company kept only 20% of its people tomorrow, would I be one of them?
He actually said this on the Lex Fridman podcast in 2023. He praised three main things: making the company more tech-focused, reducing management layers, and bringing engineers closer to the people making decisions. As for whether Musk cut too many or too few people, his exact words were, “It’s hard for outsiders to judge, and it’s not my place to comment.”
But I think one thing he said really hit the mark: a lot of bosses had long felt that the company needed this kind of change—they just didn’t dare make the first move. Musk did, and then a whole bunch of companies followed suit and cut middle management.
Twitter went from more than 7,500 employees to around 1,500. Back then, everyone was waiting to see it collapse, but it’s still running. That said, the cost over these past three years has been substantial: a lot of advertisers left, there have been several outages, and many of the people who were laid off still haven’t found suitable jobs.
My own feeling is that jobs built around “hierarchies” and “meetings” will get harder and harder to hold on to—and AI is accelerating that shift. People who can directly build things and take responsibility for the results will be more valuable.
Rather than worry about getting laid off, ask yourself every day: if the company kept only 20% of its people tomorrow, would I be one of them?
161
·
--
Blue V verification used to be approved within a few hours. Why has it been under review for over a day now? What's going on? Is there a problem with my account?
Blue V verification used to be approved within a few hours. Why has it been under review for over a day now? What's going on? Is there a problem with my account?
84
·
--
The fruits widely regarded as nutritional powerhouses
5th place: Banana
High in potassium and easy to carry and eat, bananas are great for a quick energy boost and post-workout recovery. They also stand out for their value and convenience.
2nd place: Kiwi
High in vitamin C (one medium kiwi can meet most of your daily needs), kiwis also contain actinidin and dietary fiber, which support digestion, help cut through rich foods, and promote gut health.
1st place: Blueberry
A powerful antioxidant and anti-aging fruit, blueberries are rich in anthocyanins, which help protect cells and support cognitive and cardiovascular health.
The fruits widely regarded as nutritional powerhouses
5th place: Banana
High in potassium and easy to carry and eat, bananas are great for a quick energy boost and post-workout recovery. They also stand out for their value and convenience.
2nd place: Kiwi
High in vitamin C (one medium kiwi can meet most of your daily needs), kiwis also contain actinidin and dietary fiber, which support digestion, help cut through rich foods, and promote gut health.
1st place: Blueberry
A powerful antioxidant and anti-aging fruit, blueberries are rich in anthocyanins, which help protect cells and support cognitive and cardiovascular health.
5th place: Banana
High in potassium and easy to carry and eat, bananas are great for a quick energy boost and post-workout recovery. They also stand out for their value and convenience.
2nd place: Kiwi
High in vitamin C (one medium kiwi can meet most of your daily needs), kiwis also contain actinidin and dietary fiber, which support digestion, help cut through rich foods, and promote gut health.
1st place: Blueberry
A powerful antioxidant and anti-aging fruit, blueberries are rich in anthocyanins, which help protect cells and support cognitive and cardiovascular health.
1
1.8k
·
--
24-hour protocol revenue rankings from a financial perspective (only including protocols whose tokens are tradable on Binance):
No.1 $HYPE Hyperliquid | $2.39 million
No.2 $PUMP Pump | $2.01 million
No.3 $SKY Sky | $439,000
No.4 WLFI World Liberty Financial | $382,000
No.5 UNI Uniswap | $294,000
The total for all protocols on the list is $5.51 million, backed by real user demand. Hyperliquid alone brought in $2.39 million.
What I’m focused on is whether high-revenue protocols have a corresponding token buyback mechanism—that determines whether revenue flows through to the token.
From a large holder’s perspective, revenue analysis usually involves two figures: circulating market cap divided by annualized revenue (similar to a price-to-sales ratio), and the share of revenue that goes to token holders. These are just starting points; you also need to look at token distribution and the team’s token allocation. If you were in this position, how would you respond?
#HYPE
24-hour protocol revenue rankings from a financial perspective (only including protocols whose tokens are tradable on Binance):
No.1 $HYPE Hyperliquid | $2.39 million
No.2 $PUMP Pump | $2.01 million
No.3 $SKY Sky | $439,000
No.4 WLFI World Liberty Financial | $382,000
No.5 UNI Uniswap | $294,000
The total for all protocols on the list is $5.51 million, backed by real user demand. Hyperliquid alone brought in $2.39 million.
What I’m focused on is whether high-revenue protocols have a corresponding token buyback mechanism—that determines whether revenue flows through to the token.
From a large holder’s perspective, revenue analysis usually involves two figures: circulating market cap divided by annualized revenue (similar to a price-to-sales ratio), and the share of revenue that goes to token holders. These are just starting points; you also need to look at token distribution and the team’s token allocation. If you were in this position, how would you respond?
#HYPE
No.1 $HYPE Hyperliquid | $2.39 million
No.2 $PUMP Pump | $2.01 million
No.3 $SKY Sky | $439,000
No.4 WLFI World Liberty Financial | $382,000
No.5 UNI Uniswap | $294,000
The total for all protocols on the list is $5.51 million, backed by real user demand. Hyperliquid alone brought in $2.39 million.
What I’m focused on is whether high-revenue protocols have a corresponding token buyback mechanism—that determines whether revenue flows through to the token.
From a large holder’s perspective, revenue analysis usually involves two figures: circulating market cap divided by annualized revenue (similar to a price-to-sales ratio), and the share of revenue that goes to token holders. These are just starting points; you also need to look at token distribution and the team’s token allocation. If you were in this position, how would you respond?
#HYPE
125
·
--
When you’re browsing the web, there’s a little lock in the address bar. It means the website’s identity has been verified. Verification relies on digital certificates issued by certificate authorities. Think of it this way: a certificate authority gives a website an ID card and stamps it with a seal whose design is a string of numbers.
One certificate authority had 8 seals with these designs: 4, 56, 66, 115, 155, 156, 230, 237.
The number should normally be more than a hundred digits long. In reality, it’s no more than three digits.
So anyone with a copy of a public certificate could try all 256 possibilities, one by one, and copy the seal in less than a second.
The seal wasn’t stolen. It stayed right where it was; nobody touched the server. The design was just too short.
The person who discovered this used each of the 8 seals to stamp a message and sent it to several browser companies: “We have a problem here—Wayne.” Firefox blocked them three hours later, Google did so that same day, and Apple and Microsoft followed within a couple of days.
These 8 seals were made in April 2025, 18 months apart.
When verifying a certificate, the system only checks whether “the seal is correct.” It never checks whether “the design is long enough and random enough.”
So a seal with a design of 4 gets the same verification result as a genuinely random, long seal: valid.
And there’s no record saying, “This certificate was stamped with a weak seal.” For 18 months, every system showed everything as normal. Debian had the same kind of problem in 2008: something went wrong during generation, and the validation step failed to catch it.
A larger authority also vouched for these 8 seals, doubling the total to 16.
If someone used them to impersonate an exchange or wallet website you use, the lock in your browser would still be green, and the web address would still look right. You wouldn’t know what a person in the middle saw or changed, and nothing would be recorded.
The good news is that these 8 seals haven’t been used to sign certificates for specific websites, and there are no public reports of misuse.
The bad news is that your Docker images, old servers, cameras, and software that doesn’t check whether a certificate has been revoked won’t update themselves. They’ll still trust all 16.
I’m inclined to see this as a systemic problem, not a case of one company slipping up. The audit didn’t catch it because it checked the process.
Will the next person to discover something like this also just happen to be someone who ran the numbers?
When you’re browsing the web, there’s a little lock in the address bar. It means the website’s identity has been verified. Verification relies on digital certificates issued by certificate authorities. Think of it this way: a certificate authority gives a website an ID card and stamps it with a seal whose design is a string of numbers.
One certificate authority had 8 seals with these designs: 4, 56, 66, 115, 155, 156, 230, 237.
The number should normally be more than a hundred digits long. In reality, it’s no more than three digits.
So anyone with a copy of a public certificate could try all 256 possibilities, one by one, and copy the seal in less than a second.
The seal wasn’t stolen. It stayed right where it was; nobody touched the server. The design was just too short.
The person who discovered this used each of the 8 seals to stamp a message and sent it to several browser companies: “We have a problem here—Wayne.” Firefox blocked them three hours later, Google did so that same day, and Apple and Microsoft followed within a couple of days.
These 8 seals were made in April 2025, 18 months apart.
When verifying a certificate, the system only checks whether “the seal is correct.” It never checks whether “the design is long enough and random enough.”
So a seal with a design of 4 gets the same verification result as a genuinely random, long seal: valid.
And there’s no record saying, “This certificate was stamped with a weak seal.” For 18 months, every system showed everything as normal. Debian had the same kind of problem in 2008: something went wrong during generation, and the validation step failed to catch it.
A larger authority also vouched for these 8 seals, doubling the total to 16.
If someone used them to impersonate an exchange or wallet website you use, the lock in your browser would still be green, and the web address would still look right. You wouldn’t know what a person in the middle saw or changed, and nothing would be recorded.
The good news is that these 8 seals haven’t been used to sign certificates for specific websites, and there are no public reports of misuse.
The bad news is that your Docker images, old servers, cameras, and software that doesn’t check whether a certificate has been revoked won’t update themselves. They’ll still trust all 16.
I’m inclined to see this as a systemic problem, not a case of one company slipping up. The audit didn’t catch it because it checked the process.
Will the next person to discover something like this also just happen to be someone who ran the numbers?
One certificate authority had 8 seals with these designs: 4, 56, 66, 115, 155, 156, 230, 237.
The number should normally be more than a hundred digits long. In reality, it’s no more than three digits.
So anyone with a copy of a public certificate could try all 256 possibilities, one by one, and copy the seal in less than a second.
The seal wasn’t stolen. It stayed right where it was; nobody touched the server. The design was just too short.
The person who discovered this used each of the 8 seals to stamp a message and sent it to several browser companies: “We have a problem here—Wayne.” Firefox blocked them three hours later, Google did so that same day, and Apple and Microsoft followed within a couple of days.
These 8 seals were made in April 2025, 18 months apart.
When verifying a certificate, the system only checks whether “the seal is correct.” It never checks whether “the design is long enough and random enough.”
So a seal with a design of 4 gets the same verification result as a genuinely random, long seal: valid.
And there’s no record saying, “This certificate was stamped with a weak seal.” For 18 months, every system showed everything as normal. Debian had the same kind of problem in 2008: something went wrong during generation, and the validation step failed to catch it.
A larger authority also vouched for these 8 seals, doubling the total to 16.
If someone used them to impersonate an exchange or wallet website you use, the lock in your browser would still be green, and the web address would still look right. You wouldn’t know what a person in the middle saw or changed, and nothing would be recorded.
The good news is that these 8 seals haven’t been used to sign certificates for specific websites, and there are no public reports of misuse.
The bad news is that your Docker images, old servers, cameras, and software that doesn’t check whether a certificate has been revoked won’t update themselves. They’ll still trust all 16.
I’m inclined to see this as a systemic problem, not a case of one company slipping up. The audit didn’t catch it because it checked the process.
Will the next person to discover something like this also just happen to be someone who ran the numbers?
105
·
--
Fund Flow Watch:
$SOL : 0x4a49…a653 opened a short position worth $892,000 at 106.1279.
A new short position—betting on a price drop. The opening price often becomes a focal point for short-term trading battles.
Do you buy this data?
#SOL
Fund Flow Watch:
$SOL : 0x4a49…a653 opened a short position worth $892,000 at 106.1279.
A new short position—betting on a price drop. The opening price often becomes a focal point for short-term trading battles.
Do you buy this data?
#SOL
$SOL : 0x4a49…a653 opened a short position worth $892,000 at 106.1279.
A new short position—betting on a price drop. The opening price often becomes a focal point for short-term trading battles.
Do you buy this data?
#SOL
167
·
--
Last night, SpaceX released its earnings: it made $4.4 billion. It had lost $1.05 billion in the same period last year, so this is its first profitable year since going public.
One business line in the report is AI compute—the company rents out GPUs in its data centers to run models. It brought in $7.56 billion in a single quarter, nearly triple the previous quarter, for the first time accounting for more than half of total revenue. Its gross margin was 65%.
The CFO said the newly purchased machines would pay for themselves in less than a year. Musk added that getting payback within six months next year wasn’t out of the question.
How can it be so profitable? Musk says the amount of intelligence you can get from each watt of electricity will keep increasing, so compute prices will keep rising. Renewal rates are already higher than before.
That’s why he’s opting for short-term contracts: one year at a time, renegotiate the price next year, and keep the increase for himself.
The same day, Anthropic, the company behind Claude, also put out its IPO prospectus. It says it plans to spend around $450 billion on cloud services over the next seven to ten years, including more than $160 billion just to rent Google chips.
One company selling compute will only sign one-year contracts. One company buying compute has signed up for ten years.
If compute really gets more expensive year after year, Anthropic will have bought in at the bottom, while SpaceX will have given up the gains from rising prices.
But if the whole industry builds data centers next year and ends up with more machines than it can use, prices could turn around and fall. Then the outcome is reversed: the one-year contracts bring in less money right away, while the ten-year contracts are locked in at $600 billion with no way out.
He says compute will never be sufficient, yet has raised next quarter’s equipment budget to $35–40 billion—double the original plan. If it’ll really never be enough, why the rush?
Rental rates quoted by two independent firms are both at record highs. But CoreWeave, a company that makes its money specifically by renting out compute, has seen its stock fall to a year-and-a-half low.
Rental rates are rising, while the stock of a company that lives off rental income is falling. The market isn’t questioning whether prices are high now; it’s questioning how long they can stay high.
I lean toward short-term contracts, at least through 2027. It takes time to build a data center and get it connected to power, so the shortfall won’t disappear overnight.
But for companies that have signed ten-year contracts, that certainty comes at a price. They’ve paid in advance for the increases that would otherwise come year after year.
The reasons to disagree probably come down to financing.
Last night, SpaceX released its earnings: it made $4.4 billion. It had lost $1.05 billion in the same period last year, so this is its first profitable year since going public.
One business line in the report is AI compute—the company rents out GPUs in its data centers to run models. It brought in $7.56 billion in a single quarter, nearly triple the previous quarter, for the first time accounting for more than half of total revenue. Its gross margin was 65%.
The CFO said the newly purchased machines would pay for themselves in less than a year. Musk added that getting payback within six months next year wasn’t out of the question.
How can it be so profitable? Musk says the amount of intelligence you can get from each watt of electricity will keep increasing, so compute prices will keep rising. Renewal rates are already higher than before.
That’s why he’s opting for short-term contracts: one year at a time, renegotiate the price next year, and keep the increase for himself.
The same day, Anthropic, the company behind Claude, also put out its IPO prospectus. It says it plans to spend around $450 billion on cloud services over the next seven to ten years, including more than $160 billion just to rent Google chips.
One company selling compute will only sign one-year contracts. One company buying compute has signed up for ten years.
If compute really gets more expensive year after year, Anthropic will have bought in at the bottom, while SpaceX will have given up the gains from rising prices.
But if the whole industry builds data centers next year and ends up with more machines than it can use, prices could turn around and fall. Then the outcome is reversed: the one-year contracts bring in less money right away, while the ten-year contracts are locked in at $600 billion with no way out.
He says compute will never be sufficient, yet has raised next quarter’s equipment budget to $35–40 billion—double the original plan. If it’ll really never be enough, why the rush?
Rental rates quoted by two independent firms are both at record highs. But CoreWeave, a company that makes its money specifically by renting out compute, has seen its stock fall to a year-and-a-half low.
Rental rates are rising, while the stock of a company that lives off rental income is falling. The market isn’t questioning whether prices are high now; it’s questioning how long they can stay high.
I lean toward short-term contracts, at least through 2027. It takes time to build a data center and get it connected to power, so the shortfall won’t disappear overnight.
But for companies that have signed ten-year contracts, that certainty comes at a price. They’ve paid in advance for the increases that would otherwise come year after year.
The reasons to disagree probably come down to financing.
One business line in the report is AI compute—the company rents out GPUs in its data centers to run models. It brought in $7.56 billion in a single quarter, nearly triple the previous quarter, for the first time accounting for more than half of total revenue. Its gross margin was 65%.
The CFO said the newly purchased machines would pay for themselves in less than a year. Musk added that getting payback within six months next year wasn’t out of the question.
How can it be so profitable? Musk says the amount of intelligence you can get from each watt of electricity will keep increasing, so compute prices will keep rising. Renewal rates are already higher than before.
That’s why he’s opting for short-term contracts: one year at a time, renegotiate the price next year, and keep the increase for himself.
The same day, Anthropic, the company behind Claude, also put out its IPO prospectus. It says it plans to spend around $450 billion on cloud services over the next seven to ten years, including more than $160 billion just to rent Google chips.
One company selling compute will only sign one-year contracts. One company buying compute has signed up for ten years.
If compute really gets more expensive year after year, Anthropic will have bought in at the bottom, while SpaceX will have given up the gains from rising prices.
But if the whole industry builds data centers next year and ends up with more machines than it can use, prices could turn around and fall. Then the outcome is reversed: the one-year contracts bring in less money right away, while the ten-year contracts are locked in at $600 billion with no way out.
He says compute will never be sufficient, yet has raised next quarter’s equipment budget to $35–40 billion—double the original plan. If it’ll really never be enough, why the rush?
Rental rates quoted by two independent firms are both at record highs. But CoreWeave, a company that makes its money specifically by renting out compute, has seen its stock fall to a year-and-a-half low.
Rental rates are rising, while the stock of a company that lives off rental income is falling. The market isn’t questioning whether prices are high now; it’s questioning how long they can stay high.
I lean toward short-term contracts, at least through 2027. It takes time to build a data center and get it connected to power, so the shortfall won’t disappear overnight.
But for companies that have signed ten-year contracts, that certainty comes at a price. They’ve paid in advance for the increases that would otherwise come year after year.
The reasons to disagree probably come down to financing.
1
177
·
--
Pizi Ge’s Crypto + AI Morning Brief · 2026-10-21Pizi Ge’s Crypto + AI Morning Brief · 2026-10-21
BTC 82,992, up 1.03% in 24 hours.
【Crypto】
1. Bitmine stakes another 159,700 ETH, bringing its total to 5.227 million
Worth about $12.8 billion. Another 1.33 million ETH are waiting in the staking entry queue, with a wait of over 23 days; the exit queue has just 149,000 ETH, with a wait of less than 4 days.
→ Far more ETH is looking to be locked up than to get out. 5.227 million ETH is about 4.3% of the circulating supply. When one company holds this much, it tightens supply if it doesn’t sell—and if it does, there may not be enough buyers to absorb it.
2. 16 companies, including Microsoft, Alphabet, and Goldman Sachs, reject putting their own shares onchain
OKX-ICE co-chair Cuomo called it a “normal reaction,” saying the model gives companies the right to join or leave.
Pizi Ge’s Crypto + AI Morning Brief · 2026-10-21
Pizi Ge’s Crypto + AI Morning Brief · 2026-10-21
BTC 82,992, up 1.03% in 24 hours.
【Crypto】
1. Bitmine stakes another 159,700 ETH, bringing its total to 5.227 million
Worth about $12.8 billion. Another 1.33 million ETH are waiting in the staking entry queue, with a wait of over 23 days; the exit queue has just 149,000 ETH, with a wait of less than 4 days.
→ Far more ETH is looking to be locked up than to get out. 5.227 million ETH is about 4.3% of the circulating supply. When one company holds this much, it tightens supply if it doesn’t sell—and if it does, there may not be enough buyers to absorb it.
2. 16 companies, including Microsoft, Alphabet, and Goldman Sachs, reject putting their own shares onchain
OKX-ICE co-chair Cuomo called it a “normal reaction,” saying the model gives companies the right to join or leave.
BTC 82,992, up 1.03% in 24 hours.
【Crypto】
1. Bitmine stakes another 159,700 ETH, bringing its total to 5.227 million
Worth about $12.8 billion. Another 1.33 million ETH are waiting in the staking entry queue, with a wait of over 23 days; the exit queue has just 149,000 ETH, with a wait of less than 4 days.
→ Far more ETH is looking to be locked up than to get out. 5.227 million ETH is about 4.3% of the circulating supply. When one company holds this much, it tightens supply if it doesn’t sell—and if it does, there may not be enough buyers to absorb it.
2. 16 companies, including Microsoft, Alphabet, and Goldman Sachs, reject putting their own shares onchain
OKX-ICE co-chair Cuomo called it a “normal reaction,” saying the model gives companies the right to join or leave.
210
·
--
Partly True
Article
BTC has broken above resistance, but bullish positions haven’t followedKey takeaway
BTC was trading at $82,891 this morning, up 1.2% over 24 hours. The key resistance band from yesterday’s article—the narrow zone between $82,194 and $82,397 where the 4H EMA20/50/200 converge—is now below the price. Yesterday, we said “the market will choose a direction in the next day or two.” It has given the bulls an initial answer: up.
But don’t rush to label it just yet. There are two things about this rally that don’t look like a genuine push higher. First, open interest in futures fell from 95,035 BTC to 94,819 BTC over 24 hours. The price rose 1.2%, while positions actually declined 0.2%. Second, over the past four hours, liquidations across the market totaled $155 million, of which $140 million came from short positions. The price rise was driven by shorts getting squeezed and exiting at a loss—not by new money coming in to open long positions. How far a breakout of this kind can go depends on whether positions follow through.
BTC has broken above resistance, but bullish positions haven’t followed
Key takeaway
BTC was trading at $82,891 this morning, up 1.2% over 24 hours. The key resistance band from yesterday’s article—the narrow zone between $82,194 and $82,397 where the 4H EMA20/50/200 converge—is now below the price. Yesterday, we said “the market will choose a direction in the next day or two.” It has given the bulls an initial answer: up.
But don’t rush to label it just yet. There are two things about this rally that don’t look like a genuine push higher. First, open interest in futures fell from 95,035 BTC to 94,819 BTC over 24 hours. The price rose 1.2%, while positions actually declined 0.2%. Second, over the past four hours, liquidations across the market totaled $155 million, of which $140 million came from short positions. The price rise was driven by shorts getting squeezed and exiting at a loss—not by new money coming in to open long positions. How far a breakout of this kind can go depends on whether positions follow through.
BTC was trading at $82,891 this morning, up 1.2% over 24 hours. The key resistance band from yesterday’s article—the narrow zone between $82,194 and $82,397 where the 4H EMA20/50/200 converge—is now below the price. Yesterday, we said “the market will choose a direction in the next day or two.” It has given the bulls an initial answer: up.
But don’t rush to label it just yet. There are two things about this rally that don’t look like a genuine push higher. First, open interest in futures fell from 95,035 BTC to 94,819 BTC over 24 hours. The price rose 1.2%, while positions actually declined 0.2%. Second, over the past four hours, liquidations across the market totaled $155 million, of which $140 million came from short positions. The price rise was driven by shorts getting squeezed and exiting at a loss—not by new money coming in to open long positions. How far a breakout of this kind can go depends on whether positions follow through.
295
·
--
Are you messing around this late at night? $BTC
Who’s the fucking idiot in the know?
{future}(BTCUSDT)
Are you messing around this late at night? $BTC
Who’s the fucking idiot in the know?
Who’s the fucking idiot in the know?
125
·
--
Are Alpha Zone funds piling into $DOOD ?
Up 25.07% in 24h, with $503,000 in trading volume and a $14.65 million market cap (BSC).
When hot money targets a small-cap token, the price can surge quickly—but early holders can be just as quick to cash out. Watch for signs that top on-chain addresses have started transferring tokens to exchanges.
Are Alpha Zone funds piling into $DOOD ?
Up 25.07% in 24h, with $503,000 in trading volume and a $14.65 million market cap (BSC).
When hot money targets a small-cap token, the price can surge quickly—but early holders can be just as quick to cash out. Watch for signs that top on-chain addresses have started transferring tokens to exchanges.
Up 25.07% in 24h, with $503,000 in trading volume and a $14.65 million market cap (BSC).
When hot money targets a small-cap token, the price can surge quickly—but early holders can be just as quick to cash out. Watch for signs that top on-chain addresses have started transferring tokens to exchanges.
68
·
--
Capital is voting with its feet:
$DNA has broken into the BSC DEX trending list, down 7.21% over 24h.
Behind DEX trends, a handful of whales are often trading heavily. Watching the buy and sell activity of top addresses can give you an edge well before the charts do.
Save this—we’ll review it later.
Capital is voting with its feet:
$DNA has broken into the BSC DEX trending list, down 7.21% over 24h.
Behind DEX trends, a handful of whales are often trading heavily. Watching the buy and sell activity of top addresses can give you an edge well before the charts do.
Save this—we’ll review it later.
$DNA has broken into the BSC DEX trending list, down 7.21% over 24h.
Behind DEX trends, a handful of whales are often trading heavily. Watching the buy and sell activity of top addresses can give you an edge well before the charts do.
Save this—we’ll review it later.
52
Log in to explore more content
Join global crypto users on Binance Square
⚡️ Get latest and useful information about crypto.
💬 Trusted by the world’s largest crypto exchange.
👍 Discover real insights from verified creators.
Email / Phone number