密智君 Crypto Plus AI
1.5k Posts
密智君 Crypto Plus AI
分享AI Crypto创新洞见，AI实用工具 & 技巧分享，心得，热门话题探讨#CryptoAGI
90 Following
987 Followers
1.6K+ Liked
Posts
All
Quotes
Videos
PINNED
Whoa, I just saw this chart in the square, and I'm completely stunned. This isn't trading; it's practically a real-life 'suicidal attack'.
Brothers, did you see clearly? This dude went short on $LAB at 0.68, and now the price has skyrocketed to 4.7. He's sitting on a paper loss of $487,000, with a return rate of negative 85.95%. What's heartbreaking is his message: he's mortgaged his house and car, and has been margin-calling ever since; he really can't borrow any more money now. The liquidation price is at 5.29, just a step away from the current price.
Honestly, looking at this chart really reminds me of my past self. That desperate feeling of watching the price jump toward the liquidation line while being completely powerless is enough to drive anyone insane. This isn't shorting; it's like playing a 'life swap' game with the market makers. You thought 0.68 was a high point, but the market makers are telling you there's always a higher high.
What I admire (and feel sorry for) is his obsession. Going all-in short with 1x leverage, enduring nearly a 7x increase. That takes some serious 'courage' and a thick wallet, huh? But the trading market doesn’t care about tears, and definitely doesn’t believe in 'holding on for dear life'. You try to reason with the market makers, but they just want to drain your last drop of blood. $BTC #LAB
Brothers, did you see clearly? This dude went short on $LAB at 0.68, and now the price has skyrocketed to 4.7. He's sitting on a paper loss of $487,000, with a return rate of negative 85.95%. What's heartbreaking is his message: he's mortgaged his house and car, and has been margin-calling ever since; he really can't borrow any more money now. The liquidation price is at 5.29, just a step away from the current price.
Honestly, looking at this chart really reminds me of my past self. That desperate feeling of watching the price jump toward the liquidation line while being completely powerless is enough to drive anyone insane. This isn't shorting; it's like playing a 'life swap' game with the market makers. You thought 0.68 was a high point, but the market makers are telling you there's always a higher high.
What I admire (and feel sorry for) is his obsession. Going all-in short with 1x leverage, enduring nearly a 7x increase. That takes some serious 'courage' and a thick wallet, huh? But the trading market doesn’t care about tears, and definitely doesn’t believe in 'holding on for dear life'. You try to reason with the market makers, but they just want to drain your last drop of blood. $BTC #LAB
PINNED
Wow, this guy made 140,000 times his investment in 14 years. Who else can be as awesome as him? In 2011, he spent less than $8,000 to buy 10,000 $BTC , when one Bitcoin was only $0.78.
So what happened? He just held on for 14 years! By October 2025, when Bitcoin broke through $109,000, he sold everything and cashed out over $1 billion. A 140,000 times return, this is not just investment, this is simply like cultivating immortality.
To be honest, what I admire most is not that he bought early, but that he was able to hold on. Over these 14 years, he experienced hundreds of crashes and endured four long bear markets lasting several years. How many times did the market halve, how many times did the media shout 'Bitcoin will go to zero', and he never wavered once. This kind of determination is really not something ordinary people can possess.
I used to have quite a few good stocks, but I sold when they rose two or three times, and cut losses when they fell by 20%. Seeing others get a 140,000 times increase, I can only mock myself: people like us who can't hold on deserve to miss out on big money.
Risk Warning: This kind of 'get rich quick myth' is an extreme case of survivor bias. Just because he made a fortune after 14 years, don’t think you can do the same. Investment requires caution; first, ask yourself if you can withstand a 90% drawdown.
What do you think? If you bought 10,000 Bitcoins in 2011, could you still hold on until now? Be honest in the comments, at which point would you get off the ride?
$BTC
So what happened? He just held on for 14 years! By October 2025, when Bitcoin broke through $109,000, he sold everything and cashed out over $1 billion. A 140,000 times return, this is not just investment, this is simply like cultivating immortality.
To be honest, what I admire most is not that he bought early, but that he was able to hold on. Over these 14 years, he experienced hundreds of crashes and endured four long bear markets lasting several years. How many times did the market halve, how many times did the media shout 'Bitcoin will go to zero', and he never wavered once. This kind of determination is really not something ordinary people can possess.
I used to have quite a few good stocks, but I sold when they rose two or three times, and cut losses when they fell by 20%. Seeing others get a 140,000 times increase, I can only mock myself: people like us who can't hold on deserve to miss out on big money.
Risk Warning: This kind of 'get rich quick myth' is an extreme case of survivor bias. Just because he made a fortune after 14 years, don’t think you can do the same. Investment requires caution; first, ask yourself if you can withstand a 90% drawdown.
What do you think? If you bought 10,000 Bitcoins in 2011, could you still hold on until now? Be honest in the comments, at which point would you get off the ride?
$BTC
Unbelievable—how much sell pressure is there on MicroStrategy’s BTC, I’ve worked it out
First, put the numbers on the table. The fixed annual sale quota totals $3.25 billion (additional reserve $1.25 billion + redeeming preferred stock $1.0 billion + redeeming MSTR $1.0 billion). In addition, annual dividends and interest expenses are $1.763 billion. March/June/September/December are high-pressure months, and spending in a single month at quarter-end exceeds $230 million.
When you calculate across the three scenarios:
Worst case (full-year fixed quota + full-year dividends, BTC price at 60K): MicroStrategy would need to sell 83,549 BTC, which is 3.09% of the BTC circulating on exchanges; 1.86% of the combined holdings of exchanges + ETFs; and 14.41% of MicroStrategy’s own holdings.
Neutral case (fixed quota + dividends for one quarter, BTC price at 60K): it would need to sell 61,512 BTC, which is 2.27% of the exchange amount.
The higher the price, the fewer coins sold: for the same dollar amount, at a 90K price the worst case requires only 55,699 BTC, or 2.06% of the exchange amount.
Two key takeaways:
First, there’s no death spiral. The fixed quota is a budget authorization, not a price-trigger mechanism. If BTC drops, it won’t force MicroStrategy to sell more—that’s completely different from leverage liquidation.
Second, the USD reserves can cover expenses through November 2027. That means in the near term, dividends aren’t paid by selling BTC; they’re paid with cash. The timing to sell BTC is chosen by MicroStrategy, not dictated by market pressure.
The sell pressure is real and the market already knows it—the emotional impact has already happened. What remains is a slow release of the effects, not a sudden collapse.
How long do you think the market would take to digest sell pressure of this magnitude? #比特币走低
First, put the numbers on the table. The fixed annual sale quota totals $3.25 billion (additional reserve $1.25 billion + redeeming preferred stock $1.0 billion + redeeming MSTR $1.0 billion). In addition, annual dividends and interest expenses are $1.763 billion. March/June/September/December are high-pressure months, and spending in a single month at quarter-end exceeds $230 million.
When you calculate across the three scenarios:
Worst case (full-year fixed quota + full-year dividends, BTC price at 60K): MicroStrategy would need to sell 83,549 BTC, which is 3.09% of the BTC circulating on exchanges; 1.86% of the combined holdings of exchanges + ETFs; and 14.41% of MicroStrategy’s own holdings.
Neutral case (fixed quota + dividends for one quarter, BTC price at 60K): it would need to sell 61,512 BTC, which is 2.27% of the exchange amount.
The higher the price, the fewer coins sold: for the same dollar amount, at a 90K price the worst case requires only 55,699 BTC, or 2.06% of the exchange amount.
Two key takeaways:
First, there’s no death spiral. The fixed quota is a budget authorization, not a price-trigger mechanism. If BTC drops, it won’t force MicroStrategy to sell more—that’s completely different from leverage liquidation.
Second, the USD reserves can cover expenses through November 2027. That means in the near term, dividends aren’t paid by selling BTC; they’re paid with cash. The timing to sell BTC is chosen by MicroStrategy, not dictated by market pressure.
The sell pressure is real and the market already knows it—the emotional impact has already happened. What remains is a slow release of the effects, not a sudden collapse.
How long do you think the market would take to digest sell pressure of this magnitude? #比特币走低
It’s incredible—DOGE quietly closed its doors. It pledged a reduction of $2 trillion, but ultimately only delivered $215 billion. Even the case report never materialized.
On July 4, 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States, the DOGE website went offline without warning. The account with 5 million followers went silent, leaving only a statement: “The mission will continue.”
The budget director said clearly in Congress that no closure report would be released.
An organization that claimed it would bring a transparency and efficiency revolution to the government ultimately chose to provide no official summary of its 18-month term. That, by itself, is the biggest irony.
The collapse of the numbers is worth recording:
$2 trillion promised → revised down by $1 trillion → finally announced $215 billion. That’s one-tenth of the original target.
And even that $215 billion is questionable—GAO and independent agencies can’t fully verify it. Many of the figures count projected future savings as already realized savings. The IRS estimates that DOGE-related layoffs and institutional chaos would cause more than $500 billion in lost tax revenue—more than what it “saved.”
Musk himself worked for 130 days. When he left, he said, “Not too bad, but I won’t do it again.”
The overlooked cost:
A statistical model from the School of Public Health at Boston University shows that DOGE’s cuts to overseas aid indirectly caused about 780,000 deaths as of February 2026, mostly children. It’s an estimate—but that number never appeared in any official summary.
The cybersecurity line is even harder to repair: a 19-year-old engineer obtained database access covering identity information for 500 million Americans. The former engineer claims he has a thumb drive containing NUMIDENT and the death master file, and says he has “God-level” access. These data won’t expire, and they can’t be reissued.
There’s a line between efficiency and accountability. When a startup makes a mistake, investors pay the bill. When the government makes a mistake, it’s the ordinary people—those who never even had the chance to participate in the decisions from start to finish—who foot the cost.
The article ends with the Ulysses mast from Homer’s epics: rational people, before temptation arrives, bind themselves with institutions. The most valuable design of DOGE may well be that self-destruction deadline written into the executive order.
Do you think DOGE’s 18 months had a positive or negative long-term impact on the U.S. government? $DOGE #马斯克身价跌破1万亿美元
On July 4, 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States, the DOGE website went offline without warning. The account with 5 million followers went silent, leaving only a statement: “The mission will continue.”
The budget director said clearly in Congress that no closure report would be released.
An organization that claimed it would bring a transparency and efficiency revolution to the government ultimately chose to provide no official summary of its 18-month term. That, by itself, is the biggest irony.
The collapse of the numbers is worth recording:
$2 trillion promised → revised down by $1 trillion → finally announced $215 billion. That’s one-tenth of the original target.
And even that $215 billion is questionable—GAO and independent agencies can’t fully verify it. Many of the figures count projected future savings as already realized savings. The IRS estimates that DOGE-related layoffs and institutional chaos would cause more than $500 billion in lost tax revenue—more than what it “saved.”
Musk himself worked for 130 days. When he left, he said, “Not too bad, but I won’t do it again.”
The overlooked cost:
A statistical model from the School of Public Health at Boston University shows that DOGE’s cuts to overseas aid indirectly caused about 780,000 deaths as of February 2026, mostly children. It’s an estimate—but that number never appeared in any official summary.
The cybersecurity line is even harder to repair: a 19-year-old engineer obtained database access covering identity information for 500 million Americans. The former engineer claims he has a thumb drive containing NUMIDENT and the death master file, and says he has “God-level” access. These data won’t expire, and they can’t be reissued.
There’s a line between efficiency and accountability. When a startup makes a mistake, investors pay the bill. When the government makes a mistake, it’s the ordinary people—those who never even had the chance to participate in the decisions from start to finish—who foot the cost.
The article ends with the Ulysses mast from Homer’s epics: rational people, before temptation arrives, bind themselves with institutions. The most valuable design of DOGE may well be that self-destruction deadline written into the executive order.
Do you think DOGE’s 18 months had a positive or negative long-term impact on the U.S. government? $DOGE #马斯克身价跌破1万亿美元
Explosive: Stephen Chow transforms into a “Soccer Kid” to promote “Kung Fu Women’s Football” with a big splash. Zhang Baizhi generously supports—bookings for 18 screenings to stand firmly behind it!
Stephen Chow’s directed new film “Kung Fu Women’s Football” has announced that it will be released in mainland China on the 11th, and it also revealed the complete cast lineup. The starring cast includes Golden Rooster Best Actress winner Zhang Xiafei, Dilraba, and Zhang Yixing. The special appearances feature a star-studded lineup such as Zhao Liying, Sun Zi Qi, Japan’s heartthrob Sato Takeru, Cecilia Cheung, Tsai Si-Bei, Cheung Kai-chung, Wu Yang, Jimmy O. Yang (Yang Wancheng), and more. In addition, former Chinese women’s national team players Zhao Lina and Sun Zi Qi, as well as Japan’s well-known dance troupe Avantgarde, have joined—an extravagantly impressive lineup that has left many viewers pleasantly surprised.
With less than a week to go before release, promotion has naturally entered a sprint phase. As both director and screenwriter, Stephen Chow also personally took the stage this time. On his official account, he shared a promotional video in which he appears as “Soccer Kid.” In the video, he stands in front of a green screen preparing to shoot and can’t help but show off his skills. After skillfully controlling the ball, he fires a powerful shot— the football first hits the underside of the crossbar and then bounces into the goal. Even the staff member acting as the goalkeeper was startled by the speed and force of the ball, completely unable to react in time.
After the video was released, it quickly garnered a large number of likes from netizens. Many commented: “Old Stephen Chow’s blade is still sharp!” and “His ball skills are still so impressive!”
In the film’s poster, a female lead shows her prowess. A massive soccer ball is surrounded by raging flames. The poster also features a striking slogan:
“Let the fire in my heart never go out.”
Full of blood-pumping energy and passion overall, it makes people even more eager for the official release of “Kung Fu Women’s Football.” $AAPL.US #世界杯
Stephen Chow’s directed new film “Kung Fu Women’s Football” has announced that it will be released in mainland China on the 11th, and it also revealed the complete cast lineup. The starring cast includes Golden Rooster Best Actress winner Zhang Xiafei, Dilraba, and Zhang Yixing. The special appearances feature a star-studded lineup such as Zhao Liying, Sun Zi Qi, Japan’s heartthrob Sato Takeru, Cecilia Cheung, Tsai Si-Bei, Cheung Kai-chung, Wu Yang, Jimmy O. Yang (Yang Wancheng), and more. In addition, former Chinese women’s national team players Zhao Lina and Sun Zi Qi, as well as Japan’s well-known dance troupe Avantgarde, have joined—an extravagantly impressive lineup that has left many viewers pleasantly surprised.
With less than a week to go before release, promotion has naturally entered a sprint phase. As both director and screenwriter, Stephen Chow also personally took the stage this time. On his official account, he shared a promotional video in which he appears as “Soccer Kid.” In the video, he stands in front of a green screen preparing to shoot and can’t help but show off his skills. After skillfully controlling the ball, he fires a powerful shot— the football first hits the underside of the crossbar and then bounces into the goal. Even the staff member acting as the goalkeeper was startled by the speed and force of the ball, completely unable to react in time.
After the video was released, it quickly garnered a large number of likes from netizens. Many commented: “Old Stephen Chow’s blade is still sharp!” and “His ball skills are still so impressive!”
In the film’s poster, a female lead shows her prowess. A massive soccer ball is surrounded by raging flames. The poster also features a striking slogan:
“Let the fire in my heart never go out.”
Full of blood-pumping energy and passion overall, it makes people even more eager for the official release of “Kung Fu Women’s Football.” $AAPL.US #世界杯
AAPLUS+0.00%
Whoa: How to easily make $1,000,000? You just need to
• Borrow $1,000,000 at an interest rate of 3%
• Buy at a price of $60,000
$BTC
• Wait 2 years
• Sell at a price higher than $120,000
• Repay the loan, keeping $1,000,000
Why doesn’t anyone do this?$BTC
• Borrow $1,000,000 at an interest rate of 3%
• Buy at a price of $60,000
$BTC
• Wait 2 years
• Sell at a price higher than $120,000
• Repay the loan, keeping $1,000,000
Why doesn’t anyone do this?$BTC
Incredible—Cook already held Bitcoin in 2021, and Apple’s CEO has quietly been part of the crypto crowd
He said at the time, “I’m very interested in Bitcoin,” and that he held it in his personal capacity—not as an Apple-company allocation. He even added this: he believes that holding cryptocurrencies is a reasonable choice to diversify one’s personal investment portfolio, but he doesn’t think Apple should put Bitcoin on its balance sheet.
Given the context of 2021, this stance was very restrained—and very smart.
Buy personally, not for the company. One sentence cleanly separates his own risk from the company’s: he doesn’t miss out on the asset, yet he doesn’t have to take on the pressure from Apple shareholders.
Looking back now, holding it from 2021 until today—no matter where he bought in—most likely is still a net gain. But what’s even more worth thinking about is this: the CEO of the world’s highest market-cap company, at a time when Bitcoin was still widely questioned by mainstream media, had already quietly allocated it at the personal level.
The actions of people like this always come earlier than what they say.
Back then, when Cook allocated, so did Trump; BlackRock entered, and Charles Schwab enabled spot trading. Tie this timeline together—the sequence isn’t a coincidence. It’s a complete path for a new asset class to be gradually accepted by top-tier capital.
In 2021, did you allocate to Bitcoin, or were you still waiting for “a more certain signal”? $AAPL.US #SEC将提议加密新规
He said at the time, “I’m very interested in Bitcoin,” and that he held it in his personal capacity—not as an Apple-company allocation. He even added this: he believes that holding cryptocurrencies is a reasonable choice to diversify one’s personal investment portfolio, but he doesn’t think Apple should put Bitcoin on its balance sheet.
Given the context of 2021, this stance was very restrained—and very smart.
Buy personally, not for the company. One sentence cleanly separates his own risk from the company’s: he doesn’t miss out on the asset, yet he doesn’t have to take on the pressure from Apple shareholders.
Looking back now, holding it from 2021 until today—no matter where he bought in—most likely is still a net gain. But what’s even more worth thinking about is this: the CEO of the world’s highest market-cap company, at a time when Bitcoin was still widely questioned by mainstream media, had already quietly allocated it at the personal level.
The actions of people like this always come earlier than what they say.
Back then, when Cook allocated, so did Trump; BlackRock entered, and Charles Schwab enabled spot trading. Tie this timeline together—the sequence isn’t a coincidence. It’s a complete path for a new asset class to be gradually accepted by top-tier capital.
In 2021, did you allocate to Bitcoin, or were you still waiting for “a more certain signal”? $AAPL.US #SEC将提议加密新规
Too ruthless! 2013 *Global Times* front page: Bitcoin—perfect money or a Ponzi scheme? Fifteen years later, the question hasn’t gone away, but the answer is becoming clearer.
That year, BTC rose from $40 to $230, and *Global Times* thought it was important enough to merit the front page. The article was still weighing issues like “the founder’s disappearance sparked doubts” and “it’s hard for people to trust virtual money entering the market.”
Now BTC is included in the official asset declarations of the U.S. president and vice president. BlackRock has issued an ETF, Charles Schwab has enabled spot trading, and the U.S. government is discussing strategic reserves.
With the same asset, after 15 years you get two completely different pictures.
Here’s a real pattern: in every cycle, the debate over “perfect money or a scam” reappears, and every time there are new reasons backing both sides. People in 2013 couldn’t have imagined it would rise to 20,000 in 2017. People in 2017 couldn’t have imagined it would reach 69,000 in 2021. And people in 2021 also didn’t expect institutions to move in so quickly.
Voices opposing BTC never disappeared, but in the 15 years those voices were around, BTC climbed from $230 to today’s price.
It’s not to say the critics are definitely wrong—it’s to say that the asset has walked all the way to today amid controversy, and that process itself is the data.
If you saw this newspaper in 2013, would you buy or not? $BTC #比特币未能守住6.44万美元
That year, BTC rose from $40 to $230, and *Global Times* thought it was important enough to merit the front page. The article was still weighing issues like “the founder’s disappearance sparked doubts” and “it’s hard for people to trust virtual money entering the market.”
Now BTC is included in the official asset declarations of the U.S. president and vice president. BlackRock has issued an ETF, Charles Schwab has enabled spot trading, and the U.S. government is discussing strategic reserves.
With the same asset, after 15 years you get two completely different pictures.
Here’s a real pattern: in every cycle, the debate over “perfect money or a scam” reappears, and every time there are new reasons backing both sides. People in 2013 couldn’t have imagined it would rise to 20,000 in 2017. People in 2017 couldn’t have imagined it would reach 69,000 in 2021. And people in 2021 also didn’t expect institutions to move in so quickly.
Voices opposing BTC never disappeared, but in the 15 years those voices were around, BTC climbed from $230 to today’s price.
It’s not to say the critics are definitely wrong—it’s to say that the asset has walked all the way to today amid controversy, and that process itself is the data.
If you saw this newspaper in 2013, would you buy or not? $BTC #比特币未能守住6.44万美元
Oh wow, this person mined 900,000 Bitcoins in 2009, and then they disappeared from the internet!
No interviews, no podcasts, no “gm,” no selling courses, no community, no storytelling. They just vanished, leaving behind a string of legendary addresses and an identity whose real name nobody can trace.
900,000 coins—at today’s prices, that’s around $54 billion.
So, do you think this person is Satoshi Nakamoto? (No one can confirm that Satoshi is definitely a man)$BTC
No interviews, no podcasts, no “gm,” no selling courses, no community, no storytelling. They just vanished, leaving behind a string of legendary addresses and an identity whose real name nobody can trace.
900,000 coins—at today’s prices, that’s around $54 billion.
So, do you think this person is Satoshi Nakamoto? (No one can confirm that Satoshi is definitely a man)$BTC
Trading Guide: Nobody can catch the exact bottom, so he placed buy orders for 100 BTC at 55.5K, 50 BTC at 52K, 70 BTC at 50K, and even lower!
It’s not a one-time full position entry—he spreads his “bullets” across a price range. The deeper it drops, the more gets filled, and the lower the average entry price.
The core of this strategy isn’t technical analysis—it’s psychological structure. When prices fall, most people get scared and become less willing to buy as it drops further. Gradient limit orders lock in that decision in advance—no need to make a judgment call at the most panic-filled moment; the orders are already waiting there.
When fear is at its worst, it’s often when trading volume is best. But you have to set your orders while the market is still calm.
There’s one more thing to think through: the prerequisite for gradient accumulation is that you believe this asset is worth holding long-term—you just don’t know where the short-term bottom is. If your directional judgment is wrong to begin with, then buying in a spread only distributes the loss across more price levels; it doesn’t change the final outcome.
Tools have no right or wrong—what matters is the judgment of the person using them.
Do you currently have orders placed at some price levels, or are you waiting to place them after it drops? #币安九周年
It’s not a one-time full position entry—he spreads his “bullets” across a price range. The deeper it drops, the more gets filled, and the lower the average entry price.
The core of this strategy isn’t technical analysis—it’s psychological structure. When prices fall, most people get scared and become less willing to buy as it drops further. Gradient limit orders lock in that decision in advance—no need to make a judgment call at the most panic-filled moment; the orders are already waiting there.
When fear is at its worst, it’s often when trading volume is best. But you have to set your orders while the market is still calm.
There’s one more thing to think through: the prerequisite for gradient accumulation is that you believe this asset is worth holding long-term—you just don’t know where the short-term bottom is. If your directional judgment is wrong to begin with, then buying in a spread only distributes the loss across more price levels; it doesn’t change the final outcome.
Tools have no right or wrong—what matters is the judgment of the person using them.
Do you currently have orders placed at some price levels, or are you waiting to place them after it drops? #币安九周年
Too ruthless. JPMorgan goes bearish on chips, Burry calls for a 30% pullback, BlackRock bets on blue-collar workers, Cramer flips and tells people to buy Micron, ANSEM surged to 390 million in three days, and Tom Lee remains firmly convinced of the value of $ETH up to $100,000!
JPMorgan has released an official bearish report. The reason is that AWS, Google, Meta, and Microsoft are all developing their own AI chips, so long-term reliance on Nvidia will decline. It takes 3 to 5 years from in-house development to mass production, and the short-term moat still exists.
At the same time, Burry is calling for a 30% pullback. The CAPE ratio is 67.6x, which is 4.6 standard deviations above the trend line. The last time it reached here was in 1999. Burry was right about 2008, but he acted nearly two years earlier than the actual crash.
BlackRock’s move is the one worth noting separately: they invested $100 million to partner with Walmart, Home Depot, Google, and Meta to train 50,000 electricians, welders, and plumbers—intended for future AI data centers and power infrastructure building worth $1 trillion over the next decade. In the AI era, the most scarce jobs may not be engineers—it might be the people who can connect circuits.
Cramer calls Micron: gross margin is 85%, and the P/E is under 8x, making it a good value play. MU’s data is real—the complication is that Cramer’s historical track record of recommendations makes the message harder to use directly. How to judge this information yourself is the question.
Finally, ANSEM spiked to a new high market cap of 391 million, with 100,000+ holders and 6 addresses sitting on gains of over one million. After a 600x surge in three days, it continues to hit new highs. In a bear market with such poor liquidity, reaching this size—what structure is behind it, nobody has clarified.
At the peak of Trump coin, the number of holders exceeded a million and they were down $3.8 billion, while Trump made $600 million.
Which direction are you most focused on this week—chips, the US stock market, or on-chain? $MU.US
JPMorgan has released an official bearish report. The reason is that AWS, Google, Meta, and Microsoft are all developing their own AI chips, so long-term reliance on Nvidia will decline. It takes 3 to 5 years from in-house development to mass production, and the short-term moat still exists.
At the same time, Burry is calling for a 30% pullback. The CAPE ratio is 67.6x, which is 4.6 standard deviations above the trend line. The last time it reached here was in 1999. Burry was right about 2008, but he acted nearly two years earlier than the actual crash.
BlackRock’s move is the one worth noting separately: they invested $100 million to partner with Walmart, Home Depot, Google, and Meta to train 50,000 electricians, welders, and plumbers—intended for future AI data centers and power infrastructure building worth $1 trillion over the next decade. In the AI era, the most scarce jobs may not be engineers—it might be the people who can connect circuits.
Cramer calls Micron: gross margin is 85%, and the P/E is under 8x, making it a good value play. MU’s data is real—the complication is that Cramer’s historical track record of recommendations makes the message harder to use directly. How to judge this information yourself is the question.
Finally, ANSEM spiked to a new high market cap of 391 million, with 100,000+ holders and 6 addresses sitting on gains of over one million. After a 600x surge in three days, it continues to hit new highs. In a bear market with such poor liquidity, reaching this size—what structure is behind it, nobody has clarified.
At the peak of Trump coin, the number of holders exceeded a million and they were down $3.8 billion, while Trump made $600 million.
Which direction are you most focused on this week—chips, the US stock market, or on-chain? $MU.US
Grass, 1 million people bought TRUMP coins and lost $3.8 billion, yet Trump himself made $600 million—this direction of wealth transfer is so clear that it leaves people speechless!
Nansen on-chain data: As of the end of June, nearly 1 million wallet addresses incurred losses from holding TRUMP coins, totaling $3.81 billion. In the same period, the Trump family earned $635 million from TRUMP coin royalty income, which was recorded in official federal government property disclosure filings.
On one side are 1 million ordinary people, and on the other is one person—the directions are completely opposite.
The structure of TRUMP coins largely determines the outcome: the issuer holds a large amount of supply, retail buyers step in, and after the price surges, the royalty fees and token sales have already been cashed out. How much the price later falls has little to do with the issuer. After dropping 98% from the peak, those who bought at the high point now have almost nothing left on paper—the issuer’s revenue has already been converted into dollars.
A loss of $3.8 billion doesn’t just vanish; it flows into another pocket.
On-chain data is transparent—anyone can trace where the money went. Transparency doesn’t mean fairness; it only makes it clearer where the money went.
Did you buy TRUMP coins back then, and at what price did you enter?
$TRUMP #川普家族
Nansen on-chain data: As of the end of June, nearly 1 million wallet addresses incurred losses from holding TRUMP coins, totaling $3.81 billion. In the same period, the Trump family earned $635 million from TRUMP coin royalty income, which was recorded in official federal government property disclosure filings.
On one side are 1 million ordinary people, and on the other is one person—the directions are completely opposite.
The structure of TRUMP coins largely determines the outcome: the issuer holds a large amount of supply, retail buyers step in, and after the price surges, the royalty fees and token sales have already been cashed out. How much the price later falls has little to do with the issuer. After dropping 98% from the peak, those who bought at the high point now have almost nothing left on paper—the issuer’s revenue has already been converted into dollars.
A loss of $3.8 billion doesn’t just vanish; it flows into another pocket.
On-chain data is transparent—anyone can trace where the money went. Transparency doesn’t mean fairness; it only makes it clearer where the money went.
Did you buy TRUMP coins back then, and at what price did you enter?
$TRUMP #川普家族
The hottest ByteBeat stock-trading guy lately: he earned $30 million to achieve US stock wealth freedom. Did you all watch last night’s livestream? Actually, there’s no need to envy— the guy in the picture is the normal outcome:
After working hard for a year and saving $3 million, he went all-in on $ETH and lost $2 million. Is there still hope for ETH? $ETH #Vitalik公布精简以太坊路线图
After working hard for a year and saving $3 million, he went all-in on $ETH and lost $2 million. Is there still hope for ETH? $ETH #Vitalik公布精简以太坊路线图
Someone has provided a complete BTC roadmap for 2026: top out in July around 68K, break below 50K in August, form a bottom around late September at 45K, and target 90K in December
The logic is: capitulate first, then reverse. In July, resistance near 68K kicks off the sell-off. In August, 58K is lost and it falls below 50K. In late September, a bottom forms near 45K and accumulation begins. Then October rebounds. In November, it steps up in a staircase-like way from the 50K range to 77K. And in December, the target is 90K with a consolidation that effectively closes out the year.
The core assumption of the whole path is: before the market finds the real bottom, it has to go through one final capitulation. Without capitulation, there is no solid foundation for a healthy reversal.
This framework has internal logic—every bear-market bottom is indeed accompanied by extreme panic and shrinking trading volume. It’s not a slow grind lower; it’s a collapse in emotions after a sharp drop. The problem is that nobody can accurately predict the timing and depth of the “capitulation.” 45K is an inference, not a guarantee.
From the current price to 45K means another decline of roughly 25%. From 45K to 90K in December means doubling. This kind of move is not unusual in BTC history, but over the 3–4 months of holding, most people near the lowest point tend to choose to exit rather than add positions.
Knowing the script and executing the script are two different things.
In the next 3–4 months, if it really plays out along this line, at what price would you start building a position? $BTC
The logic is: capitulate first, then reverse. In July, resistance near 68K kicks off the sell-off. In August, 58K is lost and it falls below 50K. In late September, a bottom forms near 45K and accumulation begins. Then October rebounds. In November, it steps up in a staircase-like way from the 50K range to 77K. And in December, the target is 90K with a consolidation that effectively closes out the year.
The core assumption of the whole path is: before the market finds the real bottom, it has to go through one final capitulation. Without capitulation, there is no solid foundation for a healthy reversal.
This framework has internal logic—every bear-market bottom is indeed accompanied by extreme panic and shrinking trading volume. It’s not a slow grind lower; it’s a collapse in emotions after a sharp drop. The problem is that nobody can accurately predict the timing and depth of the “capitulation.” 45K is an inference, not a guarantee.
From the current price to 45K means another decline of roughly 25%. From 45K to 90K in December means doubling. This kind of move is not unusual in BTC history, but over the 3–4 months of holding, most people near the lowest point tend to choose to exit rather than add positions.
Knowing the script and executing the script are two different things.
In the next 3–4 months, if it really plays out along this line, at what price would you start building a position? $BTC
Unbelievable—In 2009, just one week after Bitcoin went live, Hal Finney predicted a price of $10 million per coin. Back then, one BTC was worth almost nothing.
Hal Finney was the recipient of the very first Bitcoin transfer from Satoshi Nakamoto, and—besides Satoshi—also among the earliest people to run a Bitcoin node. In 2009, only a week after Bitcoin launched, he wrote that prediction on a forum: if Bitcoin became the world’s main payment system, the price could reach $10 million.
That year, the price of BTC was $0.
His reasoning was very clear: divide the total amount of global wealth by the number of BTC in circulation. If BTC were to take on a certain share of global transaction settlement, the price would be that number. It’s not emotion—it’s math.
Now many people think $1 million is the ceiling. Hal was already discussing $10 million back in 2009. He didn’t live to see that day— in 2014, he died of ALS—but his Bitcoin, it’s said, never moved. It was kept in cold storage, waiting for someone to carry out his intent.
A person who could see the endgame when Bitcoin had no value, versus someone who—after BTC rose to $60,000—was still stuck on “Isn’t it too expensive now?” Their thinking frameworks are completely on different dimensions.
Hal wasn’t looking at the price. He was looking at what the protocol could solve and what it could replace.
Your judgment of BTC today—are you basing it on the price chart, or on what it can do? $BTC
Hal Finney was the recipient of the very first Bitcoin transfer from Satoshi Nakamoto, and—besides Satoshi—also among the earliest people to run a Bitcoin node. In 2009, only a week after Bitcoin launched, he wrote that prediction on a forum: if Bitcoin became the world’s main payment system, the price could reach $10 million.
That year, the price of BTC was $0.
His reasoning was very clear: divide the total amount of global wealth by the number of BTC in circulation. If BTC were to take on a certain share of global transaction settlement, the price would be that number. It’s not emotion—it’s math.
Now many people think $1 million is the ceiling. Hal was already discussing $10 million back in 2009. He didn’t live to see that day— in 2014, he died of ALS—but his Bitcoin, it’s said, never moved. It was kept in cold storage, waiting for someone to carry out his intent.
A person who could see the endgame when Bitcoin had no value, versus someone who—after BTC rose to $60,000—was still stuck on “Isn’t it too expensive now?” Their thinking frameworks are completely on different dimensions.
Hal wasn’t looking at the price. He was looking at what the protocol could solve and what it could replace.
Your judgment of BTC today—are you basing it on the price chart, or on what it can do? $BTC
Unbelievable—In 2015, someone offered to buy a house with 50,000 BTC. The seller refused. Today, those BTC are worth $3 billion.
Back then, buying a house for $13 million, the seller thought Bitcoin wasn’t “real money,” wouldn’t accept it, and the deal fell through.
If those 50,000 BTC were held all the way until today, they’d be worth $3 billion. A house exchanged for $3 billion—this contrast is so extreme it’s hard to even laugh about.
But there’s one more layer that many people skip over: the seller who refused the deal in 2015 made a completely rational decision. In 2015, Bitcoin’s average price was $260, with massive volatility. It had just gone through the 2013-to-2014 collapse, falling from $1,000 back to $200. Mainstream media was saying “it’s going to zero” every few months. Trading a real-world property for a bunch of “network tokens”—would you dare take that?
The one who refused wasn’t stupid; they just didn’t know the future.
“Invest with a long-term perspective” is correct—but the premise for holding long-term is that you don’t sell when it’s the most uncomfortable. The 50,000 BTC fell from $13 million to less than $2 million at one point. Whether anyone managed to hold through that—that’s the real test.
If you trace the outcome backward, every decision looks either foolish or brilliant. When looking forward, no one knows the answer.
Do you have a trade in your hands right now that was a “rational refusal” back then—but you regret it now? $BTC #比特币较10月高点跌超50%
Back then, buying a house for $13 million, the seller thought Bitcoin wasn’t “real money,” wouldn’t accept it, and the deal fell through.
If those 50,000 BTC were held all the way until today, they’d be worth $3 billion. A house exchanged for $3 billion—this contrast is so extreme it’s hard to even laugh about.
But there’s one more layer that many people skip over: the seller who refused the deal in 2015 made a completely rational decision. In 2015, Bitcoin’s average price was $260, with massive volatility. It had just gone through the 2013-to-2014 collapse, falling from $1,000 back to $200. Mainstream media was saying “it’s going to zero” every few months. Trading a real-world property for a bunch of “network tokens”—would you dare take that?
The one who refused wasn’t stupid; they just didn’t know the future.
“Invest with a long-term perspective” is correct—but the premise for holding long-term is that you don’t sell when it’s the most uncomfortable. The 50,000 BTC fell from $13 million to less than $2 million at one point. Whether anyone managed to hold through that—that’s the real test.
If you trace the outcome backward, every decision looks either foolish or brilliant. When looking forward, no one knows the answer.
Do you have a trade in your hands right now that was a “rational refusal” back then—but you regret it now? $BTC #比特币较10月高点跌超50%
Unbelievable—Taylor Swift’s once-in-a-century wedding booked out Madison Square Garden for the ceremony. The venue rental fee was $3 million, and on top of that, she donated $26 million to multiple New York organizations for charity. Just these two items alone put the wedding at over $30 million.
Streets were closed for three days, and New York’s mayor personally confirmed it. A guest list of 1,000 people was fully signed with NDAs.
On July 3, at MSG, 500 to 1,000 guests attended a black-tie evening. The streets were closed from July 2 until July 4 at noon. Page Six reported that the two had already privately completed the formal ceremony; they got married in Nashville, while MSG was reserved for the public celebration.
Taylor personally called each friend with a verbal invitation and then mailed out save-the-dates. All vendors, guests, and security personnel signed NDAs—phones and cameras were banned from entry. Even New York Mayor Mamdani accidentally let slip in a press conference: "The World Cup, America’s 250th anniversary celebration, and Taylor Swift’s wedding all happening at the same time—we’re excited."
Confirmed attendees include Ed Sheeran, Selena Gomez, the Haim sisters, Emma Stone, Gigi Hadid, Zoe Kravitz, and the couple Patrick Mahomes and his wife. Tim McGraw might perform on-site—he’s the star of that eponymous song that first put 16-year-old Taylor on the map.
Do you think, after 18 years, finally singing that ‘Love Story’—is this the best time in her life to do it? $AAPL.US #TaylorSwift
Streets were closed for three days, and New York’s mayor personally confirmed it. A guest list of 1,000 people was fully signed with NDAs.
On July 3, at MSG, 500 to 1,000 guests attended a black-tie evening. The streets were closed from July 2 until July 4 at noon. Page Six reported that the two had already privately completed the formal ceremony; they got married in Nashville, while MSG was reserved for the public celebration.
Taylor personally called each friend with a verbal invitation and then mailed out save-the-dates. All vendors, guests, and security personnel signed NDAs—phones and cameras were banned from entry. Even New York Mayor Mamdani accidentally let slip in a press conference: "The World Cup, America’s 250th anniversary celebration, and Taylor Swift’s wedding all happening at the same time—we’re excited."
Confirmed attendees include Ed Sheeran, Selena Gomez, the Haim sisters, Emma Stone, Gigi Hadid, Zoe Kravitz, and the couple Patrick Mahomes and his wife. Tim McGraw might perform on-site—he’s the star of that eponymous song that first put 16-year-old Taylor on the map.
Do you think, after 18 years, finally singing that ‘Love Story’—is this the best time in her life to do it? $AAPL.US #TaylorSwift
Grass, turning from $12 million to $100 million: someone precisely bought put options before the regulatory announcement was released, and the SEC has already launched an investigation!
On May 22, 2026, China announced a crackdown on cross-border broker regulation, and the share prices of Futu Holdings and Tiger Brokers plunged. Before the announcement was published, someone bought about 200,000 short-term put options for the two companies, paying $12 million in option premiums; after the announcement came out, they cashed out for more than $100 million.
Market maker Susquehanna was the counterparty in the trade and lost over $70 million, after which it filed a lawsuit. The SEC received the complaint and has started an investigation.
The options trade itself is not illegal, but the timing was far too precise. Short-term put options mean the position holder needs the price to drop within an extremely short window to profit—this is not hedging, but betting on a specific drop event. They built the position days before the regulatory announcement, then cashed out as soon as the announcement came out. That is the core question of where the information for this operation came from.
$12 million becoming $100 million—more than 8x—from a single trade. As a market maker, Susquehanna was passively on the hook as the counterparty, losing $70 million. That’s why they’re suing—when the loss is big enough, it’s worth going to court to identify who did it.
The core of the SEC’s investigation into insider trading is tracing the flow of funds and communications. Options accounts are实名-registered, transaction timestamps are recorded; if information was leaked, digital evidence is far harder to destroy than evidence from stock trades. $GOOGL.US
On May 22, 2026, China announced a crackdown on cross-border broker regulation, and the share prices of Futu Holdings and Tiger Brokers plunged. Before the announcement was published, someone bought about 200,000 short-term put options for the two companies, paying $12 million in option premiums; after the announcement came out, they cashed out for more than $100 million.
Market maker Susquehanna was the counterparty in the trade and lost over $70 million, after which it filed a lawsuit. The SEC received the complaint and has started an investigation.
The options trade itself is not illegal, but the timing was far too precise. Short-term put options mean the position holder needs the price to drop within an extremely short window to profit—this is not hedging, but betting on a specific drop event. They built the position days before the regulatory announcement, then cashed out as soon as the announcement came out. That is the core question of where the information for this operation came from.
$12 million becoming $100 million—more than 8x—from a single trade. As a market maker, Susquehanna was passively on the hook as the counterparty, losing $70 million. That’s why they’re suing—when the loss is big enough, it’s worth going to court to identify who did it.
The core of the SEC’s investigation into insider trading is tracing the flow of funds and communications. Options accounts are实名-registered, transaction timestamps are recorded; if information was leaked, digital evidence is far harder to destroy than evidence from stock trades. $GOOGL.US
Grass, Trump said "Everyone is profiting." At the same time, the TRUMP coin dropped 98%, and the MELANIA coin dropped 99%!
When a reporter asked him whether he made $2.2 billion last year as president, his answer was "Everyone is profiting."
Then, when asked about cryptocurrency gains, he said, "I don't know anything about it. Businesses are run by kids; I don't get involved."
Put those two statements together, the logic is as follows: if you’re making money, then it’s "everyone"; how it’s made, "I don't know."
People who bought the TRUMP coin are now down 98%, and those who bought the MELANIA coin are down 99%. Among this group of people, is there one single "everyone"? There’s no official explanation.
When the TRUMP coin was issued, people lined up to snap it up because they believed that presidential endorsement equals value endorsement. Now, the current holders’ paper losses are close to zero, and the issuer’s royalty income has entered the annual assets declaration filings—both things are true at the same time.
This isn’t the first time someone has issued a coin using a celebrity IP: take in the money, let the coin crash to nothing, and then say "I don't understand this industry." It’s just that this time, the person issuing the coin is the sitting president of the United States, and the buyers are worldwide.
Did you buy TRUMP or MELANIA back then—and do you still hold them now?
When a reporter asked him whether he made $2.2 billion last year as president, his answer was "Everyone is profiting."
Then, when asked about cryptocurrency gains, he said, "I don't know anything about it. Businesses are run by kids; I don't get involved."
Put those two statements together, the logic is as follows: if you’re making money, then it’s "everyone"; how it’s made, "I don't know."
People who bought the TRUMP coin are now down 98%, and those who bought the MELANIA coin are down 99%. Among this group of people, is there one single "everyone"? There’s no official explanation.
When the TRUMP coin was issued, people lined up to snap it up because they believed that presidential endorsement equals value endorsement. Now, the current holders’ paper losses are close to zero, and the issuer’s royalty income has entered the annual assets declaration filings—both things are true at the same time.
This isn’t the first time someone has issued a coin using a celebrity IP: take in the money, let the coin crash to nothing, and then say "I don't understand this industry." It’s just that this time, the person issuing the coin is the sitting president of the United States, and the buyers are worldwide.
Did you buy TRUMP or MELANIA back then—and do you still hold them now?
Unbelievable—when BTC breaks below the 200-week moving average, there have been two prior instances at this level. In both cases, were they the last bottom-buying windows?
In March 2020, during the COVID crash, the price broke below the 200-week moving average—around $3,000. In the bottom of the 2022 bear market, it broke again—around $15,000. Now it’s the third time: the price is $59,052, with the red line pressing down.
The 200-week moving average is the thickest support line in BTC history. It represents the average cost range of holders over nearly four years. When the price falls to this level, it means that most holders who have held for more than two years begin to be in losses. That’s when the pressure from panic selling is at its highest—and it’s also when the chips are the cheapest.
When the market broke below this line the first two times, the sentiment was exactly the same as it is now: confidence is low, most people are afraid to buy, and the media is discussing the possibility of it going to zero. Then both times, this level marked the start of the biggest sustained rally.
There are only two historical samples, so the statistical significance is limited. The third time may not necessarily repeat the pattern; the 200-week moving average could also be broken through and then continue to fall. After the 2022 breakdown, it still took nearly half a year to stabilize for real.
The buyers now and the sellers now have reached completely opposite conclusions.
Do you think this 200-week moving average will hold, or will it fall to 38,000 as some people predict?$BTC #比特币6月下跌20.5%至58526美元
In March 2020, during the COVID crash, the price broke below the 200-week moving average—around $3,000. In the bottom of the 2022 bear market, it broke again—around $15,000. Now it’s the third time: the price is $59,052, with the red line pressing down.
The 200-week moving average is the thickest support line in BTC history. It represents the average cost range of holders over nearly four years. When the price falls to this level, it means that most holders who have held for more than two years begin to be in losses. That’s when the pressure from panic selling is at its highest—and it’s also when the chips are the cheapest.
When the market broke below this line the first two times, the sentiment was exactly the same as it is now: confidence is low, most people are afraid to buy, and the media is discussing the possibility of it going to zero. Then both times, this level marked the start of the biggest sustained rally.
There are only two historical samples, so the statistical significance is limited. The third time may not necessarily repeat the pattern; the 200-week moving average could also be broken through and then continue to fall. After the 2022 breakdown, it still took nearly half a year to stabilize for real.
The buyers now and the sellers now have reached completely opposite conclusions.
Do you think this 200-week moving average will hold, or will it fall to 38,000 as some people predict?$BTC #比特币6月下跌20.5%至58526美元
Log in to explore more content