币链快报
1.5k Posts
币链快报
2 Following
6.5K+ Followers
3.7K+ Liked
Posts
All
Videos
Thoughts on the “cycles” and correlation of cryptocurrencies:
Bitcoin is still a very good hedge because its correlation with other assets is weak.
1) Bitcoin and the U.S. stock market show correlation in the short term, but not in the long term. The sign is that when the U.S. stock market surges sharply on a given day, Bitcoin also tends to rise.
However, in the long run, when Bitcoin surges, the U.S. stock market doesn’t necessarily perform particularly well. On the other hand, over the past year, the S&P 500 has surged, and from Bitcoin’s peak level it has fallen by half.
So in the long run, because Bitcoin has weak correlation with other assets, within an investment portfolio: when Bitcoin rises, you can sell Bitcoin and buy other assets; when other assets rise, you can buy Bitcoin. This logic still holds.
For a period of time, people all said this logic had stopped working, but now it seems the viewpoint is still valid.
2) Altcoins are positively correlated with Bitcoin, but they don’t have Bitcoin’s kind of “four-year cycle.”
When Bitcoin experiences a sharp drop, altcoins will fall into their lowest trough. However, when Bitcoin rebounds, altcoins will skyrocket.
There’s a catch here: if Bitcoin continues to rise and the upward cycle becomes extremely long, then altcoins may not keep up and could crash hard.
I think altcoins are ultimately a prime target for “harvesting retail investors’ money.” If Bitcoin keeps falling, altcoins will return to zero. When Bitcoin rebounds, altcoins are especially prone to quickly surge—people who chased the bottom. VCs then have all kinds of low- or zero-cost coins and dump them into the secondary market. Altcoins inevitably won’t be able to rise along with Bitcoin.
So altcoins only have an opportunity during that period of Bitcoin’s V-shaped rebound.
Altcoins also have another fatal problem: most are exploration-stage projects with no revenue. It’s likely that they got things wrong and only had an idea, or they got things right but missed the timing, or they got things right at the right time but had no luck. No matter which case it is, there’s no income, and they will die within three or four years.
Bitcoin is still a very good hedge because its correlation with other assets is weak.
1) Bitcoin and the U.S. stock market show correlation in the short term, but not in the long term. The sign is that when the U.S. stock market surges sharply on a given day, Bitcoin also tends to rise.
However, in the long run, when Bitcoin surges, the U.S. stock market doesn’t necessarily perform particularly well. On the other hand, over the past year, the S&P 500 has surged, and from Bitcoin’s peak level it has fallen by half.
So in the long run, because Bitcoin has weak correlation with other assets, within an investment portfolio: when Bitcoin rises, you can sell Bitcoin and buy other assets; when other assets rise, you can buy Bitcoin. This logic still holds.
For a period of time, people all said this logic had stopped working, but now it seems the viewpoint is still valid.
2) Altcoins are positively correlated with Bitcoin, but they don’t have Bitcoin’s kind of “four-year cycle.”
When Bitcoin experiences a sharp drop, altcoins will fall into their lowest trough. However, when Bitcoin rebounds, altcoins will skyrocket.
There’s a catch here: if Bitcoin continues to rise and the upward cycle becomes extremely long, then altcoins may not keep up and could crash hard.
I think altcoins are ultimately a prime target for “harvesting retail investors’ money.” If Bitcoin keeps falling, altcoins will return to zero. When Bitcoin rebounds, altcoins are especially prone to quickly surge—people who chased the bottom. VCs then have all kinds of low- or zero-cost coins and dump them into the secondary market. Altcoins inevitably won’t be able to rise along with Bitcoin.
So altcoins only have an opportunity during that period of Bitcoin’s V-shaped rebound.
Altcoins also have another fatal problem: most are exploration-stage projects with no revenue. It’s likely that they got things wrong and only had an idea, or they got things right but missed the timing, or they got things right at the right time but had no luck. No matter which case it is, there’s no income, and they will die within three or four years.
It seems that regarding the idea that when Polymarket’s future TGE comes, it will move away from Polygon and launch its own L2—this is what it looks like.
I feel that Ethereum is the one that can be clearly guaranteed to win the future.
For future applications, you can simply deploy your own L2 without needing to worry about decentralization and security issues. In the end, it still needs to carry Ethereum.
BNB can also deploy an L2, but if you ask you to put U (large amounts) into a wallet, would you put it on the BNB Chain or on Ethereum?
Most people would choose Ethereum. So the projects they deploy will also surely choose Ethereum L2, not other chains.
Something like Polymarket—through the World Cup, it can bring in lots of users who bet on sports, and it can educate a batch of people on using EVM wallets.
This is one of the reasons for the surge in stablecoins.
Right now, the whole industry feels like it’s dying, but actually it’s the night before a boom.
However, just like after the dot-com bubble burst—when 99.99% died, and now many projects have to die fully, leaving only a very, very small number.
In the future, a new batch will be born, like Polymarket and similar kinds.
At the moment, the one with relatively higher certainty is still Ethereum—only depends on what level the final price falls to.
I feel that Ethereum is the one that can be clearly guaranteed to win the future.
For future applications, you can simply deploy your own L2 without needing to worry about decentralization and security issues. In the end, it still needs to carry Ethereum.
BNB can also deploy an L2, but if you ask you to put U (large amounts) into a wallet, would you put it on the BNB Chain or on Ethereum?
Most people would choose Ethereum. So the projects they deploy will also surely choose Ethereum L2, not other chains.
Something like Polymarket—through the World Cup, it can bring in lots of users who bet on sports, and it can educate a batch of people on using EVM wallets.
This is one of the reasons for the surge in stablecoins.
Right now, the whole industry feels like it’s dying, but actually it’s the night before a boom.
However, just like after the dot-com bubble burst—when 99.99% died, and now many projects have to die fully, leaving only a very, very small number.
In the future, a new batch will be born, like Polymarket and similar kinds.
At the moment, the one with relatively higher certainty is still Ethereum—only depends on what level the final price falls to.
I'm very good at seizing these sudden, momentary opportunities for big gains; in most cases, I'm right.
In an instant, I sold everything—$MANTA
However, the profit I've made in this way hasn't even managed to match what I've lost in this round of crash from last year to today, after five years of gains.
In an instant, I sold everything—$MANTA
However, the profit I've made in this way hasn't even managed to match what I've lost in this round of crash from last year to today, after five years of gains.
Talking about a status of buying coins $S :
Back then, the cost was 0.2. I sold at 0.6, then it dropped again to 0.2–0.3. Then I built a position again. Sold at 0.54, and later it went back to 0.2–0.3. Then I sold again at 0.5–0.7.
Later it kept rising. It climbed to 1U. In the end, it fell again—down to the 0.2–0.3 range, and I built another round of positions.
Then it crashed hard to 0.02. The money from my previous position was basically wiped out. I built another round at 0.02, and my holdings increased.
The problem now is this: AI infrastructure cyclical investment—chip companies invest in AI companies, and AI companies go buy chips from chip companies.
As long as you keep playing, the stock price will keep going up, and all the world’s capital will rush into it.
So everyone will definitely keep playing. This is real, huge profits in gold and silver.
In reality, many people in this interest system have no risk. As long as the bubble keeps being inflated, they will definitely benefit.
For example, Huang Renxun—he keeps inflating the bubble, the bigger he inflates it, the more he benefits. Because he has obtained actual market share, while his cost is paid by others.
There are even active funds and the like. A lot of capital is basically risk-free; when the bubble bursts, they still end up making buckets of money, and they also control absolute say-so.
So the thing where chip companies invest in AI, and AI companies buy chips from chip companies will definitely continue.
This has been happening throughout the middle of the day and all along, continuing the whole time—but one day, early or late, something will go wrong.
If this happens, then it won’t just be a problem of my coin prices being 0.02. It would become 0.002.
Over the past year, it has basically been like this.
Back then, the cost was 0.2. I sold at 0.6, then it dropped again to 0.2–0.3. Then I built a position again. Sold at 0.54, and later it went back to 0.2–0.3. Then I sold again at 0.5–0.7.
Later it kept rising. It climbed to 1U. In the end, it fell again—down to the 0.2–0.3 range, and I built another round of positions.
Then it crashed hard to 0.02. The money from my previous position was basically wiped out. I built another round at 0.02, and my holdings increased.
The problem now is this: AI infrastructure cyclical investment—chip companies invest in AI companies, and AI companies go buy chips from chip companies.
As long as you keep playing, the stock price will keep going up, and all the world’s capital will rush into it.
So everyone will definitely keep playing. This is real, huge profits in gold and silver.
In reality, many people in this interest system have no risk. As long as the bubble keeps being inflated, they will definitely benefit.
For example, Huang Renxun—he keeps inflating the bubble, the bigger he inflates it, the more he benefits. Because he has obtained actual market share, while his cost is paid by others.
There are even active funds and the like. A lot of capital is basically risk-free; when the bubble bursts, they still end up making buckets of money, and they also control absolute say-so.
So the thing where chip companies invest in AI, and AI companies buy chips from chip companies will definitely continue.
This has been happening throughout the middle of the day and all along, continuing the whole time—but one day, early or late, something will go wrong.
If this happens, then it won’t just be a problem of my coin prices being 0.02. It would become 0.002.
Over the past year, it has basically been like this.
S-2.33%
NVDAUS-0.26%
Verified
Famous doesn’t necessarily mean sensible. If gold were $350,000, then its valuation could be as high as $240 trillion.
Haha, that would be twice the total of global M2. It would mean that everything else in the world is worthless—stock prices, housing prices—everything would go to gold.
I’m exaggerating when I say that; this kind of scenario won’t form.
For gold priced at 35,000, it would take 50 to 100 years for inflation to push it to a price that high.
An investing celebrity with no common sense.
Haha, that would be twice the total of global M2. It would mean that everything else in the world is worthless—stock prices, housing prices—everything would go to gold.
I’m exaggerating when I say that; this kind of scenario won’t form.
For gold priced at 35,000, it would take 50 to 100 years for inflation to push it to a price that high.
An investing celebrity with no common sense.
Partly True
Today global M2 is $120 trillion, and the US stock market valuation is $75 trillion.
And the K-shaped divergence is continuing to happen. Even within the AI sector itself, it’s happening.
That means the stocks that surge are getting an ever-narrower segment of the market. Most US stocks are actually performing poorly. It’s all being driven by a small number of stocks.
The last time we saw a similar K-shaped divergence was in June 1999, during the internet bubble. However, the bubble burst in March 2000.
And the K-shaped divergence is continuing to happen. Even within the AI sector itself, it’s happening.
That means the stocks that surge are getting an ever-narrower segment of the market. Most US stocks are actually performing poorly. It’s all being driven by a small number of stocks.
The last time we saw a similar K-shaped divergence was in June 1999, during the internet bubble. However, the bubble burst in March 2000.
Hyperliquid is facing a challenge.
Blockchains now have an ultimate dilemma: providing both decentralization-resistant censorship and a Web2 user experience.
Uniswap is decentralized and censorship-resistant, meaning that even if you arrest their entire team, you still can’t extract a single illicit transaction’s funds.
Unless you act like criminals—break the rules—seize their team’s assets.
Hyperliquid’s success is built on an assumption: they’ve already solved blockchain’s ultimate dilemma.
But everyone knows that’s impossible.
So if Hyperliquid can’t be censorship-resistant, yet so much money flows through it, then sooner or later something will go wrong.
This kind of “pretending to have solved blockchain’s ultimate problem” strategy always shows up among startup founders in China—and it inevitably becomes legendary.
They split up the market’s cake, and everyone knows about the handle points involved; it’s hard to imagine it can be deployed safely.
The simplest example: a piece of dirty money enters Hyperliquid, and then that money is used to trade in the platform’s derivatives markets so that other clean accounts can profit.
With just this play, it’s very hard to plug the loophole.
If it isn’t decentralized, Hyperliquid’s mechanism is basically the same as a CEX. If it tries to decentralize, on one hand decentralization itself is extremely difficult, and on the other hand Hyperliquid’s user experience disappears.
Blockchains now have an ultimate dilemma: providing both decentralization-resistant censorship and a Web2 user experience.
Uniswap is decentralized and censorship-resistant, meaning that even if you arrest their entire team, you still can’t extract a single illicit transaction’s funds.
Unless you act like criminals—break the rules—seize their team’s assets.
Hyperliquid’s success is built on an assumption: they’ve already solved blockchain’s ultimate dilemma.
But everyone knows that’s impossible.
So if Hyperliquid can’t be censorship-resistant, yet so much money flows through it, then sooner or later something will go wrong.
This kind of “pretending to have solved blockchain’s ultimate problem” strategy always shows up among startup founders in China—and it inevitably becomes legendary.
They split up the market’s cake, and everyone knows about the handle points involved; it’s hard to imagine it can be deployed safely.
The simplest example: a piece of dirty money enters Hyperliquid, and then that money is used to trade in the platform’s derivatives markets so that other clean accounts can profit.
With just this play, it’s very hard to plug the loophole.
If it isn’t decentralized, Hyperliquid’s mechanism is basically the same as a CEX. If it tries to decentralize, on one hand decentralization itself is extremely difficult, and on the other hand Hyperliquid’s user experience disappears.
Partly True
It’s okay to lose money; what matters is improving your eyesight. For example, when it comes to judging people:
Even judging crypto requires looking at the leaders.
1) BNB’s CZ: he’s not stingy when it comes to making money, but he can still maintain a super-strong persona. And because he wants to build BNB well, it’s no surprise that it rises.
2) DOT’s founder, Wood: he’s basically an engineer—no marketing skills, and no vision related to the product. At this point, you can only hope that DOT’s decentralization goes well, so that after the Clarity Act it can transition into a digital-asset mode, and then follow the price path of the kind of crypto that moves like POW.
3) V God, $ETH : I didn’t see particularly strong engineering-code ability, but his marketing and product vision are where his talent peaks. And this kind of product vision can still be expressed in the form of “papers,” so Ethereum can reach god-level status.
However, recently V God has been shouting that he wants to exit. I don’t quite understand what move this is. The people at Ethlabs—without V God’s capability—jumping out would only be a long-term joke.
V God’s abilities are in stark contrast to Wood’s. Now, a startup team definitely needs someone like V God—not someone like Wood.
4) The boss at $NEAR has the ability to precisely hold back hype. Under NEAR’s leadership, there is this kind of flexibility. However, NEAR itself is in a prolonged phase of exploration—this is the common predicament for most public chains. That’s also why coin prices can turn out good or bad.
5) The group around $S ’s AC: it feels like an efficient group of “scalpers” that cut through waves of retail traders. Obviously, their first target is making money at high speed.
Sonic’s DAG has some innovation, and they’ve also put some effort into the ecosystem. But due to inherent shortcomings, long-term steady growth probably won’t happen.
So they likely adopt a strategy of repeatedly pumping and collapsing the market by leveraging DeFi’s characteristics, constantly manipulating the market.
The key is: you don’t know whether they’re done playing for real at some point, or whether they’re intentionally releasing signals to push the price down, recover their chips, and prepare for the next round of the game.
6) ENA’s financial design is very ingenious. The founder can even create something like Ethereal—a DEX perp—even if it hasn’t been particularly successful. But the fact that he had this idea, plus the original USDe design, shows that their brain is clearly very capable.
ENA’s BD team should be among the toughest in the business—an entire team that understands crypto to the extreme.
……
These things can’t make me immediately correct my path, but in ongoing changes in the future, they will quietly—and over time—adjust my decisions.
Even judging crypto requires looking at the leaders.
1) BNB’s CZ: he’s not stingy when it comes to making money, but he can still maintain a super-strong persona. And because he wants to build BNB well, it’s no surprise that it rises.
2) DOT’s founder, Wood: he’s basically an engineer—no marketing skills, and no vision related to the product. At this point, you can only hope that DOT’s decentralization goes well, so that after the Clarity Act it can transition into a digital-asset mode, and then follow the price path of the kind of crypto that moves like POW.
3) V God, $ETH : I didn’t see particularly strong engineering-code ability, but his marketing and product vision are where his talent peaks. And this kind of product vision can still be expressed in the form of “papers,” so Ethereum can reach god-level status.
However, recently V God has been shouting that he wants to exit. I don’t quite understand what move this is. The people at Ethlabs—without V God’s capability—jumping out would only be a long-term joke.
V God’s abilities are in stark contrast to Wood’s. Now, a startup team definitely needs someone like V God—not someone like Wood.
4) The boss at $NEAR has the ability to precisely hold back hype. Under NEAR’s leadership, there is this kind of flexibility. However, NEAR itself is in a prolonged phase of exploration—this is the common predicament for most public chains. That’s also why coin prices can turn out good or bad.
5) The group around $S ’s AC: it feels like an efficient group of “scalpers” that cut through waves of retail traders. Obviously, their first target is making money at high speed.
Sonic’s DAG has some innovation, and they’ve also put some effort into the ecosystem. But due to inherent shortcomings, long-term steady growth probably won’t happen.
So they likely adopt a strategy of repeatedly pumping and collapsing the market by leveraging DeFi’s characteristics, constantly manipulating the market.
The key is: you don’t know whether they’re done playing for real at some point, or whether they’re intentionally releasing signals to push the price down, recover their chips, and prepare for the next round of the game.
6) ENA’s financial design is very ingenious. The founder can even create something like Ethereal—a DEX perp—even if it hasn’t been particularly successful. But the fact that he had this idea, plus the original USDe design, shows that their brain is clearly very capable.
ENA’s BD team should be among the toughest in the business—an entire team that understands crypto to the extreme.
……
These things can’t make me immediately correct my path, but in ongoing changes in the future, they will quietly—and over time—adjust my decisions.
Universal Circle of Friends: In domestic civil litigation, the other party tried to pull a fast one, losing both the first and second trials with solid evidence.
Now the issue is that they are applying for a retrial at the Supreme People's Court. During this retrial application process, do I need to leverage relationships? What happens if I don’t?
Seeking answers online, thanks.
China is so shady; do I need to grease some palms? I'm already worn out.
Now the issue is that they are applying for a retrial at the Supreme People's Court. During this retrial application process, do I need to leverage relationships? What happens if I don’t?
Seeking answers online, thanks.
China is so shady; do I need to grease some palms? I'm already worn out.
Strangely enough, my grandparents' children, that is, my aunts and uncles, all run businesses that can make money.
Is there some kind of secret?
In China, there aren't many families with high assets; for example, there are not more than 200,000 households with 5 million without loans and investable assets.
But I estimate they have all reached that level.
I think the secret lies in having a strong desire for wealth during the process of making a living, which is key.
Living at the bottom for a long time actually exposes you to many opportunities, so skills multiplied by exposure multiplied by luck equals success.
Three variables:
1) Luck is very fair;
2) Skills are also quite fair for ordinary people; in fact, those who have struggled in society for a lifetime have skill levels that are not weaker than a PhD in an office;
3) Exposure is a completely different story. My uncles are among the most driven individuals I've seen regarding their desire for wealth; this group has done exceedingly well, and their common trait is: they are always thinking of ways to make money.
Every time I meet these people, they are always thinking of one way after another to make money; if they aren't making money, they are on the road to making money.
Is there some kind of secret?
In China, there aren't many families with high assets; for example, there are not more than 200,000 households with 5 million without loans and investable assets.
But I estimate they have all reached that level.
I think the secret lies in having a strong desire for wealth during the process of making a living, which is key.
Living at the bottom for a long time actually exposes you to many opportunities, so skills multiplied by exposure multiplied by luck equals success.
Three variables:
1) Luck is very fair;
2) Skills are also quite fair for ordinary people; in fact, those who have struggled in society for a lifetime have skill levels that are not weaker than a PhD in an office;
3) Exposure is a completely different story. My uncles are among the most driven individuals I've seen regarding their desire for wealth; this group has done exceedingly well, and their common trait is: they are always thinking of ways to make money.
Every time I meet these people, they are always thinking of one way after another to make money; if they aren't making money, they are on the road to making money.
Bitcoin bullish, ARK Fund signals release, X supports crypto trading, the "CLARITY Act" passed but faced obstacles, SBF investment valued at $80 billion, is the cryptocurrency favorable news useless? Why?
MicroStrategy can only be checked at noon because it blows up in the morning and at night.
Former Sotheby's CEO Tad Smith: Bought some STRC from Saylor's Strategy company
https://app.chainalert.me/articles/6b0d5f
Former Sotheby's CEO Tad Smith: Bought some STRC from Saylor's Strategy company
https://app.chainalert.me/articles/6b0d5f
BTC's "four-year cycle" and altcoins' "three-year cycle"
The crypto market is often summarized by the phrase "every four years a cycle," but this phrase primarily applies to Bitcoin (BTC) rather than altcoins.
If we break down the "cycle" into two different clocks: BTC is calibrated by halving and macro liquidity, displaying a major peak-valley-peak pattern close to four years; whereas the profit effect of altcoins is more concentrated in the short window of the "altcoin season," often peaking earlier, exhausting liquidity sooner, and entering clearance earlier, thus reflecting a more effective cycle closer to "three years a cycle."
Full text:
https://chainalert.me/view/research/7f2dc0
The crypto market is often summarized by the phrase "every four years a cycle," but this phrase primarily applies to Bitcoin (BTC) rather than altcoins.
If we break down the "cycle" into two different clocks: BTC is calibrated by halving and macro liquidity, displaying a major peak-valley-peak pattern close to four years; whereas the profit effect of altcoins is more concentrated in the short window of the "altcoin season," often peaking earlier, exhausting liquidity sooner, and entering clearance earlier, thus reflecting a more effective cycle closer to "three years a cycle."
Full text:
https://chainalert.me/view/research/7f2dc0
Bitcoin plunges, the U.S. government shutdown impact, yen interest rate hike, gold and silver surge, introduction to short-selling signal tools. $BTC
The CoinChain Express has added a "Trading Signal" quantitative module:
The coins that appear here are currently market hotspots, with a significant increase in trading volume, and their market capitalization rankings exceed the highest point in the past 90 days, which means these cryptocurrencies have been favored by the market during this period.
It has the following effects:
1) If you are doing trend investing, these might be coins with a short-term upward trend, but if they start to pull back, they can drop heavily;
2) If there is corresponding spot trading, this is the best time to switch positions, but you can only sell in batches, as the general trend is upward;
3) If you are shorting, based on previous data, the winning probability is very high, exceeding 90%, but since these coins are on an upward trend, once you open a short position, there is almost a 100% chance of losing, and the loss could be significant, requiring constant addition of chips to perform "averaging down" to raise the opening price.
In this state, it is recommended to short at 1X, because the upward pull speed will be very fast. If it is not among the top 100 coins, doubling is quite easy. For example, $FIL , from 1.3 it went up to 2.6, then to 3.9, then dropped back to 3.4, later around 1.3, returning to its original state.
This program will detect this trading signal when it is between 2.6 and 3 dollars. How will you utilize such trends? Continue to soar, then drop back?
I tried to short with a small position of 1X on $AXS , AXS kept rising, and I continuously added chips to raise the average opening price for the short position.
Later, I gave up, although I didn't incur much loss, but watching it every day was honestly quite exhausting.
I believe that from a probabilistic statistical perspective, with a very small position, continuously shorting the top 200 coins still has a very large winning potential.
The difficulty lies in it being very mentally exhausting.
The coins that appear here are currently market hotspots, with a significant increase in trading volume, and their market capitalization rankings exceed the highest point in the past 90 days, which means these cryptocurrencies have been favored by the market during this period.
It has the following effects:
1) If you are doing trend investing, these might be coins with a short-term upward trend, but if they start to pull back, they can drop heavily;
2) If there is corresponding spot trading, this is the best time to switch positions, but you can only sell in batches, as the general trend is upward;
3) If you are shorting, based on previous data, the winning probability is very high, exceeding 90%, but since these coins are on an upward trend, once you open a short position, there is almost a 100% chance of losing, and the loss could be significant, requiring constant addition of chips to perform "averaging down" to raise the opening price.
In this state, it is recommended to short at 1X, because the upward pull speed will be very fast. If it is not among the top 100 coins, doubling is quite easy. For example, $FIL , from 1.3 it went up to 2.6, then to 3.9, then dropped back to 3.4, later around 1.3, returning to its original state.
This program will detect this trading signal when it is between 2.6 and 3 dollars. How will you utilize such trends? Continue to soar, then drop back?
I tried to short with a small position of 1X on $AXS , AXS kept rising, and I continuously added chips to raise the average opening price for the short position.
Later, I gave up, although I didn't incur much loss, but watching it every day was honestly quite exhausting.
I believe that from a probabilistic statistical perspective, with a very small position, continuously shorting the top 200 coins still has a very large winning potential.
The difficulty lies in it being very mentally exhausting.
Institutional funds are flowing back! The spot Bitcoin ETF saw a net inflow of $1.4 billion last week, achieving the best single-week performance since October last year
https://chainalert.me/view/research/1c1716
https://chainalert.me/view/research/1c1716
Log in to explore more content