Tessa Cavender ZTgT
14 フォロー
4 フォロワー
32 いいね
0 共有
投稿
翻訳参照
Macro Shift: USD Resurgence, Metals at Risk, Tactical Opportunity in Equities & Crypto
This Is Bearish for Metals. Tactical for Risk. $ESP
Yesterday’s report that Russia is considering a return to U.S. dollar–based settlement as part of a broader economic alignment with President Trump materially changes the macro narrative.
For the past 3–4 years, Russia has been one of the primary drivers behind the de-dollarization trade. That theme became a cornerstone macro positioning driver:
Central banks reducing USD exposure
Treasury selling
Gold accumulation
Structural USD weakness
That flow dynamic was a major contributor to the decline in DXY and the powerful rally in gold and silver.
If Russia now pivots back toward a dollar-based system, the structural de-dollarization thesis weakens materially.
That means:
Incremental USD demand returns
DXY finds structural support
The “currency debasement” trade loses momentum
Historically, a strengthening USD pressures commodities, precious metals, equities, and crypto.
Metals are the most vulnerable.
Gold and silver have been heavily supported by reserve diversification flows and anti-USD positioning. If that bid fades, the unwind could be significant — potentially multi-year.
Equities and crypto are different.
Yes, a stronger USD is typically a headwind for risk assets in the short term. But this development introduces something markets value even more: clarity.
A Russia–U.S. energy alignment would likely increase global supply, easing inflation pressures. That reduces the probability of renewed Fed hawkishness and lowers macro uncertainty.
Remember: BTC rallied in 2023 during rate hikes and QT.
Risk assets don’t require easing — they require visibility.
If this geopolitical shift solidifies:
Near term: USD strength, metals pressure, tactical risk-off
Mid to long term: bullish equities and crypto on reduced uncertainty
Gold and silver, however, may have already printed their macro cycle highs.
$BTC
Yesterday’s report that Russia is considering a return to U.S. dollar–based settlement as part of a broader economic alignment with President Trump materially changes the macro narrative.
For the past 3–4 years, Russia has been one of the primary drivers behind the de-dollarization trade. That theme became a cornerstone macro positioning driver:
Central banks reducing USD exposure
Treasury selling
Gold accumulation
Structural USD weakness
That flow dynamic was a major contributor to the decline in DXY and the powerful rally in gold and silver.
If Russia now pivots back toward a dollar-based system, the structural de-dollarization thesis weakens materially.
That means:
Incremental USD demand returns
DXY finds structural support
The “currency debasement” trade loses momentum
Historically, a strengthening USD pressures commodities, precious metals, equities, and crypto.
Metals are the most vulnerable.
Gold and silver have been heavily supported by reserve diversification flows and anti-USD positioning. If that bid fades, the unwind could be significant — potentially multi-year.
Equities and crypto are different.
Yes, a stronger USD is typically a headwind for risk assets in the short term. But this development introduces something markets value even more: clarity.
A Russia–U.S. energy alignment would likely increase global supply, easing inflation pressures. That reduces the probability of renewed Fed hawkishness and lowers macro uncertainty.
Remember: BTC rallied in 2023 during rate hikes and QT.
Risk assets don’t require easing — they require visibility.
If this geopolitical shift solidifies:
Near term: USD strength, metals pressure, tactical risk-off
Mid to long term: bullish equities and crypto on reduced uncertainty
Gold and silver, however, may have already printed their macro cycle highs.
$BTC
翻訳参照
Bitcoin’s Structural Cycle Model: Mapping the Next High-Probability Bottom
BITCOIN CYCLE ANALYSIS: Integrating TIME and PRICE Frameworks
Most market participants focus exclusively on price. However, Bitcoin’s historical cycle behavior shows that TIME and PRICE together provide a more reliable framework for identifying high-probability accumulation zones.
Here is the structured breakdown of my current cycle model:
TIME AXIS — Cycle Duration Analysis
Measuring the number of days from each halving to the eventual cycle low:
• 2012 cycle: 406 days
• 2016 cycle: 363 days
• 2020 cycle: 376 days
• 2024 cycle: in progress
The clustering of these values suggests structural consistency in Bitcoin’s cycle timing. Based on this pattern, the highest-probability window for the next major cycle bottom falls between October and November 2026.
This is not a prediction of an exact price. It is a probabilistic time window where risk-reward historically becomes asymmetric in favor of long-term buyers.
PRICE AXIS — Value-Based Accumulation
While time defines the window, price defines opportunity.
I began scaling into BTC as price entered the $60,000 region. This is not because it must be the absolute bottom, but because value emerges before certainty. Waiting for perfect price confirmation often results in missed cycle entries.
Key principle:
Strong accumulation occurs when either
• Price enters historically undervalued zones, OR
• Time enters historically high-probability cycle bottom windows
Not necessarily both at once.
ON-CHAIN CONFIRMATION — NUPL Indicator
Net Unrealized Profit/Loss (NUPL) has historically identified true cycle bottoms, including:
• 2018 bear market bottom
• March 2020 capitulation
• 2022 cycle low
Currently, NUPL has not yet reached full capitulation levels. This suggests the possibility of extended consolidation or deeper corrective phases before the final cycle bottom forms.
PROBABILITY-WEIGHTED OUTLOOK
Based on combined cycle timing, valuation, and on-chain positioning:
• Accumulation zone: Below $60,000
• High-probability deeper value zone: $45,000–$50,000
• Maximum cycle opportunity window: Oct–Nov 2026
STRATEGIC EXECUTION MODEL
My framework is systematic, not emotional:
• Accumulate when price reaches value zones
• Aggressively accumulate during cycle timing windows
• Ignore short-term noise and sentiment extremes
• Focus on asymmetric risk-reward opportunities
CONCLUSION
Bitcoin cycles are governed by structural timing, liquidity expansion, and investor psychology. Price alone does not define opportunity. Time completes the equation.
The current phase appears transitional, not terminal. Volatility and uncertainty are normal components of late-cycle distribution and early accumulation phases.
Positioning during these periods historically separates reactive participants from strategic accumulators.
This is a probabilistic framework, not financial advice. Risk management and position sizing remain critical.
If you want, I can also make a shorter, high-engagement version optimized specifically for Binance Square’s algorithm and trader audien$
Most market participants focus exclusively on price. However, Bitcoin’s historical cycle behavior shows that TIME and PRICE together provide a more reliable framework for identifying high-probability accumulation zones.
Here is the structured breakdown of my current cycle model:
TIME AXIS — Cycle Duration Analysis
Measuring the number of days from each halving to the eventual cycle low:
• 2012 cycle: 406 days
• 2016 cycle: 363 days
• 2020 cycle: 376 days
• 2024 cycle: in progress
The clustering of these values suggests structural consistency in Bitcoin’s cycle timing. Based on this pattern, the highest-probability window for the next major cycle bottom falls between October and November 2026.
This is not a prediction of an exact price. It is a probabilistic time window where risk-reward historically becomes asymmetric in favor of long-term buyers.
PRICE AXIS — Value-Based Accumulation
While time defines the window, price defines opportunity.
I began scaling into BTC as price entered the $60,000 region. This is not because it must be the absolute bottom, but because value emerges before certainty. Waiting for perfect price confirmation often results in missed cycle entries.
Key principle:
Strong accumulation occurs when either
• Price enters historically undervalued zones, OR
• Time enters historically high-probability cycle bottom windows
Not necessarily both at once.
ON-CHAIN CONFIRMATION — NUPL Indicator
Net Unrealized Profit/Loss (NUPL) has historically identified true cycle bottoms, including:
• 2018 bear market bottom
• March 2020 capitulation
• 2022 cycle low
Currently, NUPL has not yet reached full capitulation levels. This suggests the possibility of extended consolidation or deeper corrective phases before the final cycle bottom forms.
PROBABILITY-WEIGHTED OUTLOOK
Based on combined cycle timing, valuation, and on-chain positioning:
• Accumulation zone: Below $60,000
• High-probability deeper value zone: $45,000–$50,000
• Maximum cycle opportunity window: Oct–Nov 2026
STRATEGIC EXECUTION MODEL
My framework is systematic, not emotional:
• Accumulate when price reaches value zones
• Aggressively accumulate during cycle timing windows
• Ignore short-term noise and sentiment extremes
• Focus on asymmetric risk-reward opportunities
CONCLUSION
Bitcoin cycles are governed by structural timing, liquidity expansion, and investor psychology. Price alone does not define opportunity. Time completes the equation.
The current phase appears transitional, not terminal. Volatility and uncertainty are normal components of late-cycle distribution and early accumulation phases.
Positioning during these periods historically separates reactive participants from strategic accumulators.
This is a probabilistic framework, not financial advice. Risk management and position sizing remain critical.
If you want, I can also make a shorter, high-engagement version optimized specifically for Binance Square’s algorithm and trader audien$
翻訳参照
Bitcoin, Quantum Risk, and the Difference Between Preparation and Activation
1️⃣ Repository Merge ≠ Network Upgrade
In Bitcoin’s development process, there are multiple layers:
Bitcoin Core code repository (implementation)
BIP repository (design proposals)
Consensus activation on the live network
A proposal being “merged” into a repository does not automatically mean:
It changes consensus rules
It is active on the network
Nodes are enforcing it
Many BIPs are informational, draft-stage, or optional standards. Only a subset become consensus-critical upgrades, and those require broad node adoption and a formal activation mechanism (e.g., soft fork signaling).
So the key analytical question is:
Was this a consensus-level cryptographic change, or a documentation-level proposal merge?
2️⃣ The Real Quantum Risk to Bitcoin
Bitcoin’s cryptographic exposure comes from its use of:
ECDSA (Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm) over secp256k1
Hash functions (SHA-256 and RIPEMD-160)
Quantum computers threaten these differently:
Shor’s algorithm could break ECDSA if a sufficiently large, fault-tolerant quantum computer exists.
Grover’s algorithm only quadratically weakens hash functions, which is far less catastrophic.
Important nuance:
Bitcoin public keys are not revealed until coins are spent.
UTXOs that have never been spent are less exposed.
Large-scale quantum computers capable of breaking secp256k1 do not currently exist.
So Bitcoin’s vulnerability is conditional and time-dependent, not immediate.
3️⃣ What a Genuine Quantum-Resistant Upgrade Would Require
A meaningful “quantum hardening” would involve:
Introducing a post-quantum signature scheme (e.g., lattice-based cryptography)
Designing a migration path for existing UTXOs
Likely deploying via soft fork
Coordinated ecosystem adoption (nodes, wallets, exchanges)
Such a change would be:
Technically complex
Politically sensitive
Multi-year in rollout
It would not be a quiet repository merge — it would be a major industry event.
4️⃣ Strategic Interpretation
If a proposal related to quantum resistance has indeed been merged:
It likely represents early-stage preparation.
It signals research and long-term risk mitigation.
It does not mean Bitcoin is now “quantum-proof.”
Bitcoin’s governance model favors gradual, conservative upgrades. Preparation is rational. Urgency is currently limited by the actual state of quantum hardware.
Conclusion
The statement “They said quantum would kill Bitcoin — Bitcoin just prepared for it” is rhetorically powerful but analytically incomplete.
Preparation ≠ activation.
Proposal ≠ consensus change.
Research ≠ immediate threat mitigation.
If you’d like, I can also provide:
A technical comparison of ECDSA vs post-quantum signatures
A scenario analysis of how a quantum attack would unfold
Or a market-impact assessment if a real quantum fork were announce
$BTC
$BTC
In Bitcoin’s development process, there are multiple layers:
Bitcoin Core code repository (implementation)
BIP repository (design proposals)
Consensus activation on the live network
A proposal being “merged” into a repository does not automatically mean:
It changes consensus rules
It is active on the network
Nodes are enforcing it
Many BIPs are informational, draft-stage, or optional standards. Only a subset become consensus-critical upgrades, and those require broad node adoption and a formal activation mechanism (e.g., soft fork signaling).
So the key analytical question is:
Was this a consensus-level cryptographic change, or a documentation-level proposal merge?
2️⃣ The Real Quantum Risk to Bitcoin
Bitcoin’s cryptographic exposure comes from its use of:
ECDSA (Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm) over secp256k1
Hash functions (SHA-256 and RIPEMD-160)
Quantum computers threaten these differently:
Shor’s algorithm could break ECDSA if a sufficiently large, fault-tolerant quantum computer exists.
Grover’s algorithm only quadratically weakens hash functions, which is far less catastrophic.
Important nuance:
Bitcoin public keys are not revealed until coins are spent.
UTXOs that have never been spent are less exposed.
Large-scale quantum computers capable of breaking secp256k1 do not currently exist.
So Bitcoin’s vulnerability is conditional and time-dependent, not immediate.
3️⃣ What a Genuine Quantum-Resistant Upgrade Would Require
A meaningful “quantum hardening” would involve:
Introducing a post-quantum signature scheme (e.g., lattice-based cryptography)
Designing a migration path for existing UTXOs
Likely deploying via soft fork
Coordinated ecosystem adoption (nodes, wallets, exchanges)
Such a change would be:
Technically complex
Politically sensitive
Multi-year in rollout
It would not be a quiet repository merge — it would be a major industry event.
4️⃣ Strategic Interpretation
If a proposal related to quantum resistance has indeed been merged:
It likely represents early-stage preparation.
It signals research and long-term risk mitigation.
It does not mean Bitcoin is now “quantum-proof.”
Bitcoin’s governance model favors gradual, conservative upgrades. Preparation is rational. Urgency is currently limited by the actual state of quantum hardware.
Conclusion
The statement “They said quantum would kill Bitcoin — Bitcoin just prepared for it” is rhetorically powerful but analytically incomplete.
Preparation ≠ activation.
Proposal ≠ consensus change.
Research ≠ immediate threat mitigation.
If you’d like, I can also provide:
A technical comparison of ECDSA vs post-quantum signatures
A scenario analysis of how a quantum attack would unfold
Or a market-impact assessment if a real quantum fork were announce
$BTC
$BTC
翻訳参照
User Loses $354,000 to Address Poisoning: A Case Study in Transaction-Level Risk
A recent incident highlights a critical but often underestimated risk in crypto self-custody: transaction execution errors. According to an alert issued by Web3 Antivirus, a user lost approximately 354,000 USDT after falling victim to an address poisoning attack.
The exploit did not involve private key compromise or smart contract failure. Instead, the attacker leveraged behavioral patterns common among frequent transactors.
In an address poisoning attack, the adversary generates a wallet address that closely mimics a legitimate counterparty address—typically matching the same starting and ending characters. The attacker then sends a small-value or zero-value transaction to the victim’s wallet, causing the spoofed address to appear in the transaction history.
When the victim later initiated a transfer, they copied the address from historical transactions rather than verifying a fresh destination. Because only partial characters were visually checked, the full balance was inadvertently sent to the attacker-controlled address.
From a risk management perspective, this incident underscores that operational risk, not market volatility, remains one of the primary sources of capital loss in crypto. Convenience-driven workflows—such as reusing addresses from transaction history—can introduce single-point-of-failure scenarios with irreversible consequences.
For traders and investors handling large balances, this reinforces the need for execution discipline: full address verification, use of address books with whitelisting, test transactions, and hardware or UI-based confirmation layers.
The event serves as a reminder that in crypto markets, capital preservation is as much about process as it is about positioning.
News is for reference only and does not constitute investment advice.
$BTC
A recent incident highlights a critical but often underestimated risk in crypto self-custody: transaction execution errors. According to an alert issued by Web3 Antivirus, a user lost approximately 354,000 USDT after falling victim to an address poisoning attack.
The exploit did not involve private key compromise or smart contract failure. Instead, the attacker leveraged behavioral patterns common among frequent transactors.
In an address poisoning attack, the adversary generates a wallet address that closely mimics a legitimate counterparty address—typically matching the same starting and ending characters. The attacker then sends a small-value or zero-value transaction to the victim’s wallet, causing the spoofed address to appear in the transaction history.
When the victim later initiated a transfer, they copied the address from historical transactions rather than verifying a fresh destination. Because only partial characters were visually checked, the full balance was inadvertently sent to the attacker-controlled address.
From a risk management perspective, this incident underscores that operational risk, not market volatility, remains one of the primary sources of capital loss in crypto. Convenience-driven workflows—such as reusing addresses from transaction history—can introduce single-point-of-failure scenarios with irreversible consequences.
For traders and investors handling large balances, this reinforces the need for execution discipline: full address verification, use of address books with whitelisting, test transactions, and hardware or UI-based confirmation layers.
The event serves as a reminder that in crypto markets, capital preservation is as much about process as it is about positioning.
News is for reference only and does not constitute investment advice.
$BTC
翻訳参照
Conviction, Asymmetry, and Capital Concentration: CZ’s Bitcoin Bet
Changpeng Zhao (CZ) disclosed that he sold his Shanghai apartment for approximately $900,000 to buy Bitcoin ($BTC) during the 2014 drawdown, despite lacking stable employment at the time.
CZ’s conviction was not impulsive. After first encountering Bitcoin in 2013, he spent roughly six months studying the white paper and engaging with early ecosystem participants. By the time he reached full conviction, Bitcoin had already appreciated from around $70 to over $1,000, significantly compressing perceived upside.
The subsequent correction reshaped the risk profile. As Bitcoin retraced toward the $400 level in early 2014, CZ assessed the market as offering improved asymmetric exposure. He liquidated his apartment and deployed capital into Bitcoin, describing an average entry near $600, while increasing allocation as prices declined further.
At the time of execution, CZ had already exited his prior role and committed to pursuing opportunities within the Bitcoin industry. He later joined Blockchain.info (now Blockchain.com), gaining early exposure to on-chain data, exchange infrastructure, and market mechanics—experience that would later prove foundational.
CZ framed the decision as a technology-driven bet rather than a purely speculative trade. He viewed Bitcoin as a structural innovation comparable to the early internet, with downside defined by capital loss and upside driven by global monetary adoption.
The trade predated the founding of Binance in 2017. What began as capital concentration into a high-volatility asset evolved into long-term industry participation, culminating in the development of one of the world’s largest crypto trading platforms.
From a market perspective, the episode illustrates early-cycle behavior: high conviction, concentrated risk, and willingness to endure drawdowns in exchange for long-duration asymmetric payoff. It remains a notable case study in conviction-based positioning during Bitcoin’s formative years.
#CZAMAonBinanceSquare #CZAMAonBinanceSquare CZ #BTC
CZ’s conviction was not impulsive. After first encountering Bitcoin in 2013, he spent roughly six months studying the white paper and engaging with early ecosystem participants. By the time he reached full conviction, Bitcoin had already appreciated from around $70 to over $1,000, significantly compressing perceived upside.
The subsequent correction reshaped the risk profile. As Bitcoin retraced toward the $400 level in early 2014, CZ assessed the market as offering improved asymmetric exposure. He liquidated his apartment and deployed capital into Bitcoin, describing an average entry near $600, while increasing allocation as prices declined further.
At the time of execution, CZ had already exited his prior role and committed to pursuing opportunities within the Bitcoin industry. He later joined Blockchain.info (now Blockchain.com), gaining early exposure to on-chain data, exchange infrastructure, and market mechanics—experience that would later prove foundational.
CZ framed the decision as a technology-driven bet rather than a purely speculative trade. He viewed Bitcoin as a structural innovation comparable to the early internet, with downside defined by capital loss and upside driven by global monetary adoption.
The trade predated the founding of Binance in 2017. What began as capital concentration into a high-volatility asset evolved into long-term industry participation, culminating in the development of one of the world’s largest crypto trading platforms.
From a market perspective, the episode illustrates early-cycle behavior: high conviction, concentrated risk, and willingness to endure drawdowns in exchange for long-duration asymmetric payoff. It remains a notable case study in conviction-based positioning during Bitcoin’s formative years.
#CZAMAonBinanceSquare #CZAMAonBinanceSquare CZ #BTC
「ビットコインETFの反発：市場を動かすものは何か？」
2月11日は、市場のボラティリティにより2億7600万ドルの純流出を記録し、米国ビットコインETFにとって厳しい一日となりました。しかし、ウィズダムツリーのBTCW ETFは678万ドルの流入で逆風を乗り切りました！現在、両ETFの流入総額は6626万ドルです👍。一方、フィデリティのFBTCは9260万ドルの流出でトップでしたが、過去の流入額は110億7000万ドルと依然として最大級のETFの一つです。
ETF市場は依然として巨大で、857.7億ドル（ビットコイン時価総額の6.35%に相当🤯）に達しています。また、最近の資金流出にもかかわらず、すべてのスポットビットコインETFへの流入総額は依然として547.2億ドルに達しています。
ETF市場は依然として巨大で、857.7億ドル（ビットコイン時価総額の6.35%に相当🤯）に達しています。また、最近の資金流出にもかかわらず、すべてのスポットビットコインETFへの流入総額は依然として547.2億ドルに達しています。
さらにコンテンツを探すには、ログインしてください