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
89 Following
989 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
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
Too ruthless: A Byte employee traded stocks and made 30 million RMB, then quit—on his last day he said many truths that office workers don’t dare to admit!
"Working can only sustain your current life; only investing can lead to a better life. The probability of achieving financial freedom through investing is far greater than struggling to reach 4-1 at Byte."
The impact of these two lines when spoken on Byte’s internal network is doubled—Byte is the pay ceiling of China’s internet industry, and even people here are saying that working for a paycheck isn’t enough. That’s a huge signal.
He was the head of an early Byte US stock investment group. The 30 million isn’t the result of a single bet—it’s the outcome of systematically studying for long enough.
And then you plug in Leto Bao’s logic to make it even more complete: putting a 20% down payment on a house is a 5x leverage—compressing the next 30 years of cash flow into a concrete box with extremely low liquidity; the 2x leverage on stocks bets on the world’s greatest companies, and you can also exit with one click.
What’s the ratio of your assets in terms of real estate versus financial assets right now—are you satisfied?
"Working can only sustain your current life; only investing can lead to a better life. The probability of achieving financial freedom through investing is far greater than struggling to reach 4-1 at Byte."
The impact of these two lines when spoken on Byte’s internal network is doubled—Byte is the pay ceiling of China’s internet industry, and even people here are saying that working for a paycheck isn’t enough. That’s a huge signal.
He was the head of an early Byte US stock investment group. The 30 million isn’t the result of a single bet—it’s the outcome of systematically studying for long enough.
And then you plug in Leto Bao’s logic to make it even more complete: putting a 20% down payment on a house is a 5x leverage—compressing the next 30 years of cash flow into a concrete box with extremely low liquidity; the 2x leverage on stocks bets on the world’s greatest companies, and you can also exit with one click.
What’s the ratio of your assets in terms of real estate versus financial assets right now—are you satisfied?
Boomed—America’s first time in history: the President and Vice President both simultaneously declared in official documents that they hold Bitcoin.
Trump has more than $50 million; he has a cold wallet. Vance has more than $250,000. This is not a tweet, not a speech—it is a formal, legally binding federal government requirement for property disclosure, written in black and white with legal effect.
Read these two numbers together: Trump’s position is 200 times Vance’s. The two people’s holdings and political stances are aligned in the same direction.
Bitcoin’s journey—from a “fringe asset” to being listed in the White House property inventory—took less than a decade. In 2017, mainstream media was still debating whether it was a scam; by 2026, it appears in the legally required disclosure documents of the highest power institution in the United States.
During the same period, Trump earned $635 million from TRUMP meme coins, and he’s still sitting on BTC and ETH. Now, government documents add another line: a record of a cold wallet. As for how interest and policy relate—everyone can decide for themselves.
How much impact do you think it will have on the direction of upcoming regulation if two people in power hold Bitcoin at the same time? $BTC #比特币ETF6月净流出45亿美元
Trump has more than $50 million; he has a cold wallet. Vance has more than $250,000. This is not a tweet, not a speech—it is a formal, legally binding federal government requirement for property disclosure, written in black and white with legal effect.
Read these two numbers together: Trump’s position is 200 times Vance’s. The two people’s holdings and political stances are aligned in the same direction.
Bitcoin’s journey—from a “fringe asset” to being listed in the White House property inventory—took less than a decade. In 2017, mainstream media was still debating whether it was a scam; by 2026, it appears in the legally required disclosure documents of the highest power institution in the United States.
During the same period, Trump earned $635 million from TRUMP meme coins, and he’s still sitting on BTC and ETH. Now, government documents add another line: a record of a cold wallet. As for how interest and policy relate—everyone can decide for themselves.
How much impact do you think it will have on the direction of upcoming regulation if two people in power hold Bitcoin at the same time? $BTC #比特币ETF6月净流出45亿美元
Laughing is unbearable; no wonder the men’s national football team is one of the worst football teams in the world—I've gotten tired of the World Cup. Today I watched the Chinese national team and I can't stop laughing—two inverted bicycle kicks in three seconds; tell me, can you take that? Their level isn’t even as good as people who trade crypto, right? $GOOGL.US
So strong—CZ goes from an iron cell to freedom, summed up in 14 words for this life: “I did my best this life—I just want to be remembered as the guy who works in crypto.”
He invested $500 million to have Musk buy Twitter. The two of them chatted about a dozen messages in total and never met. CZ said people with aligned philosophies don’t need to arrange a meeting—this logic also makes sense in ordinary relationships.
The prison part is the most real. His lawyer warned him he would become “the richest person ever to be imprisoned,” and he would most likely be extorted. After he went in, he was assigned to the Pacific Islander group. In a unit of 200 people, the only Asians were him and another person with mixed heritage; the remaining 80% were Mexican drug lords. One prison guard privately asked him whether he should buy Bitcoin now.
The hardest part isn’t the days inside—it’s the uncertainty. No one tells you when you’ll get out, whether new charges will be added, and in a prison system with 53 sets of rules, every rule is different. This kind of unknown is more tormenting than being physically locked up.
After he got out, he donated $2 million to prison education institutions. The reason was that he encountered a drug dealer who was sentenced to 45 years, served 26 years, and after release founded an organization that sends books and teaches skills to fellow inmates. CZ said that even if someone has truly made mistakes, after serving their sentence they should be helped to reintegrate into society—otherwise, once they’re out, they still endanger society.
About the news that Saylor sold 32 BTC and the market dropped, CZ said Saylor had nearly a million BTC in hand, so selling 32 BTC to pay dividends was completely normal— the market is just too sensitive. Regarding STRC, he said frankly he tried several times but couldn’t figure it out, so he wouldn’t comment. These two answers are the most human parts of the entire interview.
His attitude toward Hyperliquid is the most subtle: regulatory risk is much bigger than it was back when Binance existed. As a Binance shareholder, he absolutely opposes this approach, but deep down he hopes it can succeed—if the model “users’ assets are stored in smart contracts” is deemed to be decentralized, it’s good news for the whole industry.
Now he divides his time into four parts, each taking one quarter: free education at Giggle Academy, investment via YZi Labs, regulatory consulting for governments in various countries, and helping crypto entrepreneurs. He went from working 20 hours a day to this schedule, and he says he’s very satisfied.
“The guy who does crypto”—more plain, more self-consistent than “the founder of Binance,” more restrained than “the world’s richest man,” and a bit more self-consistent than “someone who went to prison.”
Do you think CZ made it all the way in this lifetime, or is there still one thing he hasn’t finished doing? @CZ $BNB
He invested $500 million to have Musk buy Twitter. The two of them chatted about a dozen messages in total and never met. CZ said people with aligned philosophies don’t need to arrange a meeting—this logic also makes sense in ordinary relationships.
The prison part is the most real. His lawyer warned him he would become “the richest person ever to be imprisoned,” and he would most likely be extorted. After he went in, he was assigned to the Pacific Islander group. In a unit of 200 people, the only Asians were him and another person with mixed heritage; the remaining 80% were Mexican drug lords. One prison guard privately asked him whether he should buy Bitcoin now.
The hardest part isn’t the days inside—it’s the uncertainty. No one tells you when you’ll get out, whether new charges will be added, and in a prison system with 53 sets of rules, every rule is different. This kind of unknown is more tormenting than being physically locked up.
After he got out, he donated $2 million to prison education institutions. The reason was that he encountered a drug dealer who was sentenced to 45 years, served 26 years, and after release founded an organization that sends books and teaches skills to fellow inmates. CZ said that even if someone has truly made mistakes, after serving their sentence they should be helped to reintegrate into society—otherwise, once they’re out, they still endanger society.
About the news that Saylor sold 32 BTC and the market dropped, CZ said Saylor had nearly a million BTC in hand, so selling 32 BTC to pay dividends was completely normal— the market is just too sensitive. Regarding STRC, he said frankly he tried several times but couldn’t figure it out, so he wouldn’t comment. These two answers are the most human parts of the entire interview.
His attitude toward Hyperliquid is the most subtle: regulatory risk is much bigger than it was back when Binance existed. As a Binance shareholder, he absolutely opposes this approach, but deep down he hopes it can succeed—if the model “users’ assets are stored in smart contracts” is deemed to be decentralized, it’s good news for the whole industry.
Now he divides his time into four parts, each taking one quarter: free education at Giggle Academy, investment via YZi Labs, regulatory consulting for governments in various countries, and helping crypto entrepreneurs. He went from working 20 hours a day to this schedule, and he says he’s very satisfied.
“The guy who does crypto”—more plain, more self-consistent than “the founder of Binance,” more restrained than “the world’s richest man,” and a bit more self-consistent than “someone who went to prison.”
Do you think CZ made it all the way in this lifetime, or is there still one thing he hasn’t finished doing? @CZ $BNB
Incredible—three rounds of historical data point to the same conclusion: BTC may still be about 20 points away from the bottom.
In 2015 it fell 87% to bottom, in 2018 it fell 84% to bottom, and in 2022 it fell 77% to bottom. In each cycle, the drawdown from the bear market low is narrowing. This isn’t random—it’s a natural result of a larger market cap and a more stable holder structure.
Now, BTC is down 53% from its ATH. Following this narrowing pattern, the next bottom should be around -70%, corresponding to a price of about $38,000.
Then it would fall another 35% from today’s level.
When you lay out these numbers, many people’s first reaction is, “Impossible.” But in 2022, when BTC dropped from 69,000 to 15,500, at every intermediate price level, people said, “It can’t possibly drop any further.”
This framework has one key assumption: the pattern of bear-market bottom drawdown continuing to narrow will still hold in the next cycle. ETF inflows and increased institutional allocation do change the distribution of holdings and provide logic support for a higher bottom. But “a higher bottom” and “the bottom has already arrived” are two different things—the former is about trend, while the latter is betting on a specific timing.
A 53% retracement has already hurt most people. If it truly needs to reach $38,000, then those who think it’s “pretty much there” by then will most likely make their move at the most uncomfortable point. Every bear-market bottom forms this way.
Where do you think the BTC bottom is—$38,000, or has it already happened?$BTC #比特币跌至59250美元
In 2015 it fell 87% to bottom, in 2018 it fell 84% to bottom, and in 2022 it fell 77% to bottom. In each cycle, the drawdown from the bear market low is narrowing. This isn’t random—it’s a natural result of a larger market cap and a more stable holder structure.
Now, BTC is down 53% from its ATH. Following this narrowing pattern, the next bottom should be around -70%, corresponding to a price of about $38,000.
Then it would fall another 35% from today’s level.
When you lay out these numbers, many people’s first reaction is, “Impossible.” But in 2022, when BTC dropped from 69,000 to 15,500, at every intermediate price level, people said, “It can’t possibly drop any further.”
This framework has one key assumption: the pattern of bear-market bottom drawdown continuing to narrow will still hold in the next cycle. ETF inflows and increased institutional allocation do change the distribution of holdings and provide logic support for a higher bottom. But “a higher bottom” and “the bottom has already arrived” are two different things—the former is about trend, while the latter is betting on a specific timing.
A 53% retracement has already hurt most people. If it truly needs to reach $38,000, then those who think it’s “pretty much there” by then will most likely make their move at the most uncomfortable point. Every bear-market bottom forms this way.
Where do you think the BTC bottom is—$38,000, or has it already happened?$BTC #比特币跌至59250美元
Ridiculous—how can the average price difference between a strategy and a non-strategy DCA be more than 10x, even when doing the same investment plan?
The core logic is simple: use the distance between the price and the long moving average, plus the RSI value, to calculate the daily DCA amount. The minimum is 500U per day. The more the price deviates from the moving average and the lower the RSI is, the more you buy. When the price is high and the RSI is overheated, you buy less—or even pause.
“Small dips buy small, big dips buy big” sounds like everyone understands it, but most people do the opposite in practice—when the market really drops, they’re afraid and hold back or stop altogether; when the market rises, they get FOMO and actually increase their buying. The purpose of a quant system isn’t to find a better strategy—it’s to force you to execute the plan when your emotions are at their worst.
The problem with fixed-amount, fixed-time DCA isn’t that the direction is wrong; it’s that it treats every day’s market conditions as if they were the same. On the day of -30% and the day of +5%, buying the same amount leads to a huge difference in capital efficiency. Backtest data suggests the average price gap can be significant. That “significant” could translate into dozens of basis points of cost advantage over a full cycle.
One more thing to think through: backtests run on historical data. The periods in history where RSI and moving-average deviations were effective don’t guarantee the same will hold true in the next cycle. The more complex the strategy, the higher the risk of overfitting. Starting at 500U, using simple parameters, and enforcing strict execution—this combination is more reliable than stacking flashy indicator layers.
Is your current DCA fixed-amount and fixed-time, or do you have your own set of rules for adding and reducing the position?$BTC
The core logic is simple: use the distance between the price and the long moving average, plus the RSI value, to calculate the daily DCA amount. The minimum is 500U per day. The more the price deviates from the moving average and the lower the RSI is, the more you buy. When the price is high and the RSI is overheated, you buy less—or even pause.
“Small dips buy small, big dips buy big” sounds like everyone understands it, but most people do the opposite in practice—when the market really drops, they’re afraid and hold back or stop altogether; when the market rises, they get FOMO and actually increase their buying. The purpose of a quant system isn’t to find a better strategy—it’s to force you to execute the plan when your emotions are at their worst.
The problem with fixed-amount, fixed-time DCA isn’t that the direction is wrong; it’s that it treats every day’s market conditions as if they were the same. On the day of -30% and the day of +5%, buying the same amount leads to a huge difference in capital efficiency. Backtest data suggests the average price gap can be significant. That “significant” could translate into dozens of basis points of cost advantage over a full cycle.
One more thing to think through: backtests run on historical data. The periods in history where RSI and moving-average deviations were effective don’t guarantee the same will hold true in the next cycle. The more complex the strategy, the higher the risk of overfitting. Starting at 500U, using simple parameters, and enforcing strict execution—this combination is more reliable than stacking flashy indicator layers.
Is your current DCA fixed-amount and fixed-time, or do you have your own set of rules for adding and reducing the position?$BTC
Wow! Cyberpunk is becoming real. Chinese robotics company UBTECH today released more than 50 bionic robots, featuring different appearances and physiques for men and women, with heights ranging from 1.6 to 1.85 meters.
Preorder starts at 119,800 yuan, and it's for adult purchases only. Would you buy one to use as a wife?
Preorder starts at 119,800 yuan, and it's for adult purchases only. Would you buy one to use as a wife?
Wow—CZ’s prediction: AI Agents will create 1000x more trading volume than humans. Crypto is that future payment layer.
Not 10x, not 100x—1000x. If this number materializes even at 10%, then all the current concerns about “on-chain trading volume shrinking” will look ridiculous.
The logic chain is very clear: an AI Agent needs to autonomously complete tasks, and those tasks include payments. Payments require a system with no approval needed, no KYC required, and code that can be called directly. Bank accounts can’t do it. PayPal can’t do it. Crypto can.
An Agent doesn’t sleep, doesn’t have to wait for banks to open, and doesn’t have to fill out forms. It can execute thousands of trades per second. Human trading is constrained by emotions and time; machines don’t have those constraints.
CZ is the founder of Binance. He holds a large amount of crypto assets, and he is always bullish on this direction—that context should be included. For direction judgment, you can reference it; the timeline you should calibrate yourself. Between the moment AI Agents “start to appear” and “achieve 1000x trading volume,” there are three walls to overcome: regulation, security, and infrastructure—each one is not something you can cross in just a year or two.
But one thing is true: if the narrative of the next bull cycle shifts from “institutions entering” to “AI Agents using on-chain payments to power the global economy,” then this ceiling is much higher than the last cycle—and the participants will be completely different.
In the positions you hold right now, which one is specifically betting on the AI Agent line? $BNB
Not 10x, not 100x—1000x. If this number materializes even at 10%, then all the current concerns about “on-chain trading volume shrinking” will look ridiculous.
The logic chain is very clear: an AI Agent needs to autonomously complete tasks, and those tasks include payments. Payments require a system with no approval needed, no KYC required, and code that can be called directly. Bank accounts can’t do it. PayPal can’t do it. Crypto can.
An Agent doesn’t sleep, doesn’t have to wait for banks to open, and doesn’t have to fill out forms. It can execute thousands of trades per second. Human trading is constrained by emotions and time; machines don’t have those constraints.
CZ is the founder of Binance. He holds a large amount of crypto assets, and he is always bullish on this direction—that context should be included. For direction judgment, you can reference it; the timeline you should calibrate yourself. Between the moment AI Agents “start to appear” and “achieve 1000x trading volume,” there are three walls to overcome: regulation, security, and infrastructure—each one is not something you can cross in just a year or two.
But one thing is true: if the narrative of the next bull cycle shifts from “institutions entering” to “AI Agents using on-chain payments to power the global economy,” then this ceiling is much higher than the last cycle—and the participants will be completely different.
In the positions you hold right now, which one is specifically betting on the AI Agent line? $BNB
Log in to explore more content