Eric SJ
3.4k Posts
Eric SJ
Square Verified+推特@sjbtc9丨内容输出：美股相关(科普和财报分析)、二级市场技术分析、Web3项目观点
Creator Awards 2024
原创之星
67 Following
56.5K+ Followers
140.7K+ Liked
3 Badges
Posts
All
Quotes
Videos
Live
PINNED
Attention all traders:
From now on, before making any trades, especially in the morning, I will post an intraday trend analysis for the assets we're targeting, usually BTC, ETH, and SOL.
The trading direction and analysis for the day will primarily follow this note, and the trend must remain consistent unless I explicitly indicate a direction change.
If there's a violation, I'll be sending out red envelopes for each infraction!
From now on, before making any trades, especially in the morning, I will post an intraday trend analysis for the assets we're targeting, usually BTC, ETH, and SOL.
The trading direction and analysis for the day will primarily follow this note, and the trend must remain consistent unless I explicitly indicate a direction change.
If there's a violation, I'll be sending out red envelopes for each infraction!
Trending
I’m writing an article about the reinsurance track—if I move fast, I’ll publish it tomorrow.
This segment is one of the few relatively newer developments from this round.
Also, while looking at the concepts of RWA and reinsurance, I gained some new insights.
Scale matters, but distribution coverage is the real key.
On the XRP chain, a power token with a very high TVL was issued. The TVL is now as high as 2.2 billion, but what is the distribution rate on-chain?
Very low—almost none.
Also, after Securitize’s Q2 earnings report was disclosed earlier, I only then understood the business model of RWA asset issuers. Profitability and asset size aren’t perfectly correlated either.
To a certain extent, these RWA issuers are doing something a bit like service providers that specifically supply TVL data for different protocols, which can easily create a sense of false prosperity.
This segment is one of the few relatively newer developments from this round.
Also, while looking at the concepts of RWA and reinsurance, I gained some new insights.
Scale matters, but distribution coverage is the real key.
On the XRP chain, a power token with a very high TVL was issued. The TVL is now as high as 2.2 billion, but what is the distribution rate on-chain?
Very low—almost none.
Also, after Securitize’s Q2 earnings report was disclosed earlier, I only then understood the business model of RWA asset issuers. Profitability and asset size aren’t perfectly correlated either.
To a certain extent, these RWA issuers are doing something a bit like service providers that specifically supply TVL data for different protocols, which can easily create a sense of false prosperity.
Besides keeping an eye on whether this market trend associated with $BTC will continue,
we also need to pay close attention to the trends in Web3’s primary-market funding amount and number of deals. Right now, both of these figures have fallen to the lowest levels in six years.
In the past, these numbers would rise in tandem as the secondary market recovered.
In the past few months, there was a divergence between funding amount and the number of funding events, suggesting that a small number of projects are receiving more capital support.
After several rounds of industry activity, it is still mostly narrative-driven, with insufficient verifiable business models.
Meanwhile, AI has become the new focal point of technical narratives in the capital market, pulling large amounts of capital toward infrastructure/compute power, models, and the application layer.
As a result, Web3 has lost its previous-cycle advantage in attracting capital attention.
Some may say that capital concentrating its bets is a sign of industry maturity, but I don’t think this is the kind of scenario an industry that is still in development should have.
Because it means that large amounts of space for innovation and experimentation are shrinking.
I looked at how funding amounts are distributed across different tracks this year, and the answer is also very clear: VCs are no longer buying “narratives” alone.
Large primary investments are mainly concentrated in the two tracks, CEFI and DEFI. The shared characteristic of these two tracks is a “verifiable business model.”
Various paradigms and applications that were discussed in the past no longer appear on my timeline.
we also need to pay close attention to the trends in Web3’s primary-market funding amount and number of deals. Right now, both of these figures have fallen to the lowest levels in six years.
In the past, these numbers would rise in tandem as the secondary market recovered.
In the past few months, there was a divergence between funding amount and the number of funding events, suggesting that a small number of projects are receiving more capital support.
After several rounds of industry activity, it is still mostly narrative-driven, with insufficient verifiable business models.
Meanwhile, AI has become the new focal point of technical narratives in the capital market, pulling large amounts of capital toward infrastructure/compute power, models, and the application layer.
As a result, Web3 has lost its previous-cycle advantage in attracting capital attention.
Some may say that capital concentrating its bets is a sign of industry maturity, but I don’t think this is the kind of scenario an industry that is still in development should have.
Because it means that large amounts of space for innovation and experimentation are shrinking.
I looked at how funding amounts are distributed across different tracks this year, and the answer is also very clear: VCs are no longer buying “narratives” alone.
Large primary investments are mainly concentrated in the two tracks, CEFI and DEFI. The shared characteristic of these two tracks is a “verifiable business model.”
Various paradigms and applications that were discussed in the past no longer appear on my timeline.
Big pancake $BTC This time, the integer pass of 7w7 should be impossible to hold; it has been tested repeatedly
Last week I experienced an overall uptrend in the broad market, and on-chain contract trading volume also averaged doubled
I pulled out and compared the price performance, trading volume, and OI changes of three Perp DEX over the past two weeks
Overall, they’re all on the benchmark line
But
Below are my emotional observations of different holders on my timeline over the past week
Holding $HYPE : as expected
Holding $LIT : promising
Holding $ASTER : ******
I pulled out and compared the price performance, trading volume, and OI changes of three Perp DEX over the past two weeks
Overall, they’re all on the benchmark line
But
Below are my emotional observations of different holders on my timeline over the past week
Holding $HYPE : as expected
Holding $LIT : promising
Holding $ASTER : ******
Partly True
Walmart $WMT The free cash flow that needs to be generated in the second half should be at least $10.9 billion
This actually isn’t a figure from the earnings report itself, but something I inferred based on a single line from management during the earnings call.
“We expect Walmart’s free cash flow for this fiscal year to achieve double-digit growth.”
In the prior fiscal year, Walmart $WMT full-year free cash flow was $14.923 billion.
Based on the minimum 10% projection, this fiscal year would also need to reach at least $16.415 billion.
So
Subtract the results already achieved in the first half from this number, and you get approximately $10.9 billion in free cash flow data, representing year-over-year growth of about 36.4%.
That means it would need to generate an additional $2.906 billion.
The purple portion in my image should make it clear that the required year-over-year growth rate is as high as 36%.
I honestly don’t think Walmart can achieve this kind of free cash flow growth in the next two quarters.
The last two instances of more than 36% year-over-year growth both occurred after the 2022 inventory crisis. But this time there’s no motive or backdrop like that.
“Management says it’s mainly due to strategic projects and inflation, with no obvious inventory risk.”
So this time, Walmart has to create nearly an additional $2.9 billion in free cash flow while keeping capital expenditures at a high level, and with inventory not having much room to be reduced significantly.
This actually isn’t a figure from the earnings report itself, but something I inferred based on a single line from management during the earnings call.
“We expect Walmart’s free cash flow for this fiscal year to achieve double-digit growth.”
In the prior fiscal year, Walmart $WMT full-year free cash flow was $14.923 billion.
Based on the minimum 10% projection, this fiscal year would also need to reach at least $16.415 billion.
So
Subtract the results already achieved in the first half from this number, and you get approximately $10.9 billion in free cash flow data, representing year-over-year growth of about 36.4%.
That means it would need to generate an additional $2.906 billion.
The purple portion in my image should make it clear that the required year-over-year growth rate is as high as 36%.
I honestly don’t think Walmart can achieve this kind of free cash flow growth in the next two quarters.
The last two instances of more than 36% year-over-year growth both occurred after the 2022 inventory crisis. But this time there’s no motive or backdrop like that.
“Management says it’s mainly due to strategic projects and inflation, with no obvious inventory risk.”
So this time, Walmart has to create nearly an additional $2.9 billion in free cash flow while keeping capital expenditures at a high level, and with inventory not having much room to be reduced significantly.
Eric SJ
·
--
Walmart’s free cash flow falls 20%—where does the $10.9 billion in the second half come from?
When a company’s profit grows, its free cash flow declines. At the same time, management makes a big promise that free cash flow in the second half will grow at a double-digit rate. Why?
If we focus only on core business, the earnings report Walmart released this time looks quite good in both revenue and profit:
Total net revenue in the second quarter reached $187.9 billion, up 5.9% year over year; adjusted operating profit increased 17.4% year over year, and adjusted earnings per share reached $0.81, up 19.1%;
The company also raised its full-year guidance for sales, operating profit, and earnings per share.
But I think the cash-flow changes in this earnings report are worth discussing. When you look at them, they are difficult to achieve. Here, we need to report two figures:
If we focus only on core business, the earnings report Walmart released this time looks quite good in both revenue and profit:
Total net revenue in the second quarter reached $187.9 billion, up 5.9% year over year; adjusted operating profit increased 17.4% year over year, and adjusted earnings per share reached $0.81, up 19.1%;
The company also raised its full-year guidance for sales, operating profit, and earnings per share.
But I think the cash-flow changes in this earnings report are worth discussing. When you look at them, they are difficult to achieve. Here, we need to report two figures:
The complete Bitcoin spot ETF data for the past week is finally in.
As expected, it turned out to be the largest net inflow in a single week this year.
There is an underlying logic worth paying attention to behind this move.
This time, the week-on-week price increase of $BTC is the largest in the past two and a half years, but the inflow amount has not yet exceeded several of this year’s earlier peak levels—so it can only be considered normal volume.
The price change fundamentally comes down to: buying power vs. selling power.
This rally isn’t because the buy side suddenly became super strong; rather, the sellers’ willingness has dropped to a near-freezing point. With just a little push, it shot up like a fuse being lit.
So right now, price is determined by both: capital inflows + supply contraction.
Looking at the ETF inflow amounts from the last two days, the inflow on the 21st was nearly 50% less than the previous day (this change could just be noise).
If ETF inflows continue to slow down, the price may still remain strong.
Then this would further validate another viewpoint: around $80,000, the supply willingness of holders has not increased noticeably.
This kind of situation can amplify volatility, because once the market enters a low-supply state, price sensitivity to incremental capital becomes much higher.
A small amount of new buy orders could drive a larger surge; conversely, the downside would also be larger.
As expected, it turned out to be the largest net inflow in a single week this year.
There is an underlying logic worth paying attention to behind this move.
This time, the week-on-week price increase of $BTC is the largest in the past two and a half years, but the inflow amount has not yet exceeded several of this year’s earlier peak levels—so it can only be considered normal volume.
The price change fundamentally comes down to: buying power vs. selling power.
This rally isn’t because the buy side suddenly became super strong; rather, the sellers’ willingness has dropped to a near-freezing point. With just a little push, it shot up like a fuse being lit.
So right now, price is determined by both: capital inflows + supply contraction.
Looking at the ETF inflow amounts from the last two days, the inflow on the 21st was nearly 50% less than the previous day (this change could just be noise).
If ETF inflows continue to slow down, the price may still remain strong.
Then this would further validate another viewpoint: around $80,000, the supply willingness of holders has not increased noticeably.
This kind of situation can amplify volatility, because once the market enters a low-supply state, price sensitivity to incremental capital becomes much higher.
A small amount of new buy orders could drive a larger surge; conversely, the downside would also be larger.
Eric SJ
·
--
There are two relatively optimistic data points in this round of the upward move:
Whether it’s $BTC or $ETH , the spot ETF’s net inflow for the week has hit a new high in nearly half a year, and the second highest this year.
(And this set of statistics isn’t complete—only three days have been counted so far this week.)
If we include the remaining two days of data that haven’t been disclosed yet, it’s very likely to be the largest single-week net inflow this year.
Looking at the weekly K-line chart, the last time BTC had a single-week gain of over 20% was in February 2024.
That means
this rally has also set the record for the biggest single-week gain over the past nearly two and a half years (not for haters).
Whether it’s $BTC or $ETH , the spot ETF’s net inflow for the week has hit a new high in nearly half a year, and the second highest this year.
(And this set of statistics isn’t complete—only three days have been counted so far this week.)
If we include the remaining two days of data that haven’t been disclosed yet, it’s very likely to be the largest single-week net inflow this year.
Looking at the weekly K-line chart, the last time BTC had a single-week gain of over 20% was in February 2024.
That means
this rally has also set the record for the biggest single-week gain over the past nearly two and a half years (not for haters).
There are two relatively optimistic data points in this round of the upward move:
Whether it’s $BTC or $ETH , the spot ETF’s net inflow for the week has hit a new high in nearly half a year, and the second highest this year.
(And this set of statistics isn’t complete—only three days have been counted so far this week.)
If we include the remaining two days of data that haven’t been disclosed yet, it’s very likely to be the largest single-week net inflow this year.
Looking at the weekly K-line chart, the last time BTC had a single-week gain of over 20% was in February 2024.
That means
this rally has also set the record for the biggest single-week gain over the past nearly two and a half years (not for haters).
Whether it’s $BTC or $ETH , the spot ETF’s net inflow for the week has hit a new high in nearly half a year, and the second highest this year.
(And this set of statistics isn’t complete—only three days have been counted so far this week.)
If we include the remaining two days of data that haven’t been disclosed yet, it’s very likely to be the largest single-week net inflow this year.
Looking at the weekly K-line chart, the last time BTC had a single-week gain of over 20% was in February 2024.
That means
this rally has also set the record for the biggest single-week gain over the past nearly two and a half years (not for haters).
Oh my god oh my god oh my god
How come $BTC hasn't even been three hours and it's already up to 70,000?
How come $BTC hasn't even been three hours and it's already up to 70,000?
Eric SJ
·
--
BullishThe big pancake is preparing to return to 70,000 recently $BTC
Thank you for this friend’s recognition. Pointing things out is not something I can claim—I just want to share my perspective.
1. First, we need to fix a timeframe. This is the most, most, most important thing. If you don’t know which timeframe to use, you can ask yourself: what kind of trading frequency do you expect?
For example, if I’m doing intraday delivery, I won’t go back to look at the 4H and daily (D1) charts.
But if you usually like holding positions for two or three days, then I’d recommend using the daily or 4H chart to judge the trend, and then using the 1-hour or 30-minute timeframe to decide where the entry has the better risk-reward ratio.
2. Trading is more about refining the way to respond than just getting this one right and the next one right. We can’t assume that whatever we do is automatically correct—we have to accept the fact that we can be wrong.
But the question is: if we’re wrong, how do we deal with it?
3. Finally, one last line to offer: trade along the larger timeframe, and enter against the smaller timeframe.
1. First, we need to fix a timeframe. This is the most, most, most important thing. If you don’t know which timeframe to use, you can ask yourself: what kind of trading frequency do you expect?
For example, if I’m doing intraday delivery, I won’t go back to look at the 4H and daily (D1) charts.
But if you usually like holding positions for two or three days, then I’d recommend using the daily or 4H chart to judge the trend, and then using the 1-hour or 30-minute timeframe to decide where the entry has the better risk-reward ratio.
2. Trading is more about refining the way to respond than just getting this one right and the next one right. We can’t assume that whatever we do is automatically correct—we have to accept the fact that we can be wrong.
But the question is: if we’re wrong, how do we deal with it?
3. Finally, one last line to offer: trade along the larger timeframe, and enter against the smaller timeframe.
300起步
·
--
A feeling in the late night—if any big-shot would be willing to give me guidance, I’d be very grateful.
In my trading system, right now BTC (big biscuit) is in a bearish trend. The daily chart has never really picked up volume. This morning I shared a wish for a W-bottom; after carefully reviewing it, I found that when you combine volume and price, it doesn’t really fit—only the shape looks similar.
Around 64,000 I closed my long position and flipped to open 🈳. The resistance overhead is at 64,450. This is clearly the place where I should have opened a short. But as I watched the price on the screen gradually stretch upward and the trading volume increase step by step, I felt dazed. I was confused. In the back of my mind, it was as if there was a voice telling me, “The short you opened at 64,000 was the wrong choice.”
At this moment, I’m陷入 deep self-doubt. I hope some seasoned expert can help me find my way. #btc #trading psychology
In my trading system, right now BTC (big biscuit) is in a bearish trend. The daily chart has never really picked up volume. This morning I shared a wish for a W-bottom; after carefully reviewing it, I found that when you combine volume and price, it doesn’t really fit—only the shape looks similar.
Around 64,000 I closed my long position and flipped to open 🈳. The resistance overhead is at 64,450. This is clearly the place where I should have opened a short. But as I watched the price on the screen gradually stretch upward and the trading volume increase step by step, I felt dazed. I was confused. In the back of my mind, it was as if there was a voice telling me, “The short you opened at 64,000 was the wrong choice.”
At this moment, I’m陷入 deep self-doubt. I hope some seasoned expert can help me find my way. #btc #trading psychology
Three hundred points isn’t much, but it’s still enough.
Eric SJ
·
--
If you’re worried that $BTC won’t reach 6w4, you can also enter short at the current price. But you need to split the position you originally planned into several smaller lots. If it rises, add
In the end, the average cost will be around 64,000. This way, you won’t miss the move
In the end, the average cost will be around 64,000. This way, you won’t miss the move
If you’re worried that $BTC won’t reach 6w4, you can also enter short at the current price. But you need to split the position you originally planned into several smaller lots. If it rises, add
In the end, the average cost will be around 64,000. This way, you won’t miss the move
In the end, the average cost will be around 64,000. This way, you won’t miss the move
Eric SJ
·
--
$BTC has already reached the initial resistance. This trade is incredibly smooth within the day.
You can take profit first, if that’s how you feel (stop fixing it in a sense).
Next, you can consider placing a short order around 64000.
You can take profit first, if that’s how you feel (stop fixing it in a sense).
Next, you can consider placing a short order around 64000.
$BTC has already reached the initial resistance. This trade is incredibly smooth within the day.
You can take profit first, if that’s how you feel (stop fixing it in a sense).
Next, you can consider placing a short order around 64000.
You can take profit first, if that’s how you feel (stop fixing it in a sense).
Next, you can consider placing a short order around 64000.
Eric SJ
·
--
BullishHow resistance levels are determined $BTC
On the 4H chart, I drew a Fibonacci retracement; around 63,700 is the 0.382 resistance level.
After a weekend, the market consolidated and moved out of the downward trend. Next, we need to decide the direction again, but for now, we should watch for a rebound to confirm the trend.
On the 4H chart, I drew a Fibonacci retracement; around 63,700 is the 0.382 resistance level.
After a weekend, the market consolidated and moved out of the downward trend. Next, we need to decide the direction again, but for now, we should watch for a rebound to confirm the trend.
How resistance levels are determined $BTC
On the 4H chart, I drew a Fibonacci retracement; around 63,700 is the 0.382 resistance level.
After a weekend, the market consolidated and moved out of the downward trend. Next, we need to decide the direction again, but for now, we should watch for a rebound to confirm the trend.
On the 4H chart, I drew a Fibonacci retracement; around 63,700 is the 0.382 resistance level.
After a weekend, the market consolidated and moved out of the downward trend. Next, we need to decide the direction again, but for now, we should watch for a rebound to confirm the trend.
Eric SJ
·
--
BullishA new week
Dabing $BTC is starting to push toward the 63,000 integer level. All weekend has been consolidating around this area, and a new structure has already been formed.
Based on the chart indicators, all intraday cycles are currently at low levels.
I think this move can break through; the resistance level is around 63,600–63,700.
Dabing $BTC is starting to push toward the 63,000 integer level. All weekend has been consolidating around this area, and a new structure has already been formed.
Based on the chart indicators, all intraday cycles are currently at low levels.
I think this move can break through; the resistance level is around 63,600–63,700.
A new week
Dabing $BTC is starting to push toward the 63,000 integer level. All weekend has been consolidating around this area, and a new structure has already been formed.
Based on the chart indicators, all intraday cycles are currently at low levels.
I think this move can break through; the resistance level is around 63,600–63,700.
Dabing $BTC is starting to push toward the 63,000 integer level. All weekend has been consolidating around this area, and a new structure has already been formed.
Based on the chart indicators, all intraday cycles are currently at low levels.
I think this move can break through; the resistance level is around 63,600–63,700.
However, there are still about 8 billion people in the world who do not have Bitcoin. The group holding $BTC accounts for only about 4.4% of the total population.
According to AI estimates, the number of people who hold gold is about 18%—30% of the total population.
Therefore:
The number of gold holders is approximately 4.1—6.8 times that of Bitcoin holders, and the market value is about 24.4 times that of BTC.
According to AI estimates, the number of people who hold gold is about 18%—30% of the total population.
Therefore:
The number of gold holders is approximately 4.1—6.8 times that of Bitcoin holders, and the market value is about 24.4 times that of BTC.
Log in to explore more content