阿简在路上
111 Posts
阿简在路上
Crypto Research｜AI、Macro、On-chain
用数据拆解市场叙事✅｜追逐热点❎
Daily Research｜Market Frameworks｜长期主义｜NFA｜📩 DM Open
4 Following
85 Followers
366 Liked
Posts
Portfolio
All
Quotes
About the market’s overall decline yesterday: it’s not surprising that the Nikkei in Asia fell 2.2%, but a one-day drop of 7.6% for the KOSPI—A Jian believes this is already close to a stock-market-crash-level daily fluctuation.
The information I currently have is not enough to fully explain the specific causes of this decline, but when you put it together with the surge in oil prices and the reassessment of geopolitical risk, at least one thing becomes clear: Asian markets are more sensitive to the escalation of the Middle East situation than the sensitivity currently shown by Western markets.
This also reminds me of something: it’s 2026, and when judging the real reaction of global risk assets to a particular piece of news, you can’t just look at the U.S. stock market or $BTC . Sometimes Asian markets, ahead of Western markets, will send more realistic risk-pricing signals—especially markets like South Korea, which are highly sensitive to global supply chains and energy prices
The information I currently have is not enough to fully explain the specific causes of this decline, but when you put it together with the surge in oil prices and the reassessment of geopolitical risk, at least one thing becomes clear: Asian markets are more sensitive to the escalation of the Middle East situation than the sensitivity currently shown by Western markets.
This also reminds me of something: it’s 2026, and when judging the real reaction of global risk assets to a particular piece of news, you can’t just look at the U.S. stock market or $BTC . Sometimes Asian markets, ahead of Western markets, will send more realistic risk-pricing signals—especially markets like South Korea, which are highly sensitive to global supply chains and energy prices
During yesterday’s drop of $BTC , long positions were liquidated to the tune of $80.94 million, while short positions amounted to only $11.53 million. The 7:1 ratio indicates that the main driving force behind this round of decline was the forced liquidation of leveraged longs, not active selling by spot investors who are holding assets.
This distinction is crucial because the implications for what happens next are completely different. When leveraged longs are liquidated, it is usually short-term and technical. Once the price stabilizes, this supply pressure will naturally disappear without the need for fresh buying to offset it. If spot holders actively sell, that signals a deeper loss of confidence, and it typically requires a longer period of time and clearer positive catalysts to reverse.
Based on today’s data, this decline looks more like the first scenario. But this conclusion has a condition: it only holds if, over the next 24–48 hours, no new accumulation of leveraged longs builds up again and gets liquidated. If the CPI data comes in unfavorable and a new round of leveraged long positions is built up and then gets wiped out again, then the assessment that this is merely a technical adjustment would need to be re-evaluated
This distinction is crucial because the implications for what happens next are completely different. When leveraged longs are liquidated, it is usually short-term and technical. Once the price stabilizes, this supply pressure will naturally disappear without the need for fresh buying to offset it. If spot holders actively sell, that signals a deeper loss of confidence, and it typically requires a longer period of time and clearer positive catalysts to reverse.
Based on today’s data, this decline looks more like the first scenario. But this conclusion has a condition: it only holds if, over the next 24–48 hours, no new accumulation of leveraged longs builds up again and gets liquidated. If the CPI data comes in unfavorable and a new round of leveraged long positions is built up and then gets wiped out again, then the assessment that this is merely a technical adjustment would need to be re-evaluated
A lot of praise has come in for the CLARITY Act bill content from yesterday—it seems everyone is quite interested in the memes in their hands, so A-Jian will elaborate a bit more: as of now, the combined version from the Senate Banking Committee and the Agriculture Committee has not been officially released, but the newly added 70 pages of research show that the merged bill completely omits the ethical provisions that Democrats insisted on (barring government officials from holding personal crypto positions while in office)
This is not a compromise; it’s evasion. It’s the Democrats’ new reason for refusing to vote. The probability of passage before August according to the market is currently around 37%, and I also need to lower my own 40% further to about 35%. Because dodging a problem doesn’t mean solving it—the time window is getting shorter, yet the core of the disagreement has never changed
But it looks like this round is actually a medium-term positive for <$TRUMP > and <$MELANIA >; there may also be a trend move within this week. The above does not constitute any investment advice
This is not a compromise; it’s evasion. It’s the Democrats’ new reason for refusing to vote. The probability of passage before August according to the market is currently around 37%, and I also need to lower my own 40% further to about 35%. Because dodging a problem doesn’t mean solving it—the time window is getting shorter, yet the core of the disagreement has never changed
But it looks like this round is actually a medium-term positive for <$TRUMP > and <$MELANIA >; there may also be a trend move within this week. The above does not constitute any investment advice
阿简在路上
·
--
If you hold $TRUMP or $MELANIA , I think you should know about this: the Senate returns today (July 13). The merged draft of the CLARITY Act (from the Banking and Agriculture committee versions) is expected to be released today. The bill then enters a three-week window—meaning that as of July 13, the Senate has only about three weeks of available time left before it recesses in August.
Ajan has emphasized many times that the real sticking point is the ethics provision. Democrats have made a conflict-of-interest clause—banning government officials (including the President himself) from holding personal shares in the crypto industry during their term—a necessary condition for the bill to pass. And this provision directly targets Trump’s broad crypto holdings, including $TRUMP and $MELANIA, the World Liberty Financial project involving family participation, as well as bitcoin mining business activities, etc.
There is also a more niche but equally important issue: as of July 10, the CFTC currently has only one commissioner (the Republican chair Michael Selig), with four seats vacant. The SEC has two Democratic seats vacant. A CFTC that is almost entirely made up of a single-party commissioner—if it needs to write far-reaching new rules—could cause uncertainty again in the enforcement phase after the bill passes.
In response, Ajan will further lower the probability of the bill passing in 2026—below 40%. That figure is about the same as my assessment on July 10. Last time the reason was that war-related news crowded out lawmakers’ attention; this time it’s because I believe the ethics provision itself genuinely can’t be worked out. Trump won’t voluntarily give up his crypto holdings. This isn’t something that can be solved by convening a few more meetings.
Ajan has emphasized many times that the real sticking point is the ethics provision. Democrats have made a conflict-of-interest clause—banning government officials (including the President himself) from holding personal shares in the crypto industry during their term—a necessary condition for the bill to pass. And this provision directly targets Trump’s broad crypto holdings, including $TRUMP and $MELANIA, the World Liberty Financial project involving family participation, as well as bitcoin mining business activities, etc.
There is also a more niche but equally important issue: as of July 10, the CFTC currently has only one commissioner (the Republican chair Michael Selig), with four seats vacant. The SEC has two Democratic seats vacant. A CFTC that is almost entirely made up of a single-party commissioner—if it needs to write far-reaching new rules—could cause uncertainty again in the enforcement phase after the bill passes.
In response, Ajan will further lower the probability of the bill passing in 2026—below 40%. That figure is about the same as my assessment on July 10. Last time the reason was that war-related news crowded out lawmakers’ attention; this time it’s because I believe the ethics provision itself genuinely can’t be worked out. Trump won’t voluntarily give up his crypto holdings. This isn’t something that can be solved by convening a few more meetings.
Verified
#grvt This time, what’s actually most worth watching isn’t the airdrop ratio, but the chip (token) structure after the TGE. An airdrop of 28% to the community may look generous, but what truly determines the price comes down to the following three things:
Who received the tokens? When will they be released? How many people are willing to lock them up?
If a large number of users are only chasing airdrop arbitrage, then after the TGE there will be sell pressure. But if @grvt_io can bind trading users, liquidity providers, and token holders together, then the airdrop will shift from being just a marketing expense to becoming user growth.
After all, the hardest part of Web3 has never been getting 1 million people to come—it’s getting 10,000 of them to stay.
Who received the tokens? When will they be released? How many people are willing to lock them up?
If a large number of users are only chasing airdrop arbitrage, then after the TGE there will be sell pressure. But if @grvt_io can bind trading users, liquidity providers, and token holders together, then the airdrop will shift from being just a marketing expense to becoming user growth.
After all, the hardest part of Web3 has never been getting 1 million people to come—it’s getting 10,000 of them to stay.
Verified
Truflation’s independent forecasting model puts headline year-on-year at 3.9% and core year-on-year at 2.9%. The numbers match A Jian’s forecast. Over the past 12 months, this firm’s forecast accuracy has reached 99.93%, and even last month its forecast hit the official numbers 24 hours early.
So the key disagreement still comes down to the usual issue: the decline in the headline figure is entirely due to the roughly 10% drop in June gasoline prices—this is the fourth largest month-on-month drop in the past decade. But the stickiness in the core figure has not improved; it mainly comes from housing and services costs.
Personally, I think $BTC today should adopt a defensive strategy: reduce leverage appropriately and focus on how the market reacts within the first hour after the release. If the Headline is good and the Core is manageable, you can buy a moderate amount on dips. If the Core comes in above expectations, wait and watch, or hold a light position until it digests the news.
So the key disagreement still comes down to the usual issue: the decline in the headline figure is entirely due to the roughly 10% drop in June gasoline prices—this is the fourth largest month-on-month drop in the past decade. But the stickiness in the core figure has not improved; it mainly comes from housing and services costs.
Personally, I think $BTC today should adopt a defensive strategy: reduce leverage appropriately and focus on how the market reacts within the first hour after the release. If the Headline is good and the Core is manageable, you can buy a moderate amount on dips. If the Core comes in above expectations, wait and watch, or hold a light position until it digests the news.
阿简在路上
·
--
June CPI will be out tomorrow night. The detailed analysis of this data and the positioning operations that A-Jian discussed in the past few days—today I’ll just emphasize the key points to watch once more:
First, it’s important to understand that the backdrop for this CPI is quite nuanced: at the first FOMC meeting after Warsh took office, the tone was more hawkish. The Fed raised the median of its 2026 inflation expectations from 2.7% to 3.6%, and the interest-rate dot plot expectations were also revised up to 3.8%. This means that even if tomorrow’s CPI numbers look good, the threshold for Fed rate cuts is higher than it was a few months ago.
So tomorrow’s real focus isn’t the headline figure, but the core figure—and what the market thinks about whether inflation is truly cooling.
There are two aspects to look at specifically: one is whether the decline in June energy prices is reflected sufficiently in the data. Second, if core CPI (excluding food and energy) is expected to stay around 2.9%, the headline number may look mild or even turn negative. But if core inflation doesn’t move at all, then this isn’t inflation cooling—it’s just short-term noise from energy prices.
First, it’s important to understand that the backdrop for this CPI is quite nuanced: at the first FOMC meeting after Warsh took office, the tone was more hawkish. The Fed raised the median of its 2026 inflation expectations from 2.7% to 3.6%, and the interest-rate dot plot expectations were also revised up to 3.8%. This means that even if tomorrow’s CPI numbers look good, the threshold for Fed rate cuts is higher than it was a few months ago.
So tomorrow’s real focus isn’t the headline figure, but the core figure—and what the market thinks about whether inflation is truly cooling.
There are two aspects to look at specifically: one is whether the decline in June energy prices is reflected sufficiently in the data. Second, if core CPI (excluding food and energy) is expected to stay around 2.9%, the headline number may look mild or even turn negative. But if core inflation doesn’t move at all, then this isn’t inflation cooling—it’s just short-term noise from energy prices.
Verified
June CPI will be out tomorrow night. The detailed analysis of this data and the positioning operations that A-Jian discussed in the past few days—today I’ll just emphasize the key points to watch once more:
First, it’s important to understand that the backdrop for this CPI is quite nuanced: at the first FOMC meeting after Warsh took office, the tone was more hawkish. The Fed raised the median of its 2026 inflation expectations from 2.7% to 3.6%, and the interest-rate dot plot expectations were also revised up to 3.8%. This means that even if tomorrow’s CPI numbers look good, the threshold for Fed rate cuts is higher than it was a few months ago.
So tomorrow’s real focus isn’t the headline figure, but the core figure—and what the market thinks about whether inflation is truly cooling.
There are two aspects to look at specifically: one is whether the decline in June energy prices is reflected sufficiently in the data. Second, if core CPI (excluding food and energy) is expected to stay around 2.9%, the headline number may look mild or even turn negative. But if core inflation doesn’t move at all, then this isn’t inflation cooling—it’s just short-term noise from energy prices.
First, it’s important to understand that the backdrop for this CPI is quite nuanced: at the first FOMC meeting after Warsh took office, the tone was more hawkish. The Fed raised the median of its 2026 inflation expectations from 2.7% to 3.6%, and the interest-rate dot plot expectations were also revised up to 3.8%. This means that even if tomorrow’s CPI numbers look good, the threshold for Fed rate cuts is higher than it was a few months ago.
So tomorrow’s real focus isn’t the headline figure, but the core figure—and what the market thinks about whether inflation is truly cooling.
There are two aspects to look at specifically: one is whether the decline in June energy prices is reflected sufficiently in the data. Second, if core CPI (excluding food and energy) is expected to stay around 2.9%, the headline number may look mild or even turn negative. But if core inflation doesn’t move at all, then this isn’t inflation cooling—it’s just short-term noise from energy prices.
The total market value of stablecoins has shrunk by about $10 billion from its May peak, and it dropped by $7.7 billion just in June alone—this is the largest single-month U.S. dollar decline since the Terra-Luna collapse in May 2022. Of course, measured in percentage terms, it’s only a 3% drop, which is much more moderate than the 26% contraction back in 2022. But A-Jian believes the significance of this figure is not the size of the decline—it’s that it serves as a leading indicator of liquidity:
Stablecoin growth has long accompanied bull markets, providing new purchasing power for on-chain activity. Supply contraction would weaken the funds’ ability to sustain a rebound afterward, unless new demand emerges.
In fact, I had never previously considered stablecoin total supply could become a macro liquidity indicator, but now it really is. If stablecoin supply continues to contract, then even if the price stabilizes at $BTC , there won’t be enough “fuel” for the rebound. This is a signal that moves more slowly than ETF inflows, but it’s more fundamental.
Stablecoin growth has long accompanied bull markets, providing new purchasing power for on-chain activity. Supply contraction would weaken the funds’ ability to sustain a rebound afterward, unless new demand emerges.
In fact, I had never previously considered stablecoin total supply could become a macro liquidity indicator, but now it really is. If stablecoin supply continues to contract, then even if the price stabilizes at $BTC , there won’t be enough “fuel” for the rebound. This is a signal that moves more slowly than ETF inflows, but it’s more fundamental.
Many people treat @grvt_io as yet another airdrop project, but I’m more focused on why it chooses the path of a Hybrid DEX. Since the perpetual futures track is already highly competitive, pure CEX can’t outmatch the leading players, and pure DEX also makes it hard to keep ordinary users—so more and more projects are taking an in-between route: a matching experience like a CEX, with asset custody staying in the users’ hands.
A Jian believes whether GRVT can really break out doesn’t depend on how many tokens are distributed in the airdrop—it depends on three questions:
Will users keep trading long-term, rather than just coming for the airdrop and leaving?
Can the liquidity performance support multi-asset trading?
Is the hybrid model truly an advantage, or is it just not extreme enough on either side?
The airdrop is just the beginning—the real test is product retention. Looking forward to the real data once it goes live吧#grvt
A Jian believes whether GRVT can really break out doesn’t depend on how many tokens are distributed in the airdrop—it depends on three questions:
Will users keep trading long-term, rather than just coming for the airdrop and leaving?
Can the liquidity performance support multi-asset trading?
Is the hybrid model truly an advantage, or is it just not extreme enough on either side?
The airdrop is just the beginning—the real test is product retention. Looking forward to the real data once it goes live吧#grvt
If you hold $TRUMP or $MELANIA , I think you should know about this: the Senate returns today (July 13). The merged draft of the CLARITY Act (from the Banking and Agriculture committee versions) is expected to be released today. The bill then enters a three-week window—meaning that as of July 13, the Senate has only about three weeks of available time left before it recesses in August.
Ajan has emphasized many times that the real sticking point is the ethics provision. Democrats have made a conflict-of-interest clause—banning government officials (including the President himself) from holding personal shares in the crypto industry during their term—a necessary condition for the bill to pass. And this provision directly targets Trump’s broad crypto holdings, including $TRUMP and $MELANIA , the World Liberty Financial project involving family participation, as well as bitcoin mining business activities, etc.
There is also a more niche but equally important issue: as of July 10, the CFTC currently has only one commissioner (the Republican chair Michael Selig), with four seats vacant. The SEC has two Democratic seats vacant. A CFTC that is almost entirely made up of a single-party commissioner—if it needs to write far-reaching new rules—could cause uncertainty again in the enforcement phase after the bill passes.
In response, Ajan will further lower the probability of the bill passing in 2026—below 40%. That figure is about the same as my assessment on July 10. Last time the reason was that war-related news crowded out lawmakers’ attention; this time it’s because I believe the ethics provision itself genuinely can’t be worked out. Trump won’t voluntarily give up his crypto holdings. This isn’t something that can be solved by convening a few more meetings.
Ajan has emphasized many times that the real sticking point is the ethics provision. Democrats have made a conflict-of-interest clause—banning government officials (including the President himself) from holding personal shares in the crypto industry during their term—a necessary condition for the bill to pass. And this provision directly targets Trump’s broad crypto holdings, including $TRUMP and $MELANIA , the World Liberty Financial project involving family participation, as well as bitcoin mining business activities, etc.
There is also a more niche but equally important issue: as of July 10, the CFTC currently has only one commissioner (the Republican chair Michael Selig), with four seats vacant. The SEC has two Democratic seats vacant. A CFTC that is almost entirely made up of a single-party commissioner—if it needs to write far-reaching new rules—could cause uncertainty again in the enforcement phase after the bill passes.
In response, Ajan will further lower the probability of the bill passing in 2026—below 40%. That figure is about the same as my assessment on July 10. Last time the reason was that war-related news crowded out lawmakers’ attention; this time it’s because I believe the ethics provision itself genuinely can’t be worked out. Trump won’t voluntarily give up his crypto holdings. This isn’t something that can be solved by convening a few more meetings.
Last night, the US military launched its fourth round of airstrikes within a week. The Strait of Hormuz has become thoroughly chaotic; after a serious analysis, A-Jian identified the most critical points of disagreement: the Iranian Revolutionary Guard announced that the Strait of Hormuz is closed, but the US Central Command denied this claim. This is a classic case of people talking past each other—both sides are using language to brief their domestic audiences. But the actual navigability of the strait depends solely on which ships are willing to take the risk.
As for the oil price, it’s the most honest of all—Brent crude has risen toward $79 per barrel. This is a high range that crude is retesting again since the war’s large-scale outbreak.
But what about $BTC ? As of the time I’m writing this, Bitcoin is still holding up pretty firmly, with almost no meaningful pullback. And if these events had occurred right when the war broke out in March, Bitcoin would likely have fallen by at least 10%. Clearly, the market’s way of pricing this kind of news has changed. I’m still sticking to my judgment from last week: a range of 60k–64k, with the direction clearly defined before July 17.
The above does not constitute any investment advice.
As for the oil price, it’s the most honest of all—Brent crude has risen toward $79 per barrel. This is a high range that crude is retesting again since the war’s large-scale outbreak.
But what about $BTC ? As of the time I’m writing this, Bitcoin is still holding up pretty firmly, with almost no meaningful pullback. And if these events had occurred right when the war broke out in March, Bitcoin would likely have fallen by at least 10%. Clearly, the market’s way of pricing this kind of news has changed. I’m still sticking to my judgment from last week: a range of 60k–64k, with the direction clearly defined before July 17.
The above does not constitute any investment advice.
Partly True
#grvt This community allocation for this airdrop + TGE has been pulled up to 28%, with Season 2 accounting for 18%. On the surface, it looks more community-friendly than the earlier zkSync—but what about the reality? Let’s do a very simple comparison with A Jian:
Arbitrum: Early users put in real money and received a lot; TVL remained stable, and after the airdrop, the ecosystem’s retention stayed high;
zkSync: The technology is the toughest, yet the airdrop was criticized as “stingy + heavy Sybil issues.” After the campaign, activity crashed;
Blast: It attracts TVL aggressively by using points + gold points. After the airdrop, it collapsed by 97% immediately. The founders went silent—classic “run in, take the reward, and run out”;
GRVT: It takes a hybrid DEX approach. Binance Wallet funnels users directly—no need to make deposits or trades to claim. The marketing is the most aggressive. But then it suddenly changed the lock-multiplier, which has already triggered backlash. The circulating supply depends entirely on how many people choose the 4x lock. This point can be said to be even more “sly” than Blast.
In short, one sentence: @grvt_io is more pragmatic than zkSync and less “pure Ponzi”-like than Blast—but it’s still the old playbook of being driven by airdrops with flexible terms. My suggestion to everyone, little friends: if you’re going to “farm,” calculate the lock-up risk in advance. Don’t expect it to become the next Arbitrum.
Arbitrum: Early users put in real money and received a lot; TVL remained stable, and after the airdrop, the ecosystem’s retention stayed high;
zkSync: The technology is the toughest, yet the airdrop was criticized as “stingy + heavy Sybil issues.” After the campaign, activity crashed;
Blast: It attracts TVL aggressively by using points + gold points. After the airdrop, it collapsed by 97% immediately. The founders went silent—classic “run in, take the reward, and run out”;
GRVT: It takes a hybrid DEX approach. Binance Wallet funnels users directly—no need to make deposits or trades to claim. The marketing is the most aggressive. But then it suddenly changed the lock-multiplier, which has already triggered backlash. The circulating supply depends entirely on how many people choose the 4x lock. This point can be said to be even more “sly” than Blast.
In short, one sentence: @grvt_io is more pragmatic than zkSync and less “pure Ponzi”-like than Blast—but it’s still the old playbook of being driven by airdrops with flexible terms. My suggestion to everyone, little friends: if you’re going to “farm,” calculate the lock-up risk in advance. Don’t expect it to become the next Arbitrum.
The wind around “AI + Crypto” has been pretty strong these past couple of days: Sui’s experiments reportedly hit 6.09M TPS, Kraken—according to reports—plans to put AI agents into the app, and Virtuals also surged briefly (up 20%) on the AI-trading narrative after integrating with the Robinhood Chain. AJian wants to cool things down a bit, because I’ve seen too many AI+Crypto projects get stuck at the step between demo metrics and actual developer usage: they look amazing, but there’s just no cash flow.
To be fair, TPS as a technical showcase really looks impressive—but it doesn’t equal real production demand. Dear friends, you should focus on how many trades an agent can generate every day, how much revenue it can bring in, how many retained users it can keep, whether there are permission boundaries, failure compensation, risk-control logs, and revenue models.
Remember: evaluating an AI agent only needs one piece of logic. If it truly goes on-chain, can it execute, settle, authorize, and roll back at high frequency? Because what’s truly valuable is always real transactions and protocol revenue: the agent helps users save money, make money, and avoid pitfalls—then someone is willing to pay for it.
To be fair, TPS as a technical showcase really looks impressive—but it doesn’t equal real production demand. Dear friends, you should focus on how many trades an agent can generate every day, how much revenue it can bring in, how many retained users it can keep, whether there are permission boundaries, failure compensation, risk-control logs, and revenue models.
Remember: evaluating an AI agent only needs one piece of logic. If it truly goes on-chain, can it execute, settle, authorize, and roll back at high frequency? Because what’s truly valuable is always real transactions and protocol revenue: the agent helps users save money, make money, and avoid pitfalls—then someone is willing to pay for it.
Saw an interesting report: because USDG has less liquidity than USDC/USDT, it may cause market makers’ quotes to be more expensive, resulting in higher user costs. This point seems small, but it’s particularly realistic—because not all $1 are the same.
Stablecoins are not enough to just be compliant and have a nice-sounding name. When you actually use them, slippage, deposits/withdrawals, trading pair depth, and whether the counterparty accepts them—all become hidden costs. Call it a “liquidity tax.” You think you’re holding $1, but when you convert it back to fiat or into another coin, the market quietly charges you an extra layer of tax. Retail investors can’t ignore this real loss either.
Stablecoins are not enough to just be compliant and have a nice-sounding name. When you actually use them, slippage, deposits/withdrawals, trading pair depth, and whether the counterparty accepts them—all become hidden costs. Call it a “liquidity tax.” You think you’re holding $1, but when you convert it back to fiat or into another coin, the market quietly charges you an extra layer of tax. Retail investors can’t ignore this real loss either.
Verified
Hyperliquid's open interest already accounts for 9% of the global cryptocurrency perpetual futures market share, reaching an all-time high. You should know that the derivatives market is the crypto ecosystem's most real attention market—whoever has the OI gets the capital, leverage, volatility, and entry point for narratives.
So gradually, Hyperliquid is no longer just a DEX; $HYPE 's price matters less, because it increasingly acts like an asset generator + a leverage arena + a social order book, and ultimately forces traditional CEXs to follow in order to compete for liquidity
So gradually, Hyperliquid is no longer just a DEX; $HYPE 's price matters less, because it increasingly acts like an asset generator + a leverage arena + a social order book, and ultimately forces traditional CEXs to follow in order to compete for liquidity
Verified
An counterintuitive data point: Solana’s Q2 2026 fees fell 78% year over year, the lowest level since the end of 2023. With more users, faster speed, and an active ecosystem—why is this happening? A Jian believes that low costs are Solana’s advantage, but they also create an valuation challenge. Users like low fees, but token holders can’t rely on a crowd forever to foot the bill. $SOL ’s valuation ultimately still has to face one question: if fees decline, how does the network’s economic value get reflected? How much economic value can on-chain activity actually translate into?
That’s why the cheaper a chain is, the more it needs to prove it can make money through scale. This is also why the fees / user metric matters. Lots of users but declining revenue shows that excitement and value capture aren’t the same thing.
That’s why the cheaper a chain is, the more it needs to prove it can make money through scale. This is also why the fees / user metric matters. Lots of users but declining revenue shows that excitement and value capture aren’t the same thing.
Verified
Yesterday A-Jian said that when making knockoffs, you need to be careful about big players extracting liquidity from their wallets. Everyone’s reaction was fairly enthusiastic, but since there are so many on-chain products, we can’t just condemn them all. For example, today’s topic, DeFi, follows a different logic. Let me give an example: according to reports, Aave V4 deposits have already exceeded $275M. In addition, on-chain monitoring shows that about 190.88M USDC has been transferred from Aave to an unknown whale address, but $AAVE so far over the past 24h is up about 4%
I believe for products like Aave that institutionalize stablecoin yield, large withdrawals don’t necessarily mean panic. It could be institutional rebalancing, strategy migration, or changes in custody. Their funds are increasingly being “banked,” so for such large transfers, you need to look at where the money goes next. Don’t just see a whale and start imagining a sell-off
The trend now is that the next phase of DeFi won’t rely entirely on retail miners, but may instead rely on institutions taking idle stablecoins and putting them to earn transparent returns. So if you’re earning yield with stablecoins, don’t just chase APY—look at the protocol’s history, risk isolation, withdrawal liquidity, and bad-debt mechanisms. Remember: yield isn’t a free lunch, especially when it’s “stable” yield
I believe for products like Aave that institutionalize stablecoin yield, large withdrawals don’t necessarily mean panic. It could be institutional rebalancing, strategy migration, or changes in custody. Their funds are increasingly being “banked,” so for such large transfers, you need to look at where the money goes next. Don’t just see a whale and start imagining a sell-off
The trend now is that the next phase of DeFi won’t rely entirely on retail miners, but may instead rely on institutions taking idle stablecoins and putting them to earn transparent returns. So if you’re earning yield with stablecoins, don’t just chase APY—look at the protocol’s history, risk isolation, withdrawal liquidity, and bad-debt mechanisms. Remember: yield isn’t a free lunch, especially when it’s “stable” yield
阿简在路上
·
--
If you ask what AJian Meme and XiaoBi should watch the most, then today’s $LAB price action is a perfect example: suspected insider addresses transferred 7.99 million tokens, after which the coin price dropped as much as 34%. Since July 6, the decline has already reached 94%
For small-cap coins like this, candlestick charts can tell a lot of stories—but on-chain fund transfers are the most honest. When you build your position, have you thought about who holds the most? Who can move? And after they move, does the market actually absorb it?
Many retail traders lose money not because they can’t draw lines, but because they hold a ticket with extremely concentrated supply and mistake that for doing technical analysis. You don’t have to understand every on-chain tool, but before you rush into a small coin like this, at least check the whales’ wallets and unlock schedules. Know who has the ability to treat you as exit liquidity
For small-cap coins like this, candlestick charts can tell a lot of stories—but on-chain fund transfers are the most honest. When you build your position, have you thought about who holds the most? Who can move? And after they move, does the market actually absorb it?
Many retail traders lose money not because they can’t draw lines, but because they hold a ticket with extremely concentrated supply and mistake that for doing technical analysis. You don’t have to understand every on-chain tool, but before you rush into a small coin like this, at least check the whales’ wallets and unlock schedules. Know who has the ability to treat you as exit liquidity
Verified
Morgan Stanley is pushing $ETH and $SOL into ETFs. A-Jian thinks this is still worth talking about, because many friends who see this news will have the first reaction that these two tokens are about to take off. But the opposite is true: an ETF doesn’t necessarily mean the price will rise. Once the ETF turns the assets more “standardized,” it can also compress the yield, reduce volatility, and flatten the narrative.
And judging from the disclosed plan, the fee rate has been lowered to 0.14%, which also shows that institutions no longer treat a crypto ETF as a high–gross margin new product. Instead, they see it as a low-fee shelf for getting in.
I think what’s truly important here is that it symbolizes that the ETF battleground is starting to expand from a single-asset ETF format—$BTC —into broader L1 asset-management products. In the future, what’s really valuable won’t be the ETF shell, but whoever can secure distribution, staking, custody, and reinvestment returns.
And judging from the disclosed plan, the fee rate has been lowered to 0.14%, which also shows that institutions no longer treat a crypto ETF as a high–gross margin new product. Instead, they see it as a low-fee shelf for getting in.
I think what’s truly important here is that it symbolizes that the ETF battleground is starting to expand from a single-asset ETF format—$BTC —into broader L1 asset-management products. In the future, what’s really valuable won’t be the ETF shell, but whoever can secure distribution, staking, custody, and reinvestment returns.
Verified
$ARB In the past week, it has risen nearly 20%. Honestly, we really should give Robinhood Chain a head-bow, because this rebound isn’t because $ARB can suddenly tell more RWA stories again. Instead, it’s because Robinhood Chain took the step of distributing 10% of on-chain fees to the Arbitrum ecosystem—essentially dragging Arbitrum back onto the table.
AJIAN believes the significance of this is that the business model of L2 has suddenly become more concrete. Before, people talked about ecosystem flourishing, but that was a pretty abstract concept. Now, with front-end platforms like Robinhood showing up, real fees are being generated and some of that value is flowing back to the underlying technology stack. I’ve been cautious about L2 governance tokens for a while because many L2s have usage, but they can’t capture the money. This case at least provides a direction.
In the future, what truly makes L2 take off might not be native crypto applications, but Web2 financial apps performing this kind of chain-rental operation—which is also pretty counterintuitive. So for regular users, going forward, don’t just look at TPS, airdrops, or the number of ecosystem projects when it comes to L2. Ask one more question: who is renting its technology? How is the rent split? And does it ultimately end up in tokens or the treasury?
AJIAN believes the significance of this is that the business model of L2 has suddenly become more concrete. Before, people talked about ecosystem flourishing, but that was a pretty abstract concept. Now, with front-end platforms like Robinhood showing up, real fees are being generated and some of that value is flowing back to the underlying technology stack. I’ve been cautious about L2 governance tokens for a while because many L2s have usage, but they can’t capture the money. This case at least provides a direction.
In the future, what truly makes L2 take off might not be native crypto applications, but Web2 financial apps performing this kind of chain-rental operation—which is also pretty counterintuitive. So for regular users, going forward, don’t just look at TPS, airdrops, or the number of ecosystem projects when it comes to L2. Ask one more question: who is renting its technology? How is the rent split? And does it ultimately end up in tokens or the treasury?
Verified
If you ask what AJian Meme and XiaoBi should watch the most, then today’s $LAB price action is a perfect example: suspected insider addresses transferred 7.99 million tokens, after which the coin price dropped as much as 34%. Since July 6, the decline has already reached 94%
For small-cap coins like this, candlestick charts can tell a lot of stories—but on-chain fund transfers are the most honest. When you build your position, have you thought about who holds the most? Who can move? And after they move, does the market actually absorb it?
Many retail traders lose money not because they can’t draw lines, but because they hold a ticket with extremely concentrated supply and mistake that for doing technical analysis. You don’t have to understand every on-chain tool, but before you rush into a small coin like this, at least check the whales’ wallets and unlock schedules. Know who has the ability to treat you as exit liquidity
For small-cap coins like this, candlestick charts can tell a lot of stories—but on-chain fund transfers are the most honest. When you build your position, have you thought about who holds the most? Who can move? And after they move, does the market actually absorb it?
Many retail traders lose money not because they can’t draw lines, but because they hold a ticket with extremely concentrated supply and mistake that for doing technical analysis. You don’t have to understand every on-chain tool, but before you rush into a small coin like this, at least check the whales’ wallets and unlock schedules. Know who has the ability to treat you as exit liquidity
Log in to explore more content