Crypto子棋

Since the BTC rebound started, this is the first time on the daily chart that it has effectively broken below the rising trendline.

Every time there’s a meeting, it falls—though a moderate dip is actually not bad!

Whether it can hold around 82,000–83,000 is crucial; it will directly determine whether this pullback is a normal retracement or if the current phase has already ended.

If the price bottoms out here and quickly reclaims 84,000–85,000, it would suggest this is just a technical shakeout after the rally, and there may still be opportunities to challenge 87,400 again, even pushing toward 90,000.

But if the daily chart closes consecutively below 82,000, and the rebound can’t get back above 83,500, then the structure would shift from “high-point consolidation” to “rebound topping.” The next move would most likely be a pullback to around 80,000, and possibly even a test of the on-chain cost line near 77,000.

I believe there will be resistance around 82,000–83,000, but the first rebound won’t reach much. Only after reclaiming and holding above 85,000 can the short-term trend be considered repaired; otherwise, the rebound is still about pressure relief rather than a reversal.

Lately, I’ve been thinking about which value coins would be the safest to accumulate now and hold through the next bull market.

I took another look at the top 50 tokens by market cap and found that the number of projects with genuinely deflationary tokenomics is shockingly small.

BTC was created to counter excessive money printing, yet most so-called “value coins” still increase their supply or unlock tokens, relying on later investors’ money to absorb early holders’ tokens.

Excluding stablecoins, the projects with genuinely healthy supply structures are mainly BTC, ETH, and BNB. The rest are hard to look at 🤣

BNB deserves special praise here. Its quarterly Auto-Burn steadily reduces the supply, with a long-term goal of cutting it from the initial 200 million tokens to 100 million. Some Gas fees on BNB Chain are also burned.

More importantly, BNB isn’t burned simply to make it deflationary. Trading fees, Launchpool, on-chain Gas, and ecosystem apps all create real demand, forming a virtuous cycle: “platform growth—increased usage—token burns.”

As for tokens like SOL, DOGE, LINK, and HYPE, they still have protocol emissions or future unlocks. Although XRP has a fixed total supply, escrow releases still create selling pressure.

So, looking only at the top 20 by market cap, the ones I’d be most willing to hold for the long term—combining low inflation, real demand, strong liquidity, and a mature ecosystem—are:

BTC, ETH, and BNB.

BTC’s strength is that its supply can’t be changed; ETH’s is its ecosystem value; and BNB’s is that real-world use and ongoing deflation go hand in hand.

Deflation doesn’t guarantee a price increase. But a project with a growing ecosystem and a shrinking token supply at least won’t leave long-term holders constantly footing the bill for new issuance and unlocks.

On that front, BNB really is a project many “value coins” could learn from.

Why a negative funding rate doesn’t mean you can go long and earn “interest” risk-free

When I first started trading futures, I loved looking for coins with negative funding rates.

Shorts pay longs, so you can wait for a rebound and collect funding fees at the same time. It looked like a chance the market was handing out for free.

Only later did I realize that the funding rate isn’t a perk—it’s a measure of how crowded a trade is.

I once went long on a small-cap coin that had been plunging continuously. The funding rate was already deeply negative, and everyone in the group was saying shorts were too crowded and a short squeeze was just around the corner.

I collected fees for a few rounds and made a few dozen USDT, but the coin’s price fell another 30%. That little bit of funding income couldn’t even cover one normal price swing.

More ironically, people kept buying the dip as the price fell. Both long and short positions grew, and the funding rate stayed negative for a long time—but the supposed short squeeze never came.

A negative funding rate only means the perpetual contract is trading below spot, or that demand to short is stronger. It doesn’t mean selling pressure is over. It could reflect extreme sentiment before a reversal, or simply the carrying cost that trend-following shorts are willing to pay.

To decide whether it’s worth going long, you also need to check whether spot buyers are stepping in, whether the price has stopped falling, whether open interest has been flushed out, and whether shorts can still push the price lower after the negative funding rate appears.

Remember: the funding rate tells you which side is more crowded, but it doesn’t tell you which side is about to lose. Taking on major volatility just to earn a little funding is often a case of picking up pennies in interest while losing dollars in principal.

The market has rebounded more than 50% from the bottom. What phase are we in now? Some are calling it a bull market, others a bear-market rally. There’s no shortage of knee-jerk takes, but not many clear-headed answers!

Here’s my take, with some points for everyone to consider and verify as the market unfolds.

My conclusion: This is a strong recovery after a bear market, not a new bull market yet!

$BTC
After falling from $126,000 to $58,000 and then rebounding to $87,000, BTC should still be viewed through a bear-market lens in 2026. The $58,000 level is likely an important bottom, but a cycle bottom has not yet been fully confirmed.

The maximum drawdown in this cycle was about 54%, and the correction was also shorter than a typical full bear market. ETFs have strengthened demand, which may make the bear-market decline shallower, but they change the depth of the drawdown—not eliminate the cycle altogether.

There is support from fund flows, but not enough to justify blindly betting on a rally.

In the first four trading days of October, U.S. spot BTC ETFs saw combined net inflows of about $322 million, suggesting institutions have not exited. But compared with weekly inflows of more than $2 billion in late September, investors’ willingness to chase prices has clearly weakened.

BTC balances on exchanges have fallen to about 2.68 million coins, meaning sell-side supply is shrinking. This is an important reason why $58,000 may have become a medium-term bottom. However, about 74% of holders are back in profit, and long-term holders have also begun taking profits into the rebound.

The $85,000–$88,000 range is the first major resistance zone. The $90,000–$96,700 range will determine whether this recovery can turn into a reversal.

The macro environment also doesn’t support BTC moving straight into a sustained rally.
The 10-year Treasury yield remains near 5.3%, oil prices are close to $100, and the risk of another rate hike before year-end has not gone away.

My base case for the next six months is:

In October, BTC first pushes toward $88,000–$92,000. If sentiment gets especially strong, it may test $96,700, but it will probably struggle to hold above that level on the first attempt.

In the second half of Q4, it pulls back to $80,000–$82,000, with a test of $76,000–$77,000 possible in an extreme scenario. As long as the weekly chart holds above $77,000, BTC could still have a chance to challenge $96,700–$105,000 in Q1 next year.

In short: First push toward $90,000, then a pullback to $80,000, and then we see whether it can reach $100,000.

A true bull market is confirmed not when the price touches $90,000, but when it holds above $96,700–$100,000 on the weekly chart, pulls back without breaking below that range, and ETF inflows resume at a sustained, substantial pace.

At this stage, it’s reasonable to be bullish on the recovery—but don’t mistake a recovery for a sustained bull run. The biggest risk in cycle trading isn’t missing the exact bottom; it’s mistaking a temporary rally for a new bull market when excitement is at its peak.

Why doesn’t a project’s urgent “debunking” necessarily stop the price from falling?

When I first got into crypto, whenever a project faced negative news, the thing I looked forward to most was an official response.

If the team issued a statement saying the address wasn’t theirs, the transfers were just market-making adjustments, or the tokens hadn’t been unlocked early, I’d assume the misunderstanding was cleared up and the price would bounce back right away.

It took a few hard lessons to realize that statements can explain the team’s position, but on-chain token holdings determine selling pressure.

I once held a project that plunged. The team posted one reassuring statement after another, and the community said the rumors were malicious.

After reading them, I not only held on but also bought more during a rebound. Later, I found out that although the disputed address wasn’t an official wallet, it had financial ties to early investors and market makers. The tokens hadn’t been dumped all at once, either—they were spread across multiple addresses and sold gradually. The team hadn’t told an outright lie, but it hadn’t shared the whole story, either.

In situations like this, don’t rush to take sides. Look at what can be verified: where the tokens came from, whether the movements comply with unlock rules, whether they ultimately flowed into exchanges, whether spot selling pressure has eased, and whether the team is willing to disclose all the addresses and their purposes.

What the market really cares about isn’t who won an argument in the group chat, but who is still selling tokens.

Remember: debunking rumors can calm nerves, but it can’t make selling pressure disappear. When written explanations conflict with the flow of funds, trust the on-chain token movements first.

$BTC is back near $87,000, but this time things are a little different from the last.

The first surge to $87,400 was followed by a quick pullback, showing that there was heavy selling pressure from trapped holders and long-term holders above.

But during the pullback, BTC held firmly between $83,000 and $84,000, while its daily lows continued to rise. Now it is approaching the previous high again, suggesting that selling pressure is gradually being absorbed—not that the bulls have already left.

Across the first two trading days of this month, spot ETFs recorded combined net inflows of $134.4 million. Weak nonfarm payrolls have also lowered the odds of an October rate hike, making the macro backdrop somewhat favorable in the short term. However, ETF inflows are still not especially strong, and Treasury yields remain elevated. So we can’t focus only on an intraday break above resistance; the daily close matters.

The next steps are clear:
A high-volume breakout above $87,400 and a hold above $88,000 would confirm a valid breakout on the daily chart. The initial target would be $90,000–$93,000, with $96,000 in view beyond that.

If price surges and then pulls back again, breaking below $85,000, that would mean the selling pressure overhead has not yet been absorbed, and price could revisit $83,000. A break below $82,000 would invalidate the short-term breakout thesis.

My view: the odds of a successful second test of $87,000 are higher than they were on the first attempt. But until price holds above $88,000, this is still just a test—not the start of a sustained rally. True strength isn’t just breaking higher; it’s being able to hold those gains.

Two consecutive $BTC shocks failed to break 88,000—are we still in the process of building energy, or is this rebound round already nearing the end?

My take: There is still room for a short-term push higher, but at this stage we can only define it as a strong rebound within a bear market. We can’t confirm a bullish reversal yet.

Technically, BTC has been consolidating at the high end of 83,000 to 87,000. The daily chart holds above key moving averages, RSI is around 63, and there’s no obvious overheating.

However, MACD momentum looks weak, and trading volume has been steadily declining—suggesting the bulls still control the market, but they lack incremental capital to complete a breakout.

Between 83,000 and 86,000, about 1.07 million BTC worth of chips have accumulated. New funds are building positions here, and trapped holders are also finding an exit here. Price keeps oscillating back and forth; at its core, this is absorbing sell pressure.

For the first two trading days, ETFs saw total net inflows of $134.4 million. Institutions are still taking in supply, but compared with the roughly $2.4 billion net inflow in a single week in late September, the力度 is clearly weaker.

Expectations for the Fed pausing rate hikes in October are heating up, and the Nasdaq is also rising. The issue is that the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield is still around 5.28%, so liquidity hasn’t truly loosened.

In the first half of October, it’s likely to continue churning in the 83,000–88,000 range and then choose a direction. The 14-day CPI will be the first catalyst!

If it trades with volume and firmly holds above 88,000, the target would be 90,000–93,000. If it breaks out but then falls back to 85,000, we’d still treat it as range trading. If it breaks below 82,000, downside would be 79,000–80,000. If 76,000 is lost, this round of mid-term repair would basically be over.

You can be moderately bullish now, but it’s not suitable to chase. For BTC to open up upside potential for Q4, ETFs need to resume strong inflows, and 88,000 must truly turn into support.

Why does liquidity get better after a coin is listed on a futures contract, yet the price can become more fragile?

When I first entered the crypto world, I always treated the listing of futures contracts as pure good news: more traders, higher trading volume, and more new capital getting attracted—so the price should be easier to push up.

Later, I realized that futures bring not only more buying pressure, but also more convenient tools for shorting, along with more efficient liquidation mechanisms for the market.

I once chased a small coin that had just launched perpetual futures.
After opening, trading volume exploded and the price surged quickly. People in the group said this meant big capital was coming in—but spot depth didn’t improve noticeably. What actually increased was leverage positions.

When the funding rate rises and OI keeps piling up, the main players only need to break through one key level. Then long stop-losses and liquidations automatically turn into a continuous stream of sell orders.

After the price starts falling, shorts continue to pile in. The order book looks lively, but in reality most of the trades are leverage positions harvesting each other. A coin can trade billions of dollars every day, yet there may not be much real spot demand willing to hold and absorb it long term.

So to judge whether a coin is strong or weak after futures are listed, you can’t look only at trading volume. You also need to check whether spot is increasing volume in sync, whether the funding rate is getting overheated, whether OI growth is disconnected from market capitalization, and where large positions are concentrated across liquidation price bands.

Remember: futures improve trading efficiency, not asset value. Without real spot bid to absorb it, “prosperity” only makes rallies faster—and makes pullbacks more likely to turn into an automatically executed cascade of liquidations.

Last night the Nasdaq hit a new high, yet BTC failed to break higher and fell back again—where does it go next?

Although both US stocks and BTC are risk assets, the money behind them is not the same. US stocks have support from AI orders, corporate earnings, and buybacks—investors are willing to chase for certainty.

BTC rose from $57,800 to $87,000, relying more on ETF inflows, short covering, and sentiment recovery. When it reached the $85,000–$88,000 range, trapped positions and bottom profit-taking were both cashed out at the same time, making further upside harder.

In the 4-hour chart, both attempts to push through $87,000 were suppressed and pulled back, but the price is still holding above $83,800–$84,200. MA120 and MA200 continue to slope upward.

So this isn’t a top—it's a high-level rotation after a failed breakout.

ETFs are still seeing capital inflows, but BTC has been unable to decisively move above $87,000 for a long time. That suggests institutions have not pulled out, yet selling pressure overhead is heavier than expected.

Next, just watch three levels:
$86,000–$87,400 is the resistance zone;
$83,800–$84,200 is the first support;
$81,500–$82,000 is the trend line of defense.

A volume-backed hold above $87,400 would confirm a turn for the strong. If US stocks and ETFs keep strengthening, but BTC breaks below $82,000, that would be the true weakness signal.

Whether the Fed will continue to hike rates in October is now only a question of the September CPI on October 14.

So far, the Nonfarm Payrolls added just 29,000 jobs; the unemployment rate has risen to 4.2%, while wage growth year over year has fallen to 3.0%. Core PCE is also below expectations.

With inflation cooling across employment, wages, and the demand side, the probability of a rate hike in October has already dropped to about 14%.

I expect the September CPI year over year to be 3.5%—3.6%, with core CPI around 2.4%.

Headline inflation could rise due to a rebound in oil prices, but core inflation remains relatively mild. After employment clearly weakens, the Fed will find it difficult to keep hiking rates continuously driven solely by energy-related inflation.

If the core CPI monthly rate does not exceed 0.3%, the probability of an October hike is expected to stay at 10%—20%. If it reaches 0.4% or higher, the probability could rebound to 30%—45%. If the core monthly rate is no higher than 0.2%, the probability of a hike may fall to below 5%.

My baseline view: the probability of pausing in October is about 85%, and the probability of a hike is about 15%. What really needs to be guarded against is not a sudden rate hike in October, but oil prices continuing to rise and forcing the Fed to move the rate hike implied by the dot plot to December.

US nonfarm comes in unexpectedly strong for BTC as it surges toward $870,000: what truly changes is the odds for October rate hikes!

In September, nonfarm payrolls added only 29,000 jobs, far below the expected 90,000; the unemployment rate rose to 4.2%, and year-over-year average hourly earnings fell to 3.0%.

On top of that, revisions to the prior two months’ employment data show that the cooling in U.S. labor has already stopped being just a one-month noise—it’s become a sustained trend.

With labor market weakness, keeping rate hikes going could magnify the downside risk to the economy; a slowdown in wage growth also eases pressure for service inflation to rebound again.

Pausing rate hikes in October has effectively become the market’s baseline scenario.

However, core inflation is still around 3%, and oil prices and geopolitical risks have not gone away—so it’s still too early to discuss rate cuts.

For BTC, weak employment data is a near-term tailwind: Treasury yields and the dollar come under pressure, risk assets get breathing room. After BTC breaks $85,500, stop-losses for shorts are triggered and the price quickly pushes up to $87,000.

That said, weak data isn’t only positive.

If upcoming economic indicators keep deteriorating, what the market will be pricing in won’t be “no more rate hikes,” but rather a recession. If U.S. stocks open strong and then fade, BTC could also see “buy-the-rumor, sell-the-news” profit-taking.

Next, focus on several key levels:

$874,000–$880,000 is the main resistance zone. If it can build volume and hold above that level, the upside could target $900,000–$930,000.

$855,000 is the short-term strength/weakness line. Holding it would indicate that the breakout is valid.

A break below $830,000–$840,000 would suggest upside momentum is weakening; losing $820,000 would mean this nonfarm tailwind has basically been fully priced in.

My view is that the pronounced weakening in the labor market significantly reduces the risk of continued rate hikes in October. The probability of testing $900,000 this month is rising—but how much BTC rallies after the data is released may not be the key. What matters is whether, after the U.S. market opens, it can hold above $85,500 and turn $88,000 into support. That will determine whether this move is the start of a trend—or simply the兑现 (profit-taking) of the bullish news.

Why a Sharp Drop in Coin Price and a Sudden Surge in Open Interest (OI) Don’t Mean “The Whales Are Bottom-Fishing”?

When I first started trading perpetual contracts, I saw a coin falling while its OI was surging. My first reaction was: with so much capital entering the market, someone must be picking up at the lows—an upswing should be coming soon.

Later I realized: OI only tells you that new positions are being added. It doesn’t tell you who is long or who is short, and it doesn’t guarantee that the money entering is “smart money.”

I used to bottom-fish like this.

The price had been falling for a while, while open interest kept hitting new highs. Everyone in the group said, “The whales are building positions against the trend.”

I followed and went long. But the price kept dropping, and the funding rate quickly turned negative. Only during the review did I find out that in the newly added OI, there were both trend-following shorts and long positions that kept trying to bottom-fish. The more the longs kept buying the dip, the more stop-losses and liquidations—ironically—became fuel for the next leg lower.

To judge OI, you must combine it with price, trading volume, funding rates, and liquidation data.

If price is rising and OI is increasing, it could mean trend-based adding. If price is falling and OI is increasing, it could be shorts actively attacking—or it could be longs trying to catch the falling knife. Only when price stops falling and spot shows real absorption, or when high-leverage positions have been fully “washed out,” will the signal be more credible.

Looking at just one indicator is like only hearing that chips in a casino have increased, but not knowing which side everyone bet on.

Remember: an OI explosion means the battle is intensifying—it doesn’t mean a bottom has already formed. Before the price is confirmed, what’s sometimes called “whales entering” may simply be more people lining up to become the next batch of liquidity.

Just after I finished saying it last night: Q4 is not about whether “a three-day bullish streak” can keep rising. Instead, we’re watching whether BTC can break above $85500—$88000, turning the rebound into a reversal.

Today, BTC hit a high of $868000. The first resistance at $85500 has been cleared, but we’re still one last step away from the core resistance at $87400 and $88000.

The logic behind this rally isn’t complicated:

The U.S. core PCE came in below expectations, and the probability of the Fed continuing rate hikes in October has dropped to below 25%; the 10-year Treasury yield fell back from around 5.34%, U.S. stocks ended a three-day decline, and risk appetite has warmed up.

After BTC broke above $85500, it also triggered short liquidations, and ultimately led to a rapid surge.

So the call from last night—“test the resistance to the upside first in October”—has been fulfilled. But we still can’t rush to declare a reversal.

The reason is that over the past two days, the spot Bitcoin ETF combined net outflow has exceeded $200 million. This suggests this green candle was mainly driven by macro expectation repair and short-covering, not by continuous institutional accumulation. Without spot ETF buying to back it up, price may still see a spike-and-fade near $88000.

Next, we’ll only look at two possible scenarios:

If BTC breaks through $88000 with volume and holds $85500 during the pullback, then in the short term there’s a chance to keep pushing toward $90000—$93000, and the Q4 market will move from a rebound stage into a breakout phase.

If $87400—$88000 keeps failing and price falls back below $85500 again, it means this rally was still an emotional push before the resistance zone. After that, it’s highly likely we’ll see a pullback and a rotation to $82000—$84000.

The big direction from last night wasn’t wrong, but the market has only passed the first checkpoint. Real strength isn’t how high it spikes during the day—it’s whether, after breaking $88000, it can’t fall back.

Why, after making positions public, does it become even harder for people to admit they were wrong?

After years of trading, I’ve found that once you put your position out there, it’s no longer just about money—it adds another layer: pride.

If you secretly buy the wrong thing, stopping out only means your account is a bit smaller. But if you publicly call bullish and then admit you were wrong, it feels like you’re admitting your judgment failed in front of everyone.

So when the price falls, the first reaction isn’t to re-evaluate—it’s to keep hunting for good news, add reasoning, and even increase the position to prove that you’ll ultimately be right.

I’ve suffered this myself before.

After buying a project, I posted several bullish pieces on social media. Later, the data weakened and the price broke down. In my heart, I was already starting to doubt, but I still didn’t want to exit.

Because selling doesn’t just mean negating the trade—it feels like negating what I said before. In the end, I held a heavier and heavier position, grew more and more certain in my view, yet my account became increasingly honest.

Public expression in itself isn’t wrong, but trading must preserve the right to correct mistakes.

Your view only represents the information you had at the time—it isn’t a lifelong vow. The truly responsible approach is to write down your invalidation conditions in advance. Once the conditions are triggered, you update your judgment—not by packaging losses as “faith” just to maintain your persona.

The market won’t change its direction because you have more followers or your tone is firm.

Remember: the position fears not just being seen by the market, but being held hostage by your own pride. Being willing to go public as bullish isn’t really the point. After your conditions fail, admitting you were wrong publicly—that’s real trading discipline.

Just now, $BTC suddenly surged for no reason—mainly because the inflation data that was just released came in far below expectations!

After the data release, the probability of a Fed rate hike in October dropped markedly, U.S. Treasury yields fell back, and U.S. stock index futures strengthened.

Technically, after BTC stopped falling, the lows kept being lifted. A 4-hour breakout on increased volume pushed through the descending trendline and it has re-entered above the short-term moving averages. The upside structure looks healthier than a move driven purely by short-covering.

Liquidity is also cooperating: spot ETFs have seen net inflows for nine consecutive trading days, while exchange BTC has seen net outflows over the same period—meaning the amount of spot supply available for short-term selling has been reduced.

However, $85,000 itself is a high-density liquidity/position area.

Once price holds above $85,000, first look at $86,500–$87,400; only with a breakout above $87,400 on increased volume will there be an opportunity to test $89,000–$90,000.

If it slips back to $84,000, treat it as a rebound within the range; if it breaks below $83,000, then this breakout will be considered a failure.

There will likely be another push afterward—possibly even more than one—but “another push” doesn’t mean it has already reversed. The real confirmation is whether BTC can turn $85,000 from resistance into support.

I realized that my choice was really bad!

At around 2 p.m., I kept watching the charts. I felt like the DeFi sector might be about to explode upward. Mainly because at that time, BTC wasn’t dropping, and the two of them started turning green—showing a relatively strong trend!

At the same time, I’d also been paying attention to AVAX for a long time, and I felt it had an opportunity too. So, when comparing among the three, I chose COMP...

It’s all tears, actually. I ended up picking the weakest one. While the other two were both up 10% in the afternoon, COMP was only up 5%—still kind of dragging along...

Last night U.S. stocks fell and yields surged—yet despite that, $82,000 still didn’t break!

Under normal price action, $BTC should have continued to test $80,000, but the price bottomed out around $82.6k, then reclaimed $84k.

This indicates there’s indeed buy support between $82k and $83k, and the earlier upward structure hasn’t been broken.

The 4-hour KDJ has formed a new golden cross again; RSI(6) rebounded to around 65. MACD’s bearish momentum is close to exhaustion, and open interest also fell from about 96.2k coins to 93.2k coins. This suggests the rebound happened after a leveraged liquidation wave—not simply propped up by contract stacking.

However, resilience doesn’t equal reversal.

$83k is this week’s line in the sand. If it holds, we continue testing $84.5k–$85.5k. Only if price stands firm at $85.5k with volume can it have a chance to challenge $87k–$87.4k again.

If it drops back below $83k or fails and breaks $82k, then this rally can only be considered a rebound after oversold conditions; afterward, we’d still need to test $80k.

ETFs have been seeing consecutive net inflows, and the buy-side is still there, but the driving momentum is weakening. Institutions have shifted from actively抢筹 to taking over at lower levels.

My view is: this week will most likely first repair, then choose direction. The key range to watch is $82k–$85.5k, and PCE, ISM, and Non-Farm Payrolls will determine which way the final breakout goes.

For short-term plays, just look at relative strength. If ETH holds above $2,700, the catch-up upside is better than most altcoins. SOL is better suited to follow after BTC breaks. HYPE is currently weak—until BTC takes out $85.5k, the “excitement” in altcoins looks more like rotation, not a full-blown major leg up.

Why do you think it’s weak when the price hasn’t risen, but when it finally does rise you dare to go all-in?

After trading for so many years, I’ve found that many people aren’t actually buying cheap prices—they’re buying reassurance.

You don’t dare buy even when the price is low. Then the price rises a lot, and suddenly you dare to rush in like crazy.

When a coin trades sideways for months, its valuation isn’t high and its order book is stable, but because nobody’s talking about it, you start to feel there’s no opportunity. Then once it starts rallying consecutively, breaks the previous high, and the whole internet begins chanting that the main uptrend is starting, you feel like the logic is finally confirmed—and you become brave enough to put your full position in at once.

I used to be exactly like that.

At lower levels, I always wanted to wait a bit more, afraid that if I bought now the price would keep grinding. After it went up 30%, when I saw the trading volume expand and everyone turned bullish, I suddenly thought, “If I don’t buy, I’ll be too late.” As a result, the entry ended up being more expensive, the stop-loss space was bigger, but the pullback I could tolerate was smaller. Just a normal retest washed me out.

And if I refused to stop-loss, I might as well turn from chasing into holding a losing position for the long term.

Confirming a trend naturally comes with higher costs—that’s not wrong. The real issue is that many people say they’re buying “confirmation,” but in practice they’re buying emotion: the higher the price, the heavier the position; the bigger the risk, the fewer the plans.

A truly reasonable approach is: when things are uncertain at low levels, use small positions to test. After trend confirmation, add according to your plan—not go from hesitation straight to full allocation. Certainty always has a price, but it shouldn’t get so expensive that you lose your margin for error.

Remember: an uptrend can only prove the market is getting stronger—it can’t prove that any price is worth buying. The most dangerous thing isn’t missing the low; it’s treating the anxiety of being late as a reason to go heavy.

Why in a bull market do you keep swapping coins, but in the end you still can’t outperform BTC?

When the market heats up, what torments people the most is often not the losses—it’s that the coins you hold don’t rise as fast as others’.

I used to make this mistake too.

BTC would rise for a while, and I’d see SOL getting stronger so I’d switch over; before I’d even had time to enjoy SOL’s momentum, the AI sector starts pumping, so I chase AI; the next day Meme doubles, and then I move my position again.

Every time I rebalance, I have a reason, and every buy is close to the short-term peak of sentiment.

By the end of a whole cycle, I’ve basically participated in every popular track, but my account hasn’t made much—it's not that I completely got the direction wrong, but that I always sold right as it started to gain momentum, and bought after it had already accelerated.

Add in slippage, fees, and the pullback after chasing, and what people call “capturing rotation” ends up turning into constantly helping others carry the sedan.

Real rotation isn’t swapping to whoever is up the most; it’s judging where the capital might flow ahead of time, and accepting that after you buy, it may not rise for a while. As long as the logic of a target hasn’t broken and its relative strength hasn’t clearly worsened, there’s no need to deny it just because someone else has risen more in a single day.

The market creates a new “strongest asset” every day, but your capital is only one pot of money. Trading isn’t collecting stamps, and you don’t need to prove you participated in every hotspot.

Remember: chasing the strongest often means you end up buying the most expensive. In a bull market, the biggest missed opportunity isn’t failing to buy every coin that blasts higher—it’s frequently switching cars and ultimately missing the entire trend.

Whether tonight can hold near 83,000 depends on how the US stock market trades after the open!

After $BTC fell back from 87,400, the 4-hour chart has already broken below the short-term moving average. The MACD bearish momentum is still being released, and the short-term structure is clearly weakening.

However, RSI 6 has already dropped to around 23, and the KDJ has entered the oversold zone. If you keep chasing shorts now, the risk-reward ratio isn’t good.

Tonight, the main things to watch are the Nasdaq, US Treasury yields, and oil prices.

If the Nasdaq continues to fall and US Treasury yields stay elevated, BTC will likely test 82,000. After a high-volume breakdown, support would be in the 80,000 to 80,500 range.

If the US stocks open lower but then rally, Treasury yields may fall back. BTC could then see a technical dead-cat bounce. First watch 84,000. Only if it can reclaim 84,500 will the short-term downtrend truly be considered to have stopped.

There’s also disagreement in the liquidity/positioning.

Last week, net inflows into BTC spot ETFs were about $2.4 billion, but daily inflows are slowing down. Institutions are still buying, but they haven’t continued aggressively chasing. This week is more likely to see modest net inflows, with one or two days of outflows mixed in.

My view is that this week will most likely be weak first and then stabilize. The main trading range is likely 80,000 to 85,500. If 80,000 holds, there is still a chance for a rebound in the second half of the week. If 80,000 breaks, then the downside target is 78,000.

Don’t rush to guess the bottom tonight. Whether 82,000 can bounce isn’t the key. After the US market opens, what matters is whether the incoming funds are willing to absorb/hold the rebound—this will determine whether this pullback is just a shakeout or the start of a deeper correction.