小恐龙说趋势

$55.7 million in validator tips—and only 1% actually reached validators 🦖

📈 进群一起分析行情

On October 20, Ben, founder of Circular, an analytics platform for the Solana ecosystem, posted a reconstruction of on-chain payment flows from April 26 to October 19. Users of a leading trading terminal paid a landing service provider a total of 530,166 SOL. At $105 per SOL, that comes to about $55.7 million, tied to 189 million successful transactions.

The numbers for the last 30 days are even more striking: 45 million transactions paid this service provider, accounting for 80.6% of the terminal’s successful transactions. The provider received 138,964 SOL, or about $14.59 million. Of that, at most 1,579 SOL—around 1.14%—could be attributed to additional on-chain validator incentives 💸

To put it in plain terms: a so-called validator tip isn’t a bribe. It’s an extra priority fee users pay to get their transactions on-chain faster. It’s supposed to go to the block producer. The issue isn’t that someone is collecting tips; it’s that 80% of transactions are paying them. Users think they’re paying for priority from validators, but only 1% can be seen going to validators. It’s unclear from the records whether the rest covers infrastructure costs, service fees, or something else.

Ben also ran an experiment: he paid the amount suggested by the terminal’s interface, and the identifiable priority fee increase was roughly equivalent to 1% of what he paid the service provider. He also called out two on-chain cases, from September 26 and October 7, and posted the associated addresses on GitHub for independent verification. The post notes that these figures are based solely on Circular’s on-chain analysis and Ben’s personal assessment. Other service costs or off-chain payments may exist, and the estimated revenue share for the platform is not based on payments that have been directly tracked.

That detail matters. It shows that no one can provide a complete breakdown of the charges right now—not even the party making the allegations.

My take: this looks more like a pricing-structure problem than a security incident. When 80.6% of transactions have to pass through the same gate, the payment stops being a tip and becomes a toll. The problem is that the toll is charged in the validators’ name, while pricing power sits with the trading terminal and landing service provider. Users have no bargaining power and can’t see an itemized breakdown. If more independent reviews find similar proportions, the trust costs associated with trading on Solana will be repriced ⚖️

On the other hand, if the terminal publishes a full breakdown and shows that most of the fees really do cover infrastructure and bandwidth, this controversy could become a step forward in industry transparency—and that wouldn’t be a bad thing for the ecosystem.

Three things to watch next: whether the terminal publishes a fee breakdown; whether validators and landing service providers change how they disclose fees; and whether other trading terminals show similar proportions 🔍

When you trade on-chain, do you care whose pocket that priority fee ultimately ends up in?

Every day, I help you keep up with crypto’s hottest topics—not just what’s happening, but also the logic and opportunities behind the news 👀🚀

#美国比特币etf净流入5.27亿美元
Bitcoin ETFs saw $526.7 million flow in in one day, while Ethereum ETFs have seen four straight days of outflows 🦖

🔎 进群看完整分析

On Monday, U.S. spot Ethereum ETFs saw net outflows of $103 million. BlackRock’s ETHA alone shed $95.4 million, accounting for over 90% of the total. That marked the fourth consecutive trading day of net outflows. Meanwhile, money turned around the same day: spot Bitcoin ETFs saw $526.7 million in net inflows, their best day since September 22. IBIT alone brought in $665.2 million, while Fidelity’s FBTC saw outflows of $83.6 million.

Zooming out, Bitcoin ETFs saw total outflows of about $910 million in the first two weeks of October. On October 7, $484.9 million flowed out in a single day—the worst day since June. Monday’s $526.7 million inflow narrowed October’s net outflows from $615 million to $88 million, wiping out more than 80% of the deficit in a single trading day.

Selling on one side while prices rise on the other: Ethereum is currently at $2,447, up 1.7% over 24 hours. From around $2,400, it has now rebounded for six straight trading days. Bitcoin is currently at $82,963, up 1.3% over 24 hours, and just above the average ETF holder cost basis of $82,300. This is a delicate spot: most holders are merely breaking even, so the willingness to sell is at its lowest. That also helps explain why prices haven’t collapsed even as ETFs sell 📈

This isn’t a contradiction—it’s a change in who’s buying. ETFs are just a channel, not the whole source of demand. Ethereum ETF outflows are heavily concentrated in BlackRock’s fund, which looks more like institutional rebalancing at quarter-end than a mass exit. The key thing to watch is who’s absorbing the supply. As long as ETFs keep selling and the price holds above $2,400, it suggests there are still buyers outside the ETFs ⚠️

But the risks are clear, too. The 10-year U.S. Treasury yield is still above 5%, so you can earn 5% just by holding Treasuries. Ethereum generates no cash flow, and its valuation depends entirely on its narrative and ecosystem activity. When interest rates are this high, investors become increasingly selective about assets with no cash flow. Brent crude is at $108–$110, September CPI rose 3.7% year over year, and the energy component surged 20.4%. All these figures are telling the market that rate cuts are still a long way off 💥

My take: this Ethereum move looks more like a rotation of holders than a reversal. $2,400 is the bull-bear dividing line this week. If it holds, the price could continue to consolidate; if it breaks, we’re looking at a different scenario. There’s only one signal truly worth tracking: when ETFs post a fifth straight day of outflows, will the price still hold?

Do you think institutions are rotating their Ethereum holdings, or are buyers really pulling out? Let’s discuss in the comments.

Every day, I bring you the latest on Ethereum and Bitcoin ETF flows. I don’t just cover what’s happening—I help you understand the logic and opportunities behind it 👀🚀

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream

A sheet of A4 paper said to have been dumped in a landfill has helped bring 2,500 bitcoins back to light this year, worth about $207 million at current prices.

On October 20, another 500 bitcoins, valued at $41.52 million, were transferred from an address linked to Clifton Collins to the institutional desk of a U.S.-regulated exchange. Blockchain analytics firm Lookonchain flagged the transfer.

⚡ 有大动静群里说

This is already the fifth batch of 500 bitcoins in 2026. But what’s really worth pondering is that these coins weren’t stolen by hackers, nor did their owner recover the private keys. Instead, they’ve been moved out bit by bit by Ireland’s Criminal Assets Bureau and an exchange. 🦖

Rewind to 2011–2012. Collins was a beekeeper in Dublin who accumulated around 6,000 bitcoins through growing cannabis. Back then, each coin cost just a few dollars. When the price began to rise, he worried about being hacked, so he split the coins evenly across 12 wallets, with 500 in each. He printed the private keys on a sheet of A4 paper, tucked it inside the aluminum lid of a fishing-rod case, and hid it in a rented house in County Galway.

In 2017, he was arrested after cannabis was found in his car and served five years in prison. While he was behind bars, his rented home was burgled and later cleared out. Everything was sent to a local landfill. The fishing-rod case disappeared too. The story was later told as one of 6,000 bitcoins rotting in a landfill along with a piece of paper.

The twist came this March, when Ireland’s Criminal Assets Bureau announced that, with help from Europol’s European Cybercrime Centre, it had opened one of the previously inaccessible 500-bitcoin wallets. Another 500 bitcoins were seized in May, and another 500 in July. The fourth batch of 500, worth about $39.6 million, went straight to an exchange’s institutional desk on August 28. Add the October 20 transfer, and the five batches total 2,500 bitcoins—about 42% of the original 6,000. ⚖️

At current prices, around 3,500 bitcoins remain, worth nearly $290 million, spread across the other seven wallets. That’s the key point: so-called lost private keys aren’t necessarily a technical problem—they can be a matter of legal procedure. As long as an address is on the blockchain, law enforcement and exchanges have ways to track down the funds, one transaction at a time. Each batch of 500 is small compared with the hundreds of billions of dollars traded daily, but the direction is clear: these coins are most likely headed for liquidation, not back to their owner.

There are only two things to watch next: whether the remaining seven wallets will move, and whether the coins will be seized through legal proceedings or sent directly to an exchange deposit address.

What do you think will happen to the remaining 3,500 bitcoins? Will they continue to be seized under the law, or quietly move to exchanges in batches? Share your thoughts in the comments. 👀

Every day, we bring you the latest Bitcoin developments—not just what’s happening, but also the logic and opportunities behind the news. 👀🚀

$61.56 million in stolen funds moved on-chain in 257 steps, and it took just two hours to funnel them into a mixer 🦖

💡 群里更新数据解读

A wallet linked to the April Drift hack moved 25,700 ETH, worth about $61.56 million, into Tornado Cash on Tuesday. After two months of silence, it suddenly sprang into action 💥

On-chain data shows the funds were split into batches of 100, each worth about $237,800, with smaller batches of 10 mixed in. These amounts line up exactly with the mixer's fixed denominations. The goal was clear: break the public link between sender and recipient.

After the transfers, the 71 addresses tracked by Arkham still held 81,454 ETH, worth about $199 million. Combined with the first round of 23,095 ETH, worth about $44.4 million, moved on July 23 and 24, the attacker has now sent nearly 48,800 ETH into the mixer ⚠️

Back on April 1, the attacker gained administrator privileges, issued a fake token, and borrowed the protocol's real liquidity. Drift's own asset breakdown lists the loss at $296 million, including $159 million in JLP and $71.4 million in USDC. Even more brazen was the operation itself: the team posed as a quantitative trading firm, deposited $1 million of its own funds to build trust, then lay low for six months before striking. Mandiant later attributed the incident to the North Korean hacking group UNC6862.

The recovery effort is the ugliest part. DFX compensation tokens became available to claim on October 1, with one token issued for every $1 of verified losses. About 300 million tokens were issued, but the pool held only 3.1 million USDT at launch. Early redemptions returned about 1 cent per token. In other words, someone who lost $100 initially got back $1. The pool is being replenished gradually with 60% to 90% of the exchange's daily net revenue.

My take: this isn't an ordinary fund transfer—it's a race against time. The hackers aren't in a hurry to move everything at once. They wait three months between rounds and move funds only in fixed denominations, while the recovery pool has to build up bit by bit from fees. The two timelines differ by hundreds of times. So after a hack, what really determines the outcome isn't how clever the on-chain analysis is, but how quickly funds can be frozen 🦖

How much of these nearly 48,800 ETH do you think can still be recovered? Let's talk in the comments.

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream.

Every day, we bring you the latest in crypto security—not just what happened, but the thinking and opportunities behind it 👀🚀

16 of 62 companies say no: tokenized stocks are already down a quarter before launch 🦖
Microsoft, Alphabet, Goldman Sachs and 13 other companies have filed objections with a joint venture between an exchange and Intercontinental Exchange, refusing to let their shares be tokenized and traded on the platform. These 16 companies account for about 25% of the 62 companies the platform initially planned to launch with. The notices did not give specific reasons.

📣 盘面异动群里喊

The platform’s selling point is round-the-clock trading using permissioned on-chain liquidity pools. Each tokenized stock would settle in one of three stablecoins: USDT, USDC or USDG. Its co-chair is former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. The proposal was submitted to the SEC in early October, with the platform then saying it would cover more than 60 US stocks. In an updated notice on October 19, the number of objections had risen from 9 to 16—an increase of 7.
Cuomo responded on Tuesday that these did not count as objections; some companies simply wanted to stand by the pool and watch others jump in first to test the waters. He added that more companies would do the same.
One expert interviewed offered a different explanation: issuers are really worried that once their shares are on-chain, they won’t know what will happen to the price.
In my view, this reveals the real bottleneck for tokenized stocks. It’s not on-chain speed or regulatory approval—it’s whether publicly listed companies are willing to cooperate. Corporate actions like dividends, stock splits and voting all rely on transfer agents and shareholder registers. Without the issuer’s consent, a token is just a shadow that tracks the share price. The platform initially planned to offer more than 60 stocks; now it’s already down by a quarter. If the list of objectors keeps growing and the pool is left with only a handful of willing companies, liquidity will thin out. Market makers will be even less willing to join. It’s a vicious cycle.
For the RWA narrative, this is a sobering reality check ⚖️. It won’t directly affect capital flows into BTC or ETH, but it shows that putting assets on-chain is only the first step. Bringing corporate governance on-chain is the hard part 📉.
Do you think tokenized stocks are held back by regulation, or by listed companies themselves being unwilling to participate? 🤔
Every day, I bring you the latest crypto market trends—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind it 👀🚀

#股票财报季
$125 million in shorts liquidated in one hour. Bitcoin rose just 1.5% before hitting the $83,230 wall 🐋
After U.S. markets opened on October 20, Bitcoin climbed from around $81,000 to $83,300, its highest level since October 14, before being pushed back down to around $82,000. During the same period, $125 million in short positions were liquidated across the market 💥

📊 进群看每日策略

This move wasn’t about on-chain activity or ETFs. It was earnings season: General Motors and 3M both beat expectations, and 3M also raised its full-year profit guidance. The Dow rose 1.2%, returning to its September 14 level; the S&P 500 gained 0.6%, and the Nasdaq rose 0.5% 📈
What matters even more is oil. U.S. crude briefly broke above $100 intraday—the first time since September 17—then plunged nearly 5% a few hours later, falling below $96. The weight that had been pressing down on risk assets was suddenly lifted halfway.
But Bitcoin couldn’t hold its gains. $83,230 is right around the 21-day moving average, and the price was knocked back as soon as it touched it. The 50-day moving average is at $81,570, where bulls have been holding the line over the past few days. Analyst Keith Alan put it plainly: buyers are still defending this range, but it’s taking a lot out of them ⚠️
Another signal is worth watching even more closely: open interest across the market rose 2.1% to $53.86 billion, its highest level since October 8. The price rose only 1.5%, while leverage surged ahead. That suggests new positions are chasing the move—not spot buying driving it. Quick to rise, quick to retreat 🦖
My take: this is a brief recovery in risk appetite, not a trend reversal. Earnings season gave the market a reason to catch its breath, but the real switch will be thrown over the next two days. Tesla and Meta report after Wednesday’s close, and another commercial space company reports after the market closes tonight. Together, the three will determine how long tech stocks can keep this momentum going. If oil gets back above $100, today’s green candle will be seen in a whole new light.
Three numbers to watch: Can Bitcoin close above $83,230? Can it hold $81,570? And will oil climb back to $100?
Let’s discuss in the comments: do you think this is a breather brought by earnings season, or has a genuine bottom formed below $80,000?
Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream.
Every day, I bring you the latest in crypto—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind it 👀🚀

$400 million every hour. 73% of it happens at night, when banks are closed. Now Mastercard is handing the payment button to AI 🦖
On October 20, Mastercard opened early access to Agent Pay for Machines. Six organizations have completed end-to-end testing: Cloudflare, Ant International, BVNK, AIsa Base, and an exchange. The system connects to three payment rails: bank cards, bank accounts, and stablecoins.

🔎 进群看完整分析

This was first announced in June, and it’s still only a pilot—not commercially available. But the direction is clear: the web let software talk, APIs let software use services, and the next step is letting software pay for itself 💳
Here’s how it works: A merchant receives a request and returns an HTTP 402 response indicating that payment is required. An AI wallet signs a payment credential, and the merchant delivers the goods or service once it’s verified. Credentials can also be accumulated and redeemed in batches, so each transaction doesn’t have to be settled separately. Wallet infrastructure and on-chain settlement run on an exchange’s developer platform and a layer-2 network, respectively. BVNK, acquired by Mastercard in August, acts as the agent wallet, while sellers get paid in the fiat currency or stablecoin of their choice.
Why now? Because there’s usually no one around to make payments at night. A research report from an exchange puts a number on it: adjusted stablecoin transfers totaled $891 billion in the third quarter of 2026, four times the amount in early 2023. That’s more than $400 million per hour on average. In the 12 months through July 31, about 73% of transfers took place outside U.S. banking hours 📈 The same report says quarterly transfers could reach $1.5 trillion by the end of 2027. Sending $200 over a layer-2 network costs about 86% less than using traditional channels. McKinsey, meanwhile, estimates that AI agents will facilitate $3 trillion to $5 trillion in global B2C transactions by 2030.
My take: This isn’t AI learning how to spend money—it’s people being removed from the payment loop ⚠️ An API call might cost only a few cents, which the old card-network model of charging a percentage can’t support. That’s why payments need to use batch credentials and stablecoin settlement. On the surface, card networks are looking for new ways to charge fees. In reality, stablecoins are looking for their first real use case. And the headaches are shifting too: Who’s responsible for authorization boundaries, refund disputes, and KYC? Those responsibilities will fall on developers, not cardholders.
Would you let AI use its own wallet to buy data and services? What spending limit would you set per transaction? Let’s talk in the comments.
Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream.
Every day, we bring you the latest in payments and stablecoins—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind it 👀🚀

Down 52%—this fund lost just 1%. BlackRock wants to turn this strategy into an ETF 🦖
On Monday, BlackRock filed an application with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to launch an ETF called iShares Bitcoin Managed Protect. It would combine its flagship product, IBIT, with options and fixed income, aiming to capture some of Bitcoin’s gains when it rises while limiting losses when it falls. The filing doesn’t specify how much protection it will offer or where the upside cap will be.

📈 进群看今日思路

First, let’s look at numbers that have already been put to the test: Calamos’s CBOO is down just 1% from the start of its protection period in October 2025 to now. Over the same period, Bitcoin fell as much as 52% from its all-time high of around $126,000 📉 One is down by half; the other has barely moved. That’s exactly what Wall Street is eager to sell right now.
The strategy isn’t complicated. About 90% of the assets go into U.S. Treasuries, and the remaining 10% goes into options linked to Bitcoin. Interest from the Treasuries and the options structure provide a cushion. The trade-off is capped upside, and the protection only lasts for a set period. Once it expires, investors have to buy in again. In early 2025, Calamos had already launched three funds offering full protection, a 10% loss limit, and a 20% loss limit, respectively. Within weeks, they attracted $10 million to $15 million, while spot Bitcoin ETFs saw net outflows.
This isn’t BlackRock’s first move in this direction 🏦 In June, it launched BITA, an income fund that sells call options on 25% to 35% of its holdings in exchange for monthly cash flow. This time, it’s turning downside protection into a product too. Its IBIT already manages more than $65 billion, making it the largest spot Bitcoin ETF in the U.S.
My take: protected products won’t make Bitcoin safe. They simply sell volatility to people willing to take it on. Buyers give up the upside tail, while option sellers pocket the volatility premium. The real change is in the buyer mix. The marginal buyers used to be retail investors chasing rallies; now they’re allocation-focused investors looking to control drawdowns. When this kind of money comes in, there may be fewer explosive rallies—and fewer crashes too—but bull-market tops will be more muted. What matters more is the fee, the protection period, and the cost of buying back in after expiry—not the word “Protect” in the name ⚠️
Would you trade capped upside for protection against steep losses? Let’s talk in the comments.
Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream.
Every day, we help you follow Bitcoin and ETF trends—not just what’s happening in the news, but also the logic and opportunities behind it 👀🚀

18 months, $10.4 billion: South Korea’s stablecoins keep flowing out 🦖

South Korea’s five largest exchanges have recorded net stablecoin outflows for 18 consecutive months. The money is all flowing to overseas platforms, totaling around $10.4 billion. On that very same day, public blockchain Injective and South Korean custodian BDACS signed a memorandum of understanding to make KRW1, a won-pegged stablecoin, the sole won-denominated settlement asset for real-world assets on the network.

📢 ⏰ 消息群里第一时间说

The significance isn’t the partnership itself, but the gap it aims to fill. More than 98% of the global stablecoin market is made up of dollar-pegged stablecoins. Won-denominated stablecoins are almost negligible by comparison.

In a market where crypto trading is among the most popular in the world, on-chain settlement still has to use someone else’s currency. That’s the structural reason behind the $10.4 billion flowing out. The stablecoins circulating on South Korean platforms are mostly dollar-pegged. To bring the won on-chain, you first have to convert it into dollars. The demand has always been there; the supply hasn’t.

BDACS isn’t some unknown startup. It’s a South Korean-registered virtual asset service provider that primarily offers custody services to institutions. In the first half of 2026, it held more than 80 billion won in assets under custody. Under the MOU, KRW1 will become the sole won-denominated settlement asset for tokenized assets on the Injective network. But minting and redemption will only be available to approved institutional partners, and will require regulatory approval. Put simply, this is an expression of intent, not a launch announcement. ⚖️

Regulatory efforts are advancing in parallel. South Korea’s Digital Asset Basic Act has entered the final stage of internal government consultations. According to local media, it will be brought before the National Assembly for discussion next month. One of the law’s key aims is to set rules for won-denominated stablecoins: who can issue them, how reserves must be managed, and how redemptions should work.

This isn’t Injective’s first engagement with South Korean institutions, either. POSCO International and LG CNS previously chose it to issue, transfer, manage, and settle international trade receivables. The network has processed more than $7.5 billion in real-world assets to date, with over $1 billion in tokenized assets issued. After the news broke, INJ rose 1.8%. 📈

My take: this isn’t a token launch story; it’s a story about settlement power. The real moat for dollar stablecoins isn’t technology—it’s network effects. The whole world uses them for pricing. If you issue a won stablecoin but nobody accepts it, it can only circulate in a closed domestic loop. South Korea wants to carve out cross-border trade and tokenized assets from the dollar cycle and keep them within its own monetary system. 💰

But the limits are clear, too. The won isn’t freely convertible, and capital controls and foreign-exchange rules are firmly in place. No matter how fast a stablecoin moves, it can’t outrun cross-border reporting requirements. So in the short term, KRW1 is more likely to be a settlement tool between institutions than a balance in ordinary people’s wallets.

Two things are really worth watching: the wording of the Digital Asset Basic Act when it reaches the National Assembly next month, and whether it leaves issuers room to use stablecoins across borders; and whether net stablecoin outflows from South Korea’s five largest exchanges turn positive for the first time after the bill passes. Those two signals matter more than a memorandum of understanding.

Do you think a won stablecoin can keep this $10.4 billion in South Korea, or will the money keep flowing into dollar assets? 🦖

Let’s talk in the comments.

Every day, I bring you the latest stablecoin developments—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind the headlines. 👀🚀

10,092 complaints in just 90 days. Six UK banks simply won’t let you transfer money 🦖

🚨 行情变了群里说

The UK crypto advocacy group Stand With Crypto counted 10,092 complaints filed with banks across the UK by 9,803 people using its online tool over the 90 days from May to August 2026. They all pointed to the same issue: transfers to crypto platforms being blocked.

The most striking figure is how concentrated the complaints were. Lloyds Banking Group received 2,297, Barclays 1,569, and NatWest 1,278. Together, that’s more than half—suggesting this isn’t the work of individual branches, but a risk-control policy set at head-office level ⚠️

The restrictions are out in the open, too. Barclays and HSBC UK cap crypto transfers at £2,500 per transaction (about $3,300) and £10,000 over 30 days (about $13,300). Another six banks, including Starling, TSB, and Chase UK, outright ban any transfers related to crypto 🚫

What’s more subtle is that Lloyds received the most complaints, yet the report lists it as having no publicly disclosed restrictions on crypto transfers. Another digital bank is in the same position: customers are complaining, but there’s no explicit policy on the bank’s website. This kind of opaque refusal is harder to deal with than a clearly stated limit.

My take is that what’s really holding back the UK crypto industry isn’t licensing—it’s access to bank accounts. The government keeps saying it wants the UK to become a global crypto hub. By October 2027, financial institutions will need FCA approval, but Zumo founder Nick Jones points out that business bank accounts aren’t covered by this framework. A company can secure full authorization and still be unable to open a UK business bank account. That’s a very real catch-22.

The knock-on effects are easy to foresee. When banks tighten the channels, money and teams move elsewhere. Retail investors face higher costs to fund their accounts, and some trading shifts to P2P, over-the-counter, and offshore platforms. Regulators see fewer transactions and more activity they can’t see—precisely the opposite of the goals of tax collection and traceable funds.

Two things are worth watching: first, whether bank access gets included when the FCA regime takes effect in 2027; second, whether the complaint data becomes material for parliamentary questions. If 10,000 complaints can’t even bring about one clearly stated rule, then this so-called crypto hub is just a slogan.

Do banks where you live block transfers to crypto exchanges? Share your experience in the comments 👀

Every day, I bring you the latest in crypto—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind it 👀🚀

#瑞士批准首只比特币etf
$65 billion vs. $0 — this is the gap between the U.S. and Switzerland in Bitcoin funds
On October 20, Switzerland’s Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) approved the country’s first Bitcoin ETF aimed at retail investors. The product is classified under Swiss law as an “other alternative investment fund” and is also labeled as carrying special risks.

💡 群里更新数据解读

The issuer’s name has not been disclosed. Several media outlets have pointed to BIT Asset Management, formerly known as Matrixport Asset Management. When asked, FINMA did not deny this.

The exemption it received is even more interesting. This is a single-asset product, with all of its funds invested in Bitcoin. Under the usual diversification rules, it would never qualify. The Swiss regulator’s reasoning is that Bitcoin has a sufficiently long trading history and extremely high trading volumes, so it can be exempted from the diversification requirement. ⚖️

Custody requirements are also part of the conditions. Participating institutions must comply with FINMA’s January 12, 2026 regulatory notice: clients’ crypto assets must not be included in a custodian’s bankruptcy estate if the custodian goes bankrupt. Sellers must comply with FIDLEG conduct rules, and the fund documents must clearly spell out the risks.

Switzerland is no newcomer to Bitcoin. Bitcoin products have been traded on local exchanges for many years, but those were all ETPs, not funds. This approval marks the first time Bitcoin has been included in an approved public fund framework in Switzerland. The difference isn’t whether you can buy it, but who can. 🏦

The global gap is striking. U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs were approved in January 2024. BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust launched on January 11, 2024, and now has around $65 billion in assets under management. Switzerland’s fund is just starting from zero, and its issuer hasn’t even been named publicly.

The market’s reaction has been muted. Bitcoin is at $81,421, down 1.08% over 24 hours. Ethereum is at $2,382, down 1.53%, and SOL is down 0.64%. Options traders are buying downside protection. One regulatory approval hasn’t changed the market’s risk appetite for the day.

My take: the news is more significant symbolically than financially. But it opens a fund channel, not a trading channel. Regulated long-term investors such as pension funds and insurers are usually only allowed to invest in funds and ETFs. They can’t buy ETPs directly, let alone hold their own private keys. By bringing Bitcoin into the public fund framework, Switzerland has created a compliant entry point for this pool of capital. 💰

The second thing to watch is the precedent. If other European countries follow Switzerland’s lead on the single-asset diversification exemption and bankruptcy protection for custodial assets, crypto funds in Europe could shift from receiving special approvals to becoming standard practice. This won’t show up in a month; the effects will emerge gradually over the next two or three years.

FINMA itself also emphasized in its approval that buying Bitcoin through an ETF still carries substantial risks. Severe volatility could significantly erode the principal. Regulatory approval does not mean regulatory endorsement—keep that distinction clear.

Several other fund providers are also waiting in line to apply. Switzerland’s first fund is more of a beginning; the products that follow will determine the scale.

Do you think this entry of “patient capital” is a long-term positive for Bitcoin, or is it just buying ETPs in a different place? 🦖
Let’s talk in the comments.

Every day, I bring you the latest Bitcoin stories—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind it. 👀🚀

34,388 bitcoin. $2.8 billion. These coins have been sitting right where they are for another year 🦖
Mt. Gox trustee Nobuaki Kobayashi announced last Friday that the Tokyo District Court had approved extending the repayment deadline from October 31 this year to October 31, 2027. This is the fourth time since September 2023 that the overall deadline has been pushed back by a year.

⚡ 有大动静群里说

According to on-chain analytics firm Arkham, wallets associated with Mt. Gox still hold 34,388 bitcoin. At today’s price of $81,463, that’s worth about $2.8 billion. The trustee’s announcement didn’t say how many creditors are still waiting to be paid. It only said that many haven’t completed the required procedures, while some are still held up in the process.
What’s really worth noting is that these coins haven’t moved in a long time. The last transfer was in June this year, when 10,422 bitcoin were moved out of cold storage, worth more than $739 million at the time. Most went into new wallets, and there’s no sign of any selling on-chain. In other words, there’s been no new wave of selling this year—just another extension of the deadline.
The bigger picture makes things clearer. Mt. Gox collapsed in February 2014, with around 850,000 bitcoin going missing that year. In 2021, the Tokyo District Court approved a civil rehabilitation plan involving about $9 billion in bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash, to be distributed among roughly 24,000 creditors. Repayments actually began in July 2024. By March 2025, more than 19,500 creditors had been paid. The rest are still waiting as the deadline gets extended year after year.
Compare this with the 2024 announcement: when the trustee said repayments would begin in July, bitcoin fell to $61,060 within a day, down 6.5%. At the time, Mt. Gox wallets still held 141,686 bitcoin. Now they hold just 34,388, about 76% less 📉
My take: these $2.8 billion worth of coins are no longer a bomb waiting to go off. They amount to less than two-thousandths of bitcoin’s total supply and less than two-thousandths of its total market cap. Bitcoin is at $81,463 today, down about 1% over 24 hours, and the market has barely reacted to the news. What will really affect the short term isn’t the total amount of coins, but whether the people who receive them immediately convert them into local currency—and whether the October 2027 date gets pushed back again. After all, this is already the sixth extension. The deadline itself has become an administrative process, not a fundamental market signal ⚖️
XYO co-founder Markus Levin put it plainly in June this year: compared with today’s liquidity and trading volume, this amount is small. It’s more like a headline that keeps coming back than a genuine source of downward pressure.
So this time, rather than obsessing over when $2.8 billion might hit the market, watch two things: first, whether the wallets start making multiple consecutive transfers to exchanges; second, whether the announcement’s language shifts from procedural issues to funds being ready. The first would signal selling pressure; the second would mean the process is finally over 💤
Do you think these $2.8 billion worth of coins will eventually hit the market, or keep sitting in those addresses for another decade? Share your thoughts in the comments.
Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream.
Every day, we bring you the latest Bitcoin developments—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind it 👀🚀

#韩国kospi指数跌超2%
Oversubscribed by more than 400 times, yet down 33% on its first day of trading: Korean retail investors bought the hottest AI IPO at the peak 🦖

🔭 进群看资金去哪

On October 20, Korean data center company Elice went public in Seoul. Its offering price was 90,500 won, but it closed at 60,500 won, down more than 30%. The IPO raised $151 million at a valuation of about $755 million. Retail subscriptions exceeded 400 times the shares on offer.

On the same day, South Korea’s KOSPI index fell nearly 4%, closing at 5,552. Samsung Electronics dropped about 3%, and SK Hynix fell about 4%. In premarket trading, CoreWeave dropped another 3%. Brent crude topped $111, its highest level since May, while WTI hovered around $100—a spread of about $11 between the two.

Taken together, these numbers tell the same story: the market is starting to question the returns on AI infrastructure. Data centers, computing power, and electricity are all capital-intensive, built up with borrowed money. If interest rates don’t fall and oil prices keep rising, the story stops adding up ⚠️

Bitcoin hasn’t been spared either. It’s currently at $81,409, down 1.55% over 24 hours. Ethereum is at $2,380, down 2.19%, and SOL is at $103.9, down 1.35%. Gold is also falling. Tech stocks, Bitcoin, and gold are all down together. This isn’t ordinary sector rotation—it’s investors cutting risk across the board 📉

Put simply, buying AI and buying Bitcoin over the past year were essentially the same trade: betting on looser liquidity and a growth story. Now, rising oil prices are pushing inflation expectations back up, squeezing the Fed’s room to cut rates. Both legs of that trade are weakening at once.

South Korea is especially worth watching. Retail investors piling in at more than 400 times the available shares shows sentiment had reached overheated levels. The stock falling below its offering price on day one shows there weren’t enough buyers to absorb the selling. These shifts in sentiment often happen before price turns—and Korean retail investors have long been among the most sensitive groups in global crypto markets. Their portfolios are tied to both stocks and crypto.

In the short term, $80,000 is a level Bitcoin needs to hold. If it closes below that on the daily chart, the vacuum zone between $76,000 and $78,000 could be tested quickly. On the other hand, if oil prices retreat and U.S. stocks stabilize, there may be a chance to fill the gap above $82,000. But don’t add leverage. In a macro-driven market like this, retail investors aren’t the ones deciding the direction.

Which do you think will break first: the AI bubble, or Bitcoin falling below $80,000? Let’s talk in the comments.

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream.

Every day, we bring you updates on the crypto market and macro trends—not just what’s in the news, but the logic and opportunities behind it 👀🚀

10% vs. 7.5% vs. 5.5%: Wall Street’s biggest bank puts Bitcoin at the top of its ten-year returns ranking 🦖

🕐 最新解读群里更新

JPMorgan Asset Management published its 2027 Long-Term Capital Market Assumptions report on Monday. Covering more than 200 asset classes, it puts Bitcoin’s annualized return assumption at 10%, compared with 7.5% for S&P 500 large-cap stocks and 5.5% for gold 📈

This is the first time the firm, which manages trillions of dollars in assets, has included Bitcoin in its annual allocation benchmarks—and it put it right at the top

The report also lays out two extreme scenarios: annualized returns of 16.6% in a bull market and an annualized loss of 11.2% in a bear market. The 10% midpoint isn’t a guess—it’s based on three factors: Bitcoin’s supply growth relative to the money supply, its relationship with gold as a substitute, and the pace of network adoption

But the most noteworthy part isn’t the 10% figure. It’s the report’s immediate caveat: it says Bitcoin currently cannot be considered a portfolio diversifier because its correlations are unstable, and classifies it as a speculative asset and a hedge against monetary easing ⚠️

In other words, the institution is willing to recognize Bitcoin’s long-term returns in its models, but not its value as a portfolio allocation in its risk management. Its return and risk assumptions have been split apart—a rare position on Wall Street

Do the math using those two figures: at 10% versus 7.5%, the difference is 2.5 percentage points a year. After ten years of compounding, that works out to roughly 26% more in cumulative returns. But in the bear-market scenario, an annual loss of 11.2% leaves you with only about 30% of your original investment after ten years. The two paths in the same report end more than eight times apart 💥

Bitwise Chief Investment Officer Matt Hougan called this a milestone. He said: first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, and finally they include you in their long-term capital market assumptions and predict you’ll be the best-performing asset of the next decade. Bitwise’s own baseline, released in August 2025, was $1.3 million by 2035, or 28.3% annualized—far more aggressive than JPMorgan’s 10%

My take is that this 10% is more like an entry ticket than a price target. It means that asset allocation models for pension funds, endowments, and family offices can finally assign Bitcoin a nonzero weight. But the report’s red line is clear too: until volatility and correlations are addressed, allocations won’t be large

The real thing to watch is whether a second and third institution follow suit and update their models. Once allocation assumptions go from 0% to 1%, that’s a shift in capital—not just price

Do you think a 10% annualized return over ten years is conservative or aggressive compared with gold and U.S. stocks? Let’s discuss in the comments

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream

Every day, we bring you the latest on Bitcoin and macro trends—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind it 👀🚀

#美国比特币etf净流入5.27亿美元
A $665 million fund inflow in a single day—more than the net inflows across the entire sector 🦖

📊 进群看每日策略

On October 19, U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs saw net inflows of $526.7 million, their biggest single-day inflow since September 22. But BlackRock’s IBIT alone brought in $665.2 million—more than the net inflows for all products combined.

That means money was actually flowing out of the other funds: Fidelity’s FBTC saw $83.6 million in outflows, Grayscale’s GBTC lost $54.9 million, and all the other products recorded zero flows 📉

Looking at the past two weeks together, Bitcoin ETFs saw net outflows of about $229 million last week, after outflows of $681 million the week before. On October 7, they saw $483.9 million in outflows in a single day—the steepest drop since June.

So Monday’s inflow looks more like a partial recovery of the money pulled out earlier. So far this October, Bitcoin ETFs are still about $88 million short of turning positive overall.

Prices aren’t responding either. Bitcoin is currently at $81,500, down 1.46% over 24 hours. Ethereum is at $2,388, down 1.67%. Money is flowing back in, but prices aren’t rising.

Ethereum ETFs also saw outflows of $103.3 million that same day. BlackRock’s ETHA alone lost $95.4 million. Ethereum funds have now seen net outflows for a third consecutive week, with about $320 million in outflows last week.

My take: this isn’t a broad shift into risk assets. It’s one product catching up as major institutions rebuild their positions in IBIT, which has the best liquidity, the largest scale, and is the easiest to trade in and out of. The other products haven’t followed, suggesting buying is concentrated rather than widespread.

Concentration has its advantages and disadvantages. The upside is that as long as IBIT keeps attracting money, spot Bitcoin has a steady source of demand. The downside is that if this fund starts seeing outflows, the figures for the entire category could change overnight, because there’s no second pillar to support it ⚠️

Next, watch two things: whether IBIT can maintain net inflows for several consecutive days and erase October’s $88 million deficit, and whether institutions reduce their positions to avoid volatility around the October 28 rate decision.

I don’t think a single day of $526.7 million in inflows is enough to define a reversal. It only shows that some investors are starting to rebuild their positions. To see the real trend, we’ll need to watch whether the remaining trading days this week keep the momentum going.

Do you think institutions are buying the dip, or just adjusting their positions ahead of month-end? Let’s talk in the comments 👇

I bring you the latest crypto trends every day—not just what’s happening, but also the logic and opportunities behind the headlines 👀🚀

Tap my profile picture to watch the livestream

#strategy增持267枚比特币
The company holding 848,517 bitcoins bought just 267 last week, but spent $193 million buying back its own preferred shares 🦖

📈 进群一起分析行情

Strategy added 267 bitcoins at an average price of $82,900, for a total of $22.1 million. In the same week, it bought back 1.931 million STRC preferred shares for $193.1 million—8.7 times what it spent on bitcoin 💰

This is the third consecutive week it has done this. In the previous two weeks, it bought back $192.4 million and $176 million worth of shares, while spending only $21.5 million and $29 million on bitcoin. It’s nibbling at bitcoin while buying back preferred shares in much larger amounts. The pattern is now clear.

Where did the money come from? The $22.1 million for bitcoin came from selling 140,872 MSTR common shares, plus $100,000 in cash. The preferred-share buybacks were funded using USD Cash on the balance sheet. The buyback authorization limit was also raised from $2 billion to $3 billion, with $1.16 billion remaining as of October 18.

As for its holdings, Strategy has 848,517 bitcoins, acquired at a total cost of $64.02 billion and an average price of $75,446. That’s about 4% of all bitcoin in existence, with an unrealized gain of roughly $5.9 billion.

My take: This isn’t a bearish bet on bitcoin. It’s that the capital structure is starting to buckle. Continuing to issue shares to buy bitcoin comes at an increasingly high cost in dilution, while dividends on preferred shares have to be paid in cash. So management has chosen to address fixed costs first instead of continuing to pile up bitcoin. The bitcoin-hoarding companies are shifting from selling stock to buy bitcoin to selling stock to pay down debt ⚠️

There’s another risk: On October 15, MSCI finalized new rules that would exclude non-operating companies whose balance sheets are dominated by a single asset from its global indexes. The change takes effect at the close on November 30, and the list of affected companies will be announced on November 11. If passive funds are forced to sell, financing costs could rise another notch 📉

For corporate treasury demand, incremental buying is weakening. Going forward, support for bitcoin will depend more on ETFs and spot-market demand than on the financial maneuvering of a few bitcoin-hoarding companies.

Do you think Strategy is playing defense or shifting gears? Let’s discuss in the comments.

I bring you the latest bitcoin topics every day—not just what’s happening in the news, but also the logic and opportunities behind it 👀🚀

A position worth $81.36 million, with 85.5% on the short side 🐋

📣 盘面异动群里喊

Onchain monitoring account Onchain Lens just disclosed that an address ending in 2b00 holds an $81.36 million position on the on-chain perpetuals platform Hyperliquid: $69.59 million in shorts and $11.77 million in longs, with shorts making up 85.5% of the total. The address belongs to market maker Wintermute 🦖

It has opened a total of 132 open positions. Its four largest shorts are: $22.61 million in Ethereum at 15x leverage, $12.65 million in SOL at 20x leverage, $4.2 million in XRP at 10x leverage, and $4.1 million in the S&P 500 index at 3x leverage 📉

Its unrealized profit on paper is only $936,400, but it made $9.66 million over the past 30 days, bringing its total profit to $17.746 million. This suggests that most of its profits have already been realized—not just numbers propped up by unrealized gains.

Let’s put this into perspective first: a market maker’s short position is not the same as a retail trader’s short. Market makers typically hold a large inventory of spot assets and options. When they open shorts on perpetual futures, it’s often to hedge directional exposure and collect funding rates. On paper, they’re 85.5% short, but in reality, the overall structure may be close to neutral.

But there are two details worth watching this time. First, the leverage: 20x on SOL and 15x on Ethereum. Those are not the conservative levels you’d expect from pure hedging; they look more like an active bet on volatility. Second, the short position on the S&P 500. A crypto market maker shorting a stock index at the same time suggests it’s hedging against a pullback in risk assets as a whole—not just crypto ⚠️

Now look at the timing. Bitcoin is currently at $81,644, down 1.3% in 24 hours. Ethereum is at $2,395, down 1.39%; SOL is at $104, down 1.14%; and XRP is at $1.30, down 0.89%. Prices have been grinding back and forth between $80,000 and $83,000. This kind of market is ideal for market makers to collect steady income: opening shorts near the top of the range and closing them near the bottom, profiting from the swings.

The real risk lies on the other side. If Bitcoin breaks above $83,000 on strong volume, these 15x and 20x shorts could become fuel. Liquidations on on-chain perpetuals can happen fast, and liquidity is thin. A single large short covering could push prices even higher. In that case, the 85.5% short ratio would become a contrarian signal.

So I wouldn’t read this data as a straightforward bearish signal. A more accurate take is that some of the market’s sharpest players are using high leverage to profit from volatility. They’re probably right—but if they’re wrong, things could go wrong very quickly.

Do you think this is hedging, or are they genuinely bearish? Let’s talk in the comments 👀

I bring you the latest crypto trends every day—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind the headlines 🚀

Tap my profile picture to watch the livestream

$320 million outflows, 93.4% from a single fund: An institution is unilaterally pulling money out of Ethereum ETFs 🦖

🔎 进群看完整分析

From October 12 to 16, U.S. spot Ethereum ETFs saw net outflows of $320.1 million. BlackRock’s ETHA alone saw $299 million in outflows, accounting for 93.4% of the total.

Yesterday, October 19, another $103 million flowed out, marking the fourth consecutive trading day of outflows. On the same day, Bitcoin ETFs saw $527 million in net inflows—and only one Ethereum ETF product was in the green 📉

Looking at the five trading days: $85.4 million flowed out on Monday, followed by a brief $24.8 million inflow on Tuesday, then outflows of $129.5 million on Wednesday, $60.3 million on Thursday, and $69.7 million on Friday. All of Friday’s net outflows from Ethereum ETFs came from ETHA. Fidelity’s fund and both Grayscale funds saw zero flows that day.

For the week, only Fidelity’s FETH was positive, with $10.5 million in inflows. Grayscale’s ETHE saw $18.3 million flow out, while its Mini Trust lost $12.4 million. The money is moving in a highly concentrated way—it’s not a broad-based retreat.

The longer-term picture is even clearer. October isn’t over yet, and Ethereum ETFs have already seen about $955 million in outflows. Their net inflows for the year, which had reached $1.77 billion, are now down to just $814 million. The previous week also saw $542.1 million in outflows, bringing the two-week total to $862 million.

As for prices, ETH hovered between $2,400 and $2,420 over the weekend, down about 4.5% for the week. It still hasn’t reclaimed the $2,500 level it held earlier in October.

There’s another signal that’s easy to overlook: on October 14, VanEck withdrew its registration filing for a staked Ethereum ETF tied to Lido. Existing products are seeing redemptions, while new products are being withdrawn—both sides are contracting at once ⚠️

My take: this doesn’t look like Ethereum is being abandoned. It looks more like institutions are adjusting their relative allocations at the ETF level. Money hasn’t left crypto assets; it’s just shifted between Bitcoin and Ethereum.

The evidence is in the concentration: 93.4% of outflows came from a single fund. If this were a retail panic selloff, the flows wouldn’t be so neatly concentrated. This pattern usually comes from a small number of large accounts rebalancing their portfolios. One fund adjusting its holdings can make the entire category show net outflows.

But it’s true that marginal buying demand is thinning. When ETFs shift from net buying to net selling, the spot market loses a steady source of support—and Ethereum is inherently more volatile than Bitcoin.

More importantly, consider the timing: the Fed rate decision is on October 28. If volatility picks up again, Ethereum’s downside beta will be more pronounced than Bitcoin’s. The $2,500 level now looks more like a sentiment line than a value line.

I don’t think this is a signal to buy the dip, and I don’t think it’s a signal to exit entirely. It’s simply a reshuffling of capital between two narratives—and that reshuffling isn’t over yet.

Do you think institutions are rotating their holdings, or is Ethereum really being left behind? Let’s talk in the comments 👇

Follow me every day for the latest crypto trends. I don’t just report what’s happening—I help you understand the logic and opportunities behind it 👀🚀

Tap my profile picture to watch the livestream

$4 trillion in a year: This bank is moving deposits straight onto Ethereum. The stablecoin competition has a new player 🦖

📢 ⏰ 消息群里第一时间说

On October 19, JPMorgan announced that its dollar deposit token, JPM Coin (ticker: JPMD), had officially launched on Ethereum mainnet. It’s available only to approved institutional clients. This isn’t just another stablecoin: it’s backed by actual deposits on JPMorgan’s balance sheet and redeemable one-to-one.

First, a look at the infrastructure. Kinexys, formerly known as Onyx, was built in 2019 and has processed more than $4 trillion in transactions to date. It now handles around $7 billion a day. JPMorgan processes about $12 trillion in payments every day, so the on-chain portion is still just a tiny slice 🏦

JPMD differs from USDT and USDC in three major ways. First, it operates within the existing bank regulatory framework, so it doesn’t need to apply for a separate license. Second, it can pay interest. The GENIUS Act prohibits payment stablecoins from paying interest to holders, but deposit tokens aren’t considered stablecoins. Third, it’s permissioned: only institutions approved by JPMorgan can hold and transfer it.

The second point is the biggest one. The U.S. Treasury estimates that if stablecoins can offer yield, as much as $6.6 trillion in bank deposits could flow into stablecoins. For banks, rather than watch deposits move elsewhere, why not move those deposits onto the blockchain themselves? 💵

JPMorgan’s CEO has also made a complete U-turn. In 2021, he said Bitcoin was worthless. In 2023, he said that if he were in government, he’d shut it down. In 2024, he called it a pet rock. By May 2025, he’d changed his tune, saying everyone had the right to buy Bitcoin. In this April’s letter to shareholders, he was even more direct: “A whole new set of blockchain-based competitors is emerging, including stablecoins. We need to launch our own blockchain technology.”

This isn’t just one bank making a move. A consortium of more than a dozen banks—including JPMorgan, Citi, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo—is building a shared tokenized deposit network through The Clearing House, with a target launch in the first half of 2027. Citi’s tokenized deposits are already operating in seven markets, and expanded to Japan and the UAE this September. SoFi issued sofiUSD in December 2025. HSBC has secured a Hong Kong Monetary Authority license and is preparing to launch a Hong Kong dollar stablecoin. Société Générale is also rolling out MiCA-compliant euro and dollar stablecoins in Europe 📈

The real battleground isn’t who issues a token—it’s who can pay interest on on-chain dollars. Stablecoins won the last cycle with permissionless access and composability. Banks are bringing credit, regulation, and their balance sheets to the next one. But the bank version is a walled garden: JPMD won’t go into DeFi pools, and you can’t freely transfer it. It’s more about moving institutional settlement onto a public blockchain than winning over crypto-native users.

Ethereum is gaining a role as a settlement layer for bank funds. The total market cap of on-chain stablecoins is about $147.6 billion, including around $78.8 billion for Tether and $45.9 billion for Circle. This pie isn’t going to shrink anytime soon because of JPMD—but three years from now, that may be a different story ⚠️

Do you think banks entering the market en masse will push stablecoins to the sidelines, or will each find its own lane? Share your thoughts in the comments.

Every day, we bring you the latest in crypto—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind the headlines 👀🚀

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream

Prices have already fallen, but leverage hasn’t gone anywhere. 40% of large-cap altcoins are still near their year-to-date leverage highs 🦖

💬 群里一起聊行情

Glassnode’s October 20 report put it plainly: leverage in the altcoin market remains elevated. After leverage peaked earlier this month, the prices of the coins involved pulled back. But leverage on more than 40% of large-cap altcoins is still near its year-to-date high, while the share of mid-cap altcoins in a high-leverage state has also climbed to a year-to-date peak ⚠️

Let’s unpack that. The price pullback shows that the market has shed some of the froth through falling prices. But leverage hasn’t retreated along with it, suggesting that many traders aren’t admitting they were wrong and exiting—they’re holding on to their positions. Some may even be adding margin to keep holding through the decline. These positions might not look problematic while prices move sideways, but if the market drops another leg, paper losses can turn into forced liquidations 💥

Glassnode’s warning is clear: if prices fall further, a large number of long positions in the market could face liquidation risk. Liquidations don’t happen gradually; they happen in waves. The first forced liquidation pushes prices lower, the lower price leaves a second batch short on margin, and then another wave gets liquidated. That’s why many sell-offs play out in minutes, not days.

Looking at today’s market, Bitcoin is around $81,700, down about 1.1% in 24 hours; Ethereum is at $2,398, down about 1.06%; and SOL is at $105, down about 0.32%. The broader market is only slightly lower, but altcoin leverage is still elevated. That mismatch alone is a risk. Bitcoin’s rejection near $83,000 earlier shows that selling pressure remains overhead. What’s missing now isn’t a story—it’s spot buying strong enough to absorb the selling.

In my view, what really matters this time isn’t which coin has gained how much, but when leverage starts to decline involuntarily. Deleveraging by choice is healthy; involuntary deleveraging means liquidations. The former is a gradual decline in open interest; the latter is a chain of blowups in a matter of minutes. The difference determines whether your small-cap positions just pull back—or go to zero 🦕

There’s another detail worth noting: the share of mid-cap altcoins with high leverage has risen to a year-to-date high. These coins are already relatively illiquid, with limited market depth. The same volume of liquidations can cause greater price slippage. In other words, while large-cap coins fall 5%, these coins may already be down 15%. The leverage may be the same, but the risk isn’t.

So, there are three things worth watching next. First, can Bitcoin reclaim $83,000 and hold above it? Second, is open interest in altcoin futures starting to drop significantly? Third, is market depth getting thicker or thinner during declines? If prices fall and open interest falls too, that’s healthy deleveraging. If prices fall while open interest stays high, the powder keg is still loaded.

Are you still holding long positions in altcoins? Planning to ride it out, or take half off the table? Let’s talk in the comments 👀

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream

Every day, I’ll help you keep up with the latest in crypto—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind it 👀🚀