小恐龙说趋势

13 fake tokens launched first, while the real one still has zero supply 🏦

📢 ⏰ 消息群里第一时间说

JPMorgan’s JPMD deposit token, which it plans to issue on Ethereum, hasn’t actually launched yet—but 13 counterfeit tokens with the same name have already appeared on-chain. The bank’s official documentation warns that identically named tokens at other addresses have nothing to do with it. Meanwhile, the real token currently has zero supply and zero holders. 🦖

Let’s be clear about what’s happening: this isn’t a hack or a project team doing a rug pull. Someone simply grabbed the name and created an identical ticker before the real token began circulating, then listed it on decentralized exchanges to lure people in.

JPMorgan’s scale speaks for itself: it’s a globally systemically important bank, with customer deposits measured in trillions of dollars. JPMD is intended to move deposits on-chain for clearing and collateral between institutions—not for retail investors to trade. So it’s no surprise that the real token has zero supply: the issuer needs to secure regulatory approval, then arrange custody and market making, one step at a time.

What’s strange is the other side of the equation. The 13 fake tokens need no approval, no custody, and no audit. It takes just a few minutes and a few dollars to deploy a contract with the same name and start taking people’s money. That imbalance is the real issue: the genuine token is waiting on compliance, while the fakes are waiting for buyers. 💥

Here’s a shift that many people haven’t noticed. In the past, you could judge whether a financial product was genuine by looking at its brand, storefront, or customer service number. That doesn’t work on-chain. There, you have only addresses. Names can be duplicated, icons copied, and contracts replicated. The only way to verify a token is to check the string of letters and numbers in the official documentation. Once a bank moves a product on-chain, trust shifts from its nameplate to its address—and most users won’t bother to check the address.

Think about it more broadly, and this is the same problem facing every institution tokenizing assets. The technology is no longer the barrier: issuing a token is far cheaper than opening a branch. The real challenge is verification—helping users identify the genuine asset among a crowd of identically named ones. Right now, that piece is almost entirely missing. There’s no unified registry or authoritative namespace. Whoever launches first gets to claim the name.

So the significance of this story isn’t the number 13. It’s that it offers an early preview of what may become normal over the next few years: institutional assets will move on-chain more slowly than counterfeit versions appear. As long as the real token hasn’t launched, fakes have an opening. And once it does launch, the fakes can simply change their names and carry on.

Bitcoin is currently at $84,636, up 2.29% in 24 hours. The market is rebounding, but trust issues in this kind of infrastructure won’t disappear just because prices are rising.

Have you ever found a token in your wallet that you never bought, suddenly appearing under the same name as a familiar one? Tell us in the comments—how did you figure out which was real? 👀

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

19-page filing submitted to the EU: Staking your own ADA could require a license

🚨 行情变了群里说

On September 30, the Cardano Foundation submitted a 19-page position paper to the European Commission’s MiCA review. It was only made public on Wednesday, and its core message boils down to one sentence: Don’t create separate regulations for DeFi and staking. ⚖️

The backdrop is tightening regulation in the EU. In September, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) recommended creating a new category of regulated services for companies that provide staking, lending, and access to DeFi protocols. In other words, companies that help users connect to DeFi may need to get licensed first.

The foundation’s objection is straightforward: regulation should focus on the function and risks of an activity, not the technology it uses. When users delegate ADA to a node, their private keys and assets remain in their own hands. That’s very different from handing coins over to an intermediary for staking. The former is participation in network security; the latter is an asset management service. 📜

Behind this statement lies a much bigger question: If licenses are required for providing access, wallets, front ends, and even node operators could all be considered part of the financial services chain. Who will ultimately bear the cost? Ordinary users.

The foundation also warned that MiCA overlaps with existing EU financial regulations, while interpretations vary across member states. The same staking business could be required to submit different compliance documents in 27 countries. This uncertainty could drive projects out of Europe.

Notably, Cardano isn’t the only one raising this issue. On October 20, six organizations—Chainlink Labs, the Cardano Foundation, Hedera, Aptos Labs, Ava Labs, and the Stellar Development Foundation—jointly wrote to the U.S. SEC, asking it to explicitly include digital commodities in its rules rather than issue only interpretive guidance. That round of public consultation received around 140 submissions over 60 days. 🦖

As for the market, ADA is currently at $0.2275, up 3.08% over 24 hours, with a market cap of about $8.54 billion. Bitcoin is trading near $84,500, while the total crypto market cap is $2.9 trillion, up 2.2%. The market has just climbed out of the hole it fell into when prices dipped below $80,000 earlier this month.

My take: The regulatory focus is shifting from “Is this a security?” to “Who controls users’ assets?” The dividing line between self-custody and intermediaries is the real make-or-break issue for DeFi. Where that line is drawn will determine whether staking is considered infrastructure or a financial service. If ESMA’s new category takes effect, compliance costs will eat into some of users’ returns. But on the other hand, clear rules could give large investors the confidence to enter the market. ⚠️

Do you think self-custody staking should be regulated as a financial service? Let’s discuss in the comments.

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

#特朗普拟阐述打击海外加密诈骗
$833 million wrested from overseas scam compounds. 503 websites taken down ⚖️

⚡ 有大动静群里说

The White House held a cybersecurity event on Wednesday, where Trump put the crackdown on overseas crypto scams front and center. A White House official said U.S. law enforcement had intercepted around $833 million in funds linked to overseas crypto scams. A Department of Homeland Security task force seized 503 scam websites and proactively notified nearly 9,000 Americans who were being scammed 🦖

Here’s the contrast: crypto scams have already stolen tens of billions of dollars from Americans. The $833 million recovered doesn’t even amount to a drop in the bucket ⚠️

These scam compounds aren’t small-time operations. They’re sprawling industrial parks across Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos, and the Philippines. First, they build an emotional connection—chatting with victims on social media for months—then steer them to fake investment platforms. The USDT victims deposit is split into hundreds of transfers and moved within minutes, then converted to cash through over-the-counter channels. Phishing links, ransomware, fake customer service reps—the whole operation runs like an assembly line 💥

So the key to this operation isn’t arresting a few people. It’s cutting off the infrastructure: domains, payment channels, servers—shutting them down layer by layer. Last November, the Treasury Department set up an interagency scam center strike force. Then, on September 9 this year, it sanctioned a guarantee platform called Xinbi Guarantee. This White House event laid out the whole effort.

My take: $833 million recovered out of tens of billions means a recovery rate of less than 2%. You’ll never recover money after the fact as effectively as you can stop people from being scammed in the first place. Two things can really make a difference: first, ask one more question before transferring money; second, platforms should block suspicious deposits at the point of entry. For compliant platforms, regulators turning their attention from exchanges to the scam industry chain is actually a good thing. Cutting off gray-market money flows may create localized selling pressure in the short term, but in the long run, it clears out the bad actors.

Do you think this is tighter regulation, or is the industry finally starting to clean house? Let’s talk in the comments.

Tap my profile picture to watch the livestream.

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

A coin worth $13 billion, with only three products you can name 🦖
Dogecoin Labs announced this week that it’s been established. Alongside the Dogecoin Foundation, it will bring scattered products, intellectual property, and development teams together under one independent company.

🕐 最新解读群里更新

The new company will directly oversee three things: the MyDoge wallet, the DogeOS app platform, and the merchant payment tool Such App.
The Foundation and House of Doge will provide the assets and teams. The Foundation will continue to handle open-source development, maintenance, and advocacy, while Labs focuses solely on commercial products.
CEO Jordan Jefferson, founder of MyDoge and DogeOS, has an expansive vision: wallets, payments, e-commerce, trading, DeFi, gaming, AI, and social networking.
On paper, DOGE is currently around $0.083, with a market cap of $13 billion. It’s up 2.6% in 24 hours, but down 14% over the past month—and still 88% below its all-time high in May 2021 📉
The most interesting figure is 500,000.
MyDoge has built a user base of over 500,000 without spending a cent on user acquisition. That’s an impressive number for any blockchain.
Yet after all these years, the number of Dogecoin apps people can actually use every day is still easy to count 🐕
The contrast is striking: its liquidity and number of holders have long been top-tier, but its product lineup looks like that of a project just getting started.
DogeOS only launched its public testnet on September 30, giving developers an Ethereum-compatible environment. In other words, the foundations have only just been laid.
Institutional interest is mixed, too. A Dogecoin ETF listed on Nasdaq this year, while another asset manager later shut down its own Dogecoin fund, citing one blunt reason: insufficient demand ⚠️
My take: this isn’t a new coin launch or a pump. It’s about bringing scattered players together under one company.
For an asset worth $13 billion, organizational consolidation is just buying a ticket to the game. What will really determine its valuation is retention: can 500,000 wallet users turn into developers on DogeOS, and will merchants accept DOGE? Neither of those things can be achieved with an announcement.
Since 2013, Dogecoin has never been short on stories. What it lacks is a reason for people to open the app every week.
Do you think DOGE is building out its infrastructure this time, or just telling the same story in a new wrapper? Join the conversation in the comments 👀
Every day, I bring you the latest crypto trends—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind the headlines 🚀

#occ发布genius法案首个最终规则
$400 million flows onchain every hour, yet the market cap is only $301.4 billion 🦖
On October 21, the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency released the first final rule under the GENIUS Act. Treasury Secretary Bessent called it a watershed moment for American finance that day, comparing it to Lincoln’s National Currency Act of 1863 ⚖️

📣 盘面异动群里喊

A report commissioned by Coinbase and published by The Block Research on the same day showed that stablecoin transfer volume reached $891 billion in the third quarter—more than four times its level in early 2023. Of that, 73% took place outside banking hours and on weekends 📈

The key point is what you see when you put these two developments together.
The rules give stablecoins a federal framework, and transfer volumes show they’re already being used as infrastructure. But DeFiLlama’s figures are striking: the total stablecoin market cap is $301.4 billion, down 0.6% from a year ago. Standard Chartered originally forecast a $2 trillion market by 2028; it has now pushed that timeline out to 2030.

Put simply: money passes through stablecoins; it doesn’t stay in them.
Traffic on a road has quadrupled, but the number of cars parked there hasn’t increased. That tells us stablecoins currently function as settlement rails, not as stores of value. Their role has changed; the ceiling will only rise when their use changes 🚛

The evidence on the demand side is even clearer.
Seven of America’s ten largest banks have already tested stablecoins or tokenized deposits for settlement. And 30% of mid-sized cross-border businesses are trying them out, compared with just 10% in 2024. Institutions aren’t getting involved to speculate—they’re doing it to save time and cut fees.

My view: the rules taking effect won’t make stablecoin market caps soar overnight.
They address who can issue stablecoins, how issuance is regulated, and who’s responsible when something goes wrong. What will really determine when supply takes off are two other things: whether banks are willing to move deposits onchain, and whether businesses are willing to shift cross-border settlement away from legacy systems. The first depends on interest margins; the second, on compliance costs. The GENIUS Act is expected to take effect on January 18, 2027. That will be the first real test.

Which do you think stablecoins will disrupt first: cross-border remittances or bank deposits? Let’s talk in the comments.

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

Tap my profile picture to watch the livestream

A fictional coin from a game has been copied into the real world, sending its market cap soaring to $15 million

The latest Grand Theft Auto VI trailer features a brand called Dacity Coin. A stunt performer stands on a plane covered in its logo, releasing a plume of smoke. The shot is brief, but someone has already launched a token with the same name on Solana. It has no official authorization and no connection whatsoever to Rockstar. Yet people are already spending real money on it 🎮

More importantly, players are treating it like a reading-comprehension exercise. In gameplay footage leaked over a week ago, protagonist Lucia is supposed to perform a parachute stunt. The line on the phone is: “Put on a show for them. They’ll buy it without even knowing what it is.” That line has been taken as a direct bullish signal. Some believe Dacity will feature in multiple missions; others think it could be an in-game currency that players can spend in both single-player and online modes.

The price has already raced ahead. One trader’s $20,000 position has grown to an unrealized profit of $285,000—about a 14x return. And the entire real-world fundamental case for this token is just a name that might appear in a mission 📈

To put it plainly, what’s being priced in right now isn’t the token—it’s Rockstar’s script. The token has no revenue, no rights, and no official partnership. The only thing supporting it is players’ speculation about the gameplay. If Dacity turns out to be nothing more than a side-mission Easter egg, there’s nothing beneath that $15 million market cap. And tokens like this are thinly traded, with trading possible 24 hours a day. When people rush for the exit, there may be no buyers ⚠️

Some people point to GTA 5’s stock market system, saying players could trade stocks in the game back then, too. But that was part of the game’s design. Here, the real token exists outside the game, while the coin in the game is fictional. Two completely different things are being forcibly tied together.

My take is simple: narrative premiums are real, but this is pricing in the script ahead of time—not discovering value. It can rise fast, and it can go to zero just as fast 🦖

Know anyone who bought a coin because of a trailer? Let’s talk in the comments.

Tap my profile picture to watch the livestream.

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

A $127 million stablecoin that can’t even be transferred out of its own wallet 🦖
South Korea’s Shinhan Card and two digital asset companies under Japan’s SBI Group announced a partnership on October 21 to test cross-border payments using a yen stablecoin. Use cases include Japanese tourists making card purchases in South Korea, transfers between wallets, and cross-border trade settlements.
But neither side said which stablecoin they would use or provided a testing timeline, let alone a date for commercial launch. Meanwhile, SBI’s existing yen stablecoin, JPYSC, had a circulating supply of just ¥20.1 billion—about $127 million—as of September 7. It can only be used within accounts on SBI’s own platform and can’t currently be transferred to external wallets.

Put those numbers together, and the gap is glaring 💥
Among dollar stablecoins, USDT has a market cap of about $182.8 billion and USDC about $72.1 billion. At $127 million, the yen stablecoin is worth just 0.007% of USDT—in other words, this isn’t a payment revolution already underway. It’s still a sample in the lab.

What’s really worth noting is who’s involved.
Shinhan Card has around 20 million cardholders and signed an agreement with Visa this August to study stablecoin issuance, transfers, and card settlement. Bringing in SBI now means combining the card issuer, acquiring network, and trust-based issuance structure on the Japanese side. The three companies also plan to work on suspicious transaction monitoring and compliance processes. These are the most expensive parts of cross-border payments.

And that’s where the problem lies.
JPYSC is issued by SBI Shinsei Trust Bank and was launched with Startale only in June. Whether it can be used on a public blockchain still depends on legal, tax, and regulatory approval. In other words, what’s being called “cross-border” for now is just a transfer from one account to another. The public-chain settlement that genuinely requires a stablecoin hasn’t been connected yet.
If the pilot starts with Japanese tourists making card purchases in South Korea, users will still see an ordinary card payment. The stablecoin will sit behind the scenes in the acquiring and settlement layers. Merchants will receive won, tourists will pay in yen, and the process may save time on currency exchange and wire transfers—but it won’t eliminate licensing and compliance requirements.

My take 📈
The stablecoin race in Asia is expanding beyond the dollar to local currencies. Settlement channels for the yen, won, and Hong Kong dollar are all being tested. But success won’t depend on how fast the blockchain is. It will come down to three things: whether reserves can be audited, whether funds can be freely transferred out of wallets, and whether merchants are willing to take on the cost of conversion. If even one of these gets stuck, adoption won’t scale. The $127 million figure is the answer for now.

Do you think yen stablecoins will take off first in travel payments or trade settlements? Let’s talk in the comments 👀
Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream.
Every day, we bring you the latest in crypto market trends—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind it 👀🚀

A $129 billion Bitcoin market—and nearly 60% of open interest is no longer just directional bets 🦖

According to Volmex data from October 21, Bitcoin options accounted for nearly 60% of all derivatives open interest last week. At the start of this year, that share was still 50%—a rise of about 10 percentage points in a year.

ETF options have around $36 billion in open interest, with BlackRock’s IBIT alone accounting for nearly $35 billion. Add roughly $76 billion in options on native platforms, then include futures and perpetuals, and the whole market comes to about $129 billion. Bitcoin is currently trading at around $83,354. 📊

A more telling comparison: IBIT options were worth only about $11 billion in January 2025, versus roughly $35 billion now—almost a threefold increase. ETF options now make up about 47% of the entire Bitcoin options market, though most trading is still concentrated on a certain offshore options exchange.

It’s not that there’s more money—it’s that the way people trade has changed. Going long with perpetual futures means paying funding fees, and those costs can add up if you hold for long. Options have expiry dates: you can bet on direction, buy volatility alone, or sell calls to collect premiums. Positions can be held until settlement. Institutions want this kind of controllable risk exposure.

BlackRock’s moves point to the same thing. In June, it launched BITA, which sells calls to generate monthly income while giving up some upside. This week, it also filed for a buffer ETF that uses options to limit losses while capping gains too. These products are looking more and more like the structured products found in traditional stock markets.

My take: the rise in options’ share from 50% to nearly 60% is changing how prices are formed. Market makers who sell options need to hedge, and their hedging flows drive repeated buying and selling around key price levels. The result is stickier prices, fewer sharp wicks, and less extreme surges and crashes. Bitcoin is starting to behave more like a large-cap stock. 📉

But there’s another side to the coin: muted volatility doesn’t mean the risk has disappeared. The lower volatility gets, the more people sell volatility, and the more crowded those positions become. If a Fed rate decision or a sudden shift in ETF flows hits, hedgers unwinding in the opposite direction could amplify short-term volatility. ⚠️ For retail investors, it may feel like prices rise slowly and don’t fall very far, but the direction gets harder to predict.

Options account for about 75% of derivatives open interest in the S&P 500. Bitcoin is still below 60%. There’s still a way to go.

Do you think Bitcoin will come to resemble a stock index as options’ share keeps rising, or will this just bury the risks deeper? Let’s discuss in the comments.

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream.

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

It takes effect in 89 days: The U.S. has laid down all the rules for stablecoin issuers at once 🦖

On October 21, the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued the first final rule implementing the GENIUS Act. It clarifies what payment stablecoin issuers under its jurisdiction must do starting January 18, 2027. From reserve assets, redemptions, risk management and audit reports to custody, the application process, oversight of foreign issuers, and capital and operational safeguards, everything is covered in a single document.

But two areas were deliberately left out. Anti-money laundering, Bank Secrecy Act and sanctions compliance requirements have all been deferred to separate Treasury legislation. Another, more sensitive issue—yield and rewards—gets only broad principles, with no examples and no safe harbor. ⚖️

First, let’s be clear about who is covered: subsidiaries of national banks and federal savings associations; nonbank issuers approved at the federal level; certain qualified state-level issuers; foreign issuers; and certain custody businesses within the OCC’s regulatory framework. Conversely, issuers without a license will no longer be able to offer payment stablecoins to Americans after January 18, 2027.

The timeline has been tight. The OCC didn’t put out its proposal until February this year, then opened a 60-day comment period and received hundreds of submissions. The original July deadline had already been missed. In August, Comptroller Jonathan Gould publicly said the final rule would be issued before November. Applications will be accepted starting after the New Year, so the OCC has just made it across the finish line in time. 🏦

The rewards provision is what’s really making the industry nervous. The GENIUS Act prohibits issuers from paying users simply for holding, using or retaining stablecoins. But this time, the OCC declined to give examples and explicitly said existing reward programs won’t receive special treatment—they’ll be assessed case by case. The only clue it offered is the word “solely” in the original text of the Act. If at least part of a reward is offered for another reason, it may fall outside the prohibition. This interpretation means that the stablecoin reward programs used to attract deposits over the past few years will have to undergo compliance reviews all over again.

My take: The significance of this rule isn’t how strict its provisions are, but that it turns uncertainty into something that can be calculated. Institutions have never feared high barriers as much as not knowing where those barriers are. Once the requirements for reserves, redemptions, custody and capital are quantified, stablecoin issuance shifts from a gray-area business to a licensed activity. The cost is higher compliance spending; the upside is that capital will be more willing to come in. In the short term, U.S. Treasuries and overnight repos will gain another steady buyer. In the longer term, whoever gets a license gets a ticket to the digital dollar economy. ⚠️

The Treasury Secretary’s remarks were also interesting. He compared the GENIUS Act to the National Currency Act signed by Lincoln in 1863. That law set a uniform national standard for bank-issued paper money for the first time. More than 160 years later, the same logic is being applied to dollar stablecoins.

Do you think these rules will make stablecoins safer, or shut smaller players out? Join the conversation in the comments. Which stablecoin are you most comfortable holding? 🔍

Every day, I bring you the latest on stablecoin regulation—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind it. 👀🚀 Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream

10,092 complaints in 90 days: 9,803 Brits find they can’t transfer their money to crypto platforms 🦖

A report published on October 20 by crypto advocacy group Stand With Crypto found that in the 90 days from May to August this year, UK bank customers filed a total of 10,092 complaints, all about the same thing: banks blocking or restricting transfers to platforms regulated by the UK Financial Conduct Authority. The complaints came from 9,803 different people and covered all 650 UK parliamentary constituencies. Not a single area was exempt. ⚖️

Looking at individual banks, Lloyds Banking Group alone received 2,297 complaints, accounting for more than 22% of the total. Barclays received 1,569, NatWest Group 1,278, and HSBC UK more than 1,000. Virgin Money had the fewest complaints, with 103, followed by The Co-operative Bank with 76.

Here’s what’s truly unusual: the report divided banks into three groups. Six banks with clearly defined limits received a total of 6,198 complaints. Lloyds and another digital bank, neither of which had any public policy, together received 2,842. Banks that outright banned all crypto transfers received just 989 complaints. The banks with the strictest bans were, ironically, the quietest—because customers didn’t even bother trying.

How restrictive are the limits? Barclays allows £2,500 per transaction and £10,000 every 30 days. NatWest allows £1,000 per day and £5,000 every 30 days. Santander allows £1,000 per transaction and £3,000 every 30 days. And six banks simply draw a hard line and ban all crypto transfers. 📉

Another set of figures cited in the report makes the problem even clearer. In a 2025 survey by the UK Financial Conduct Authority and YouGov, 13% of crypto users said they’d had problems withdrawing money into their bank accounts—the most common negative experience reported. The UK Cryptoasset Business Council estimated in January this year that around 40% of transfers to the UK’s ten largest platforms were blocked or delayed. At one platform, rejected transactions came close to £1 billion in a single year.

My take: the real debate isn’t whether fraud prevention matters, but how the costs are shared. When a bank blocks a transfer, it avoids fines and reputational risk. The customer pays in time, missed trading opportunities, and repeated phone calls to prove they’ve done nothing wrong. Worse, the rules aren’t transparent. Customers can’t use a bank’s published policy to predict whether their money will be allowed through. Different branches and customer service representatives at the same bank may give different answers. That uncertainty is a cost in itself. The report calls on regulators and the Treasury to make their position clear: industry-wide blanket restrictions are disproportionate. The UK’s new crypto regulatory framework is due to take effect next year, so this issue will need a consistent answer sooner or later. 👀

Do you think banks block crypto transfers to protect customers, or just to save themselves trouble? Join the conversation in the comments. Has anyone you know been affected?

Every day, we bring you the latest on crypto regulation—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind it. 👀🚀 Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream

RMB 40.3 billion raised—eight years later, it collides with $5.1 billion in Bitcoin. Victims may get back only their principal 🦖

On October 12, the UK High Court ruled in the case of Qian Zhimin that the Chinese victims’ property claims to the Bitcoin should be determined under Chinese law. Four days later, on October 16, the court held another hearing and approved an appeal against the ruling by around 16,000 Chinese victims ⚖️

It began in 2014, when Tianjin Lantian Gerui raised funds under the guise of selling wealth-management products. By August 2017, it had raised a total of RMB 40.378 billion. Prosecutors put the losses at RMB 19.977 billion, with more than 102,000 affected participants. Other reports say around 128,000 investors were involved.

Qian Zhimin left China in July 2017 and entered the UK that September using the alias Zhang Yadi. She was arrested in York in April 2024. In 2018, London police seized more than 61,000 Bitcoin from a residence—one of the largest cryptocurrency seizures in UK law-enforcement history. She tried to buy London properties priced at £4.5 million, £12.5 million, and £23.5 million, but all three deals fell through during source-of-funds checks 💰

On November 11, 2025, Southwark Crown Court in London sentenced her to 11 years and 8 months for offenses involving cryptocurrency derived from criminal proceeds. Wen Jian, a co-defendant, was sentenced to 6 years and 8 months, and Lin Chengfu to 4 years and 11 months.

The most valuable assets still have no final ruling on who they belong to. On October 13, the Tianjin No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court announced that it had accepted prosecutors’ application to confiscate the illegal proceeds. The case was filed on September 28, 2026. The asset list includes 61,896 Bitcoin, another 72,725 Bitcoin Cash, 70.08 million Dogecoin, and 3.6 million XRP. At Bitcoin’s current price of $82,688, the Bitcoin alone is worth about $5.1 billion. The Financial Times estimates the total at around £3.8 billion.

The striking contrast is that in 2014, she bought Bitcoin through trading platforms at an average price of about RMB 2,815 per coin. It is now around RMB 560,000—a 198.93-fold increase. But under Chinese law, victims must prove how much they lost in the fundraising fraud, not that they own these coins. The losses are a debt claim; the increase in value is proceeds from asset disposal. Legally, these are treated as two separate things 📉

So the most likely outcome is that victims will recover only the portion of their principal corresponding to their share of the losses. The nearly 200-fold increase will most likely remain within the asset-disposal process. This is the most painful part of cross-border asset recovery: the more sharply the coin price rises, the smaller the recovery rate seems by comparison.

There’s another signal for the market: the law governing crypto assets seized overseas can be the law of the place where the crime occurred. But the transfer and disposal of the assets must still go through the procedures of the country that seized them. These processes take years, not quarters.

Do you think victims in cases like this should get a share of the appreciation? Share your thoughts in the comments.

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream.

Every day, we bring you the latest on Bitcoin and cross-border asset recovery—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind it 👀🚀

#瑞士批准首只比特币etf
After waiting five years, Switzerland has approved just one Bitcoin ETF for retail investors—and waived the diversification rule 🦖

⚡ 有大动静群里说

On October 20, Switzerland’s financial regulator FINMA approved the country’s first retail ETF to invest directly in Bitcoin. It’s classified as an “other alternative investment fund.” Who the issuer is and when it will be listed? Not a word has been disclosed.

The key point is that the approval came with a rare exemption. Swiss fund law normally requires funds to diversify their investments to reduce the risks of holding a single asset. FINMA waived that requirement outright, giving just one reason: Bitcoin has a sufficiently long trading history and far higher trading volumes than other cryptocurrencies ⚖️

The last time a similar door opened was in September 2021. The product approved then was the Crypto Market Index Fund, available only to qualified investors. It held a basket of crypto assets, not Bitcoin alone. Ordinary retail investors were shut out—and stayed that way for five years.

The new rules also impose strict custody requirements. Guidance issued on January 12 requires the assets to be held by a Swiss custodian bank. An overseas third party may also hold them, but it must be subject to equivalent supervision and provide equivalent bankruptcy protection. In other words, if the custodian fails, the coins must be separable from its assets in liquidation. Sellers must also provide volatility warnings and conduct suitability checks. The official position is that this offers more protection than buying coins yourself.

To be clear, crypto ETPs have long been listed on Swiss exchanges. Those are structured products. This new product is a fund under the fund law, and the two fall under entirely different regulatory frameworks.

The US is seeing the opposite trend. From October through last Friday, spot Bitcoin ETFs saw net outflows of about $615 million. BlackRock’s IBIT had net assets of $66.37 billion and drew in $665.2 million on Monday alone, making it the only one of the 12 to see net inflows. The market as a whole saw net inflows of $526.6 million that day. Money is concentrating in the biggest funds, not flowing toward new licenses.

My take: Switzerland’s move isn’t about adding leverage to Bitcoin. It’s about putting it inside one of the most conservative wrappers. Whoever gets the first retail fund license gets a ticket to European pension and insurance capital. But waiving diversification is a double-edged sword: the volatility of a single asset will be passed through in full to the fund’s net asset value. Bitcoin is currently around $83,000, and ETFs overall are still seeing net outflows this October. That shows that no matter how compliant the wrapper is, it can’t change whether investors are willing to put money in.

The three things to watch are: who the issuer is, which bank is the custodian, and what the fees are. Those will determine whether it can attract capital ⚠️

Do you think a fund that invests only in Bitcoin should be exempt from diversification rules? Let’s discuss in the comments 👀

Every day, I bring you updates on Bitcoin ETFs and global regulatory developments—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind the news 👀🚀

531 fake certificates once exposed 300,000 email accounts. This time there were only 8, but the hidden danger runs deeper 🦖

🕐 最新解读群里更新

A security team independently recovered the private keys for 8 intermediate certificates issued by Indian certificate authority eMudhra. Mozilla cryptography engineer Dennis Jackson wrote in the incident report that the key-generation process was flawed—and so simple that anyone could exploit it ⚠️
The alert came in on Saturday, October 17. By this Tuesday, all four major browser vendors—Google, Apple, Microsoft, and Firefox—had blocked the certificates. The incident was disclosed on October 19.

First, let’s be clear about what a certificate is: it’s a website’s ID card. HTTPS works because browsers trust that certificate. If it’s valid, the address bar shows the site as secure, and users assume it’s the real thing.
So if an issuing authority’s private key can be recovered, an attacker can issue a certificate for any domain, then intercept users’ connections to read their passwords or change payment details. The browser won’t raise an alarm at any point 🔐

The response was actually pretty fast this time. Google blacklisted the certificates on Saturday itself, Apple on Monday, and Microsoft on Tuesday. In addition to blacklisting them, Firefox also pushed updates to its desktop and Android versions to prevent users from bypassing the protections with custom settings. Cloud security provider Cloudflare was notified on Monday and updated its One and WARP clients, as well as its Tunnel service, on Tuesday.
More importantly, Certificate Transparency logs have contained no record of these intermediate certificates since April 2025. In other words, there’s currently no evidence that any of these 8 certificates were actually used 💥

But the fact that they weren’t used doesn’t mean the system is sound.
Many clients outside the browser don’t check Certificate Transparency at all. Wallet apps, exchange desktop clients, market-data plugins, and automated trading scripts all fall into this category. They only verify the certificate chain; they don’t check whether the certificate has appeared in the logs. Put another way, your browser may be safe, but the apps on your phone are still an open question.
The 2011 DigiNotar incident is a cautionary tale. Hackers took over the Dutch certificate authority and issued 531 forged certificates, impersonating Google. Around 300,000 Iranian Gmail accounts were monitored, and the company eventually shut down for good.

My take: the real risk in incidents like this has shifted from browsers to wallets and other clients. Browser vendors have dedicated teams, blacklists, and mandatory logging, and they respond within hours. Wallet and trading software updates slowly, gets audited less, and has nobody checking Certificate Transparency on its behalf.
If you visit exchange websites every day, just remember this: a valid certificate doesn’t mean the site is genuine. Check the domain manually, don’t click ads in search results, and don’t install desktop software from untrusted sources. That’s more practical than anything else.

How do you usually make sure you’re visiting the real official site? Let’s talk in the comments.

Tap my profile picture to watch the livestream.

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

Interest rates are already at a 31-year high—and may climb even higher. Former BOJ executive says next hike is set for December 🦖

📣 盘面异动群里喊

On October 21, Eiji Maeda, a former executive director of the Bank of Japan, said the next rate hike is expected in December, followed by another in March or April. The pace of rate hikes has accelerated to roughly once every three months, which he considers appropriate.
The BOJ just raised its policy rate to 1.25% in September, passing the decision by a 7–2 vote. That’s the highest level since April 1995, and the three-month gap since the previous hike is the shortest since 1990.

If the BOJ raises rates again in December, they will reach 1.50%—25 basis points above the current level. And the current rate of 1.25% is already at a 31-year high.
What’s even more worth watching is the timing. The Fed raised its rate to 3.75%–4.00% in September, and all 100 economists surveyed by Reuters expect another hike in December. In other words, December could be a month when both the Fed and the BOJ tighten policy at the same time.
For the past two decades, Japan has been one of the cheapest places in the world to borrow money. The carry trade works by borrowing yen, converting them into dollars, and using them to buy US stocks, Bitcoin—anything that might go up. This strategy works only because Japanese interest rates are low enough and the yen is cheap enough.

The real risk isn’t those 25 basis points in December. It’s that the once-every-three-months pace becomes established. Once the market believes Japan will keep raising rates, carry trades need to be recalculated. As the interest-rate gap narrows, borrowing yen to buy risk assets becomes less attractive. And the biggest danger for these positions isn’t gradual losses—it’s everyone rushing for the exit at once ⚠️
In several previous waves of yen carry-trade unwinds, Bitcoin has suffered sharp pullbacks in a very short time. Leveraged positions have no patience: they don’t wait for fundamentals; they just rush for the exit 💥
Bitcoin is now around $83,000, and smaller coins are still rising today. ZEC is up 9.59% in a day. The market doesn’t look worried at all 📉
But that’s all the more reason to stay alert. Real turning points often happen when everyone thinks everything is fine.

Do you think December will be a month of rate hikes by both central banks? Join the discussion in the comments.

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream.

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

Confirmation time cut from 6 seconds to 0.15 seconds—97% shaved off. The upgrade goes live today, but it first failed six times on testnet 🦖

📢 ⏰ 消息群里第一时间说

On October 21, Solana’s Alpenglow upgrade activated on mainnet. Starting from epoch 1064, it transitioned over 5,000 slots before officially switching over at slot 459653000. The goal: cut a transaction’s final confirmation time from around 6 seconds today to about 150 milliseconds—roughly 40 times faster. Meanwhile, Ethereum’s full finality still takes about 13 minutes.

This isn’t a parameter tweak; it’s an engine swap. Today, every validator has to write its vote to the chain as a transaction. A transaction is considered final only after enough votes pile up. That’s where the delay comes from. Alpenglow moves voting entirely off-chain and compresses votes into certificates, locking in finality in one or two rounds. The chain keeps only the result, not the process.

The costs for validators are changing too. They currently spend around 2 SOL a day on voting fees. After slot times were shortened to 200 milliseconds, that cost more than doubled. The new system eliminates voting fees and instead charges about 0.8 SOL per epoch—roughly every 24 hours—as an entry fee. That’s about 60% cheaper.

The cost is documented in the test records. Since launching in early May, the testnet has been wiped and restarted six times. One network-wide migration failed outright, forcing a full rollback. It eventually got up and running. Galaxy Digital, one of around 100 validator operators that took part in testing, documented the process in its postmortem. The good news: all of this happened on testnet, and no real funds were affected.

My take: what this upgrade really changes isn’t speed—it’s where trust sits. Before, every vote was on-chain, where anyone could inspect it. Now, votes are compressed into certificates, so you’re trusting the aggregation logic and the validator set. A 40x speedup also means a more concentrated set of assumptions. For market makers and arbitrageurs, 150 milliseconds means the price gaps that reward latency-based trading get squeezed flat. For payment apps, this is the first time it’s started to feel like tapping a card 📈

The real test is whether it can hold the 150-millisecond target when the network is congested. Anyone can post impressive benchmark numbers under no load ⚠️

Do you think 150-millisecond finality can help on-chain trading really catch up with centralized exchanges? Let’s talk in the comments 👀

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream

Every day, I’ll keep you up to date on crypto’s hottest topics—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind it 🚀🦕

17% annualized interest, just to borrow money to keep buying Bitcoin—that’s 1,300 basis points above U.S. Treasuries

📊 进群看每日策略

On October 21, Bloomberg reported that U.S.-listed Bitcoin treasury company Strive had just completed a $630 million preferred stock offering, 25% above its initial $504 million target. The stated dividend rate is 15%, but the offering discount pushes investors’ actual yield to nearly 17%. That means paying an extra $126 million a year to lock in this funding. 📉

At the same time, Strategy, the world’s largest corporate holder of Bitcoin, now has 847666 BTC. Its STRC preferred stock, with a 12% annualized yield, has not been issued since its price fell in June. Management now wants to switch to daily dividends to bring liquidity back. If it can’t sell preferred shares, it has no choice but to keep issuing common stock on the open market, diluting existing shareholders round after round. ⚠️

Put the two developments together and the logic becomes clear: the engine of this flywheel has never been Bitcoin itself, but cheap money. In the years of zero-coupon convertibles, the cost of borrowing was close to zero, so a 10% rise in Bitcoin meant pure profit. Now, with one-year U.S. Treasuries at 4.2% and preferred stock yielding 15% to 17%, the credit spread is 1,300 basis points. That’s distressed-debt pricing. 🦖

In other words, these companies first have to beat fixed financing costs of more than 15% a year; anything left over is theirs. For the flywheel to keep turning, Bitcoin’s long-term annualized return has to stay consistently above that level. If the funding window closes, all it takes is one quarter for them to go from the market’s most determined buyers to its most desperate sellers.

What’s more, Bitcoin’s move from $75,000 back to $83,000 was driven by short covering and ETF buying, while treasury companies’ marginal buying is getting more expensive and slowing down. It’s still the same story, but the price of money has changed. 🧮

Earlier, Strategy spent $192.4 million in one week buying back STRC—9 times what it spent on Bitcoin over the same period. It has spent a total of $1.6 billion. That ratio says a lot: maintaining the capital structure has now taken priority over accumulating Bitcoin.

Do you think these Bitcoin treasury companies will be Bitcoin’s last line of buyers—or the source of the next wave of selling? Share your thoughts in the comments.

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream.

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

#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

$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 👀🚀

#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. 👀🚀