小恐龙说趋势

The bottom came 125 days early: Bitcoin didn’t follow the midterm-election playbook this time 🦖

📊 进群看每日策略

There are just 10 days left until the U.S. midterm elections. Bitcoin is currently trading around $81,700, up about 40% from its July 1 low of $57,850. But in the past three midterm elections, the actual bottom didn’t come until after Election Day.

In January 2015, December 2018, and November 2022, the major bear-market bottoms came 71, 38, and 13 days after Election Day, respectively. The pattern was clear as a textbook example. Many people were waiting for one last leg down after November 3. But this time, the low came on July 1—fully 125 days before Election Day 📉

The contrast goes beyond timing. The pre-election declines have also varied. In the six months before the 2018 midterms, Bitcoin fell about 29%; in the six months before the 2022 midterms, it fell about 37%. So far this year, it’s down only about 6% over 30 days, while it’s still up 26% over 90 days.

The comparison becomes even clearer when we bring tech stocks into the picture. The Nasdaq ETF QQQ fell about 23% from the end of September 2018 to its December low, with most of that decline coming after Election Day. In the three months before the 2022 midterms, it fell 17%. But in the six months before the 2014 midterms, it actually rose 17%. Same pattern—except it went the other way once out of three times ⚠️

Bitcoin and QQQ are both down about 6% over the past 30 days. But over 90 days, Bitcoin is up 26%, while QQQ is up just 3%. QQQ didn’t hit a new high of $762.86 until October 6, while Bitcoin is still far from its all-time high. One is pulling back from a high; the other is climbing from a low.

My view is simple: midterm elections are more of a narrative for Bitcoin than a mechanism. The bottoms happened to come after the elections in those three cycles because that’s when the liquidity inflection points in those bear markets happened—not because voters had cast their ballots. This year’s early bottom simply shows that the rhythm of this cycle is being driven by its own funding conditions.

So what’s the real short-term judge? First, the Fed’s October 27–28 policy meeting. Second, ETF flows. On Thursday, U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs saw $635 million in net outflows in a single day, wiping out more than half of the over $1 billion in net inflows from Monday through Wednesday 📊

So at this point, we’re neither at a textbook pre-election panic bottom nor looking at a confirmed reversal. It’s more like a repair taking its time. If the Fed meeting doesn’t offer a new direction, $81,700 could remain a battleground.

Do you think $57,850 on July 1 was the bottom for this cycle, or will there be another leg down after the election? Let’s talk in the comments.

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

Tap my profile picture to watch the livestream

Bitcoin hasn’t moved more than 6% in a month. All of the top five cryptocurrencies by market cap have stayed within 2% over the past seven days. Some say this is a sign of a bull market ahead 🦖

📈 进群一起分析行情

Bitcoin is currently around $81,735, down 1.2% on the day. Over the past full month, it hasn’t moved up or down by more than 6% even once. According to data compiled by Decrypt, all of the top five cryptocurrencies by market cap posted weekly gains or losses of less than 2% over the past seven days. The Fear and Greed Index is stuck at 47—right on the neutral line 😴

This isn’t a dead market. It’s a market under compression.

Blockworks senior research analyst Jake Koch-Gallup puts it plainly: this kind of calm usually doesn’t last. Similar periods of low volatility in the past have been followed by sharp swings of around 30% within a few months 📊

André Dragosch, head of research at Bitwise Europe, is more optimistic. He calls this a constructive signal, pointing out that the early stages of bull markets often look like long stretches of calm punctuated by a few sharp rallies. This cycle’s pullbacks have also been milder than in the past. At the same time, volatility in oil prices, semiconductor stocks, and U.S. Treasuries has been rising, while Bitcoin has remained the steadiest. As he put it, this is resilience, not euphoria.

There are dissenting voices, too. GSR vice president of research Carlos Guzman believes boredom is neither a good nor a bad sign. The global mood is risk-off, the macro picture is too complicated, AI stocks are being repriced, and buying hasn’t been consistent enough—so the market is just moving sideways.

The data tells only part of the story. BlackRock’s Bitcoin ETF saw net inflows of $665.2 million on Monday, but there were no follow-on inflows in the days that followed. A one-off big-money inflow doesn’t amount to sustained buying pressure ⚠️

More importantly, Bitcoin’s position matters. Dragosch says Bitcoin is sitting at the market’s economic midpoint. At this level, roughly half of holders are in profit and half are at a loss. Neither buyers nor sellers have much incentive to push the price away from where it is.

The real catalysts arrive next week. The Fed’s decision is due on October 28. It raised rates in September—the first hike since 2023—and September CPI rose another 0.6%. Then, on October 30, $11.69 billion worth of Bitcoin options are set to expire. Both events are packed into just three days.

My view: low volatility doesn’t mean low risk. The more volatility is compressed, the more crowded leverage and positioning become. Once a direction emerges, the move could be amplified. If the Fed holds steady and ETF inflows continue, an upside breakout is more likely. If it raises rates again, the $75,000–$77,000 range could once again become a floor.

What do you think—will Bitcoin break upward next week, or take another dip first? Let’s discuss in the comments.

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream.

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

Only 5% of people still use cash, yet this country has picked up its central bank digital currency again
This week, Sweden’s central bank publicly called on lawmakers to reassess the e-krona, its proposed digital currency

📣 盘面异动群里喊

The reason isn’t technological progress. It’s that foreign-currency stablecoins and the digital euro, which could launch in 2029, are gradually squeezing the krona out of the picture 🏦
First, some background. In 2023, the Swedish government conducted a review and concluded that demand was insufficient, so it recommended against moving forward. Two years later, the central bank has changed its tune. Payment habits are changing, and so are security risks. It’s time to take another look.
Deputy Governor Per Jansson put it plainly: if cash goes digital and the krona doesn’t have a useful digital form, it won’t be able to compete with payment tools that are more convenient for cross-border transactions.
A small figure underpins this argument. In a survey by Sweden’s central bank, only 5% of respondents said they had used cash for their most recent purchase 💵
That’s no small thing. When cash usage falls to single digits, it means the central bank has fewer levers to manage the economy. The smoother payments become, the more money resembles an invisible layer of infrastructure.
The timeline is realistic, too. Lawmakers haven’t approved the plan yet, and the central bank itself acknowledges that even if it were approved today, building the system would take at least 5 years. The digital euro could launch as early as 2029, and Sweden hasn’t ruled out using its infrastructure directly.
The central bank hasn’t said it will definitely issue a digital currency. It’s only asking lawmakers to start preparing legislation now. The short-term risks are limited, but the long-term threat remains. It also sees value in offline payments, which could serve as a backup during power or internet outages.
My take is that stablecoins—not Sweden—are the real protagonists here ⚖️
Stablecoins are liabilities of commercial institutions, while central bank digital currencies are liabilities of central banks. They’re becoming increasingly similar in how they feel to use for payments, but they’re completely different when it comes to who stands behind them.
For a small, open economy, once payment habits shift, they’re hard to reverse. That’s why a country where cash has almost disappeared is, paradoxically, the most anxious.
The 5% figure is the result, not the cause. The cause is that US dollar-denominated stablecoins have already brought down the cost of cross-border payments.
For markets, the takeaway is this: the more successful stablecoins become, the faster central banks will move. What follows is tighter regulation and more compliant stablecoins entering the market 🦖
When was the last time you used cash? If stablecoins and a central bank digital currency were both available to you, which would you choose?

Every day, I bring you the latest on central banks and stablecoins around the world—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind the headlines 👀🚀

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream

$255 billion, three central banks— a stablecoin settlement rail is taking shape 🦖

📢 ⏰ 消息群里第一时间说

On October 23, Bank Negara Malaysia and the Bank of Thailand joined the Monetary Authority of Singapore-led BLOOM initiative as policymakers on the same day. The initiative only launched in October 2025, and there are already nine institutions at the table, including Mastercard, Visa, Ripple, and the World Bank Group. The goal is straightforward: use stablecoins and tokenized deposits for cross-border payments.

BLOOM stands for Borderless Liquid Open Online Multi-currency. Put simply, it’s a shared set of rules for how digital money is accepted, exchanged, and ultimately settled across institutions, networks, and borders. It doesn’t issue coins; it just sets the standards ⚖️

What really matters is what it aims to eliminate. In the past, a bank had to negotiate arrangements and set up channels separately with every counterparty and in every market. This framework aims to consolidate all those repetitive steps. The Monetary Authority of Singapore says it will “reduce implementation costs and shorten time to market.” Participants span corporate cash management, trade finance, and payments automatically executed by AI agents within preset limits 💸

There’s an easily overlooked detail here: one of the three key areas is “programmable controls,” which explicitly includes identity verification, sanctions screening, and transaction controls. In other words, central banks connecting to stablecoins doesn’t mean letting them flow freely. It means embedding compliance checks into every transfer. Anonymous settlement is essentially off the table in institutional settings.

Now, consider the scale. Among US dollar stablecoins, USDT has a market cap of about $182.5 billion and USDC about $72 billion. Together, they exceed $254.6 billion—more than the broad money supply of many countries. For a long time, a pool this large has circulated only between exchanges. Now it’s starting to move into trade, payroll, and supply-chain settlements. That’s what gives this news its weight 🌏

My take: this isn’t bullish news for coin prices; it’s a redistribution of the plumbing. What gets bypassed is the middleman cost of layers of correspondent banks—not the US dollar itself. In February, Bank Negara Malaysia said it would test three ringgit stablecoin and tokenized deposit initiatives in 2026. Thailand is focused on wholesale settlement. Whoever standardizes interoperability and compliance first will secure the default position in the next wave of institutional payments.

But let’s pour some cold water on this: policymakers joining doesn’t mean the system is live. The framework, laws, and foreign exchange controls remain in each country’s hands. There’s currently no data to show whether the 2026 tests will translate into real transaction volume.

Have you ever sent money across borders? Would you rather use a US dollar stablecoin or a local-currency stablecoin? Let’s talk in the comments 👀

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream.

Every day, we bring you the latest on stablecoins and cross-border payments—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind the headlines 👀🚀

390 projects, 5,000 vulnerability reports—only one-fifth could be reproduced

⚡ 有大动静群里说

Bitcoin Core developer Antoine Poinsot announced on the developers’ mailing list that they’re changing a vulnerability disclosure policy that’s been in place for years 🦖 The reason is straightforward: large language models have made many old vulnerabilities easy to uncover with a single prompt. Keeping them under wraps without fixing them no longer protects anyone ⚠️

First, let’s be clear about what’s changing. In the past, Bitcoin vulnerabilities were usually kept secret for a long time so users would have time to upgrade before the details became public. The downside was that fixes were difficult to backport to older versions, leaving regular users waiting for the next major release. Under the new rules, if a vulnerability is deemed easy to discover, the fix will be pushed out as soon as possible to all major versions that are still maintained, alongside a security advisory. How low is the bar for this category? The official example is a vulnerability that can be found using just one simple AI prompt.

The rest will be disclosed according to severity. Low-severity vulnerabilities will be disclosed two weeks after the major release containing the fix. Medium- and high-severity vulnerabilities will remain undisclosed until the last affected version reaches end of life—usually a year after the fix is included in a new version. Critical vulnerabilities won’t follow this standard process and will be handled separately through an ad hoc procedure.

The numbers behind this are what really deserve attention. In August this year, the volunteer-run Bitcoin Red Team reported nearly 5,000 potential issues across 390 projects. In the end, only about one-fifth could be reproduced. That same month, after receiving several AI-generated vulnerability reports, Core Lightning developers directly urged node operators to upgrade or take their nodes offline. The technical details were kept under wraps for two weeks before being made public.

My take is that this isn’t an ordinary security update. It’s the first time the Bitcoin ecosystem has publicly acknowledged that AI has squeezed the defenders’ window of opportunity 💥 In the past, how long a vulnerability could stay hidden depended on how many people carefully read the code. Now it depends on whether anyone can write a prompt. Eighty percent of those 5,000 reports were noise, but if even one is real, the consequences are borne by holders across the entire network. So core developers have chosen to fix vulnerabilities that are easy to discover immediately—even if that means attackers learn the details sooner—rather than leave users exposed on old versions.

Put simply, the most practical takeaway for everyday holders isn’t about price: you should start paying attention to whether the software you’re running is still maintained. Wallets, nodes, and the Lightning Network—if your version is past end of life, you may not even get security patches anymore 🐋

Let’s talk in the comments: when was the last time you proactively upgraded your wallet or node? Do you think vulnerabilities found by AI will help defenders first, or attackers?

Every day, we bring you the latest in Bitcoin security and ecosystem developments. We don’t just tell you what’s happening—we help you understand the reasoning and opportunities behind it 👀🚀

#以太坊hoodi测试网glamsterdam硬分叉推迟
Just 3 days before launch, and Ethereum has hit pause on its own upgrade 🦖

🕐 最新解读群里更新

Ethereum’s Hoodi testnet Glamsterdam hard fork has been postponed. At Thursday’s All Core Developers Execution call, developers decided to halt the activation originally scheduled for October 26 at 17:42:48. The planned test to raise the gas limit to 200 million was canceled as well, and no replacement date was announced.

The halt was prompted by an October 13 report. Security firm ChainSecurity found that two changes, EIP-8037 and EIP-8038, would alter how existing smart contracts behave when they run out of gas. The gas cost of creating a new storage slot could rise from 22,100 to 110,020—almost five times higher. Contracts operating on old estimates could unexpectedly fail during operations that should otherwise be valid.

The risk in the opposite direction is even more concerning. Previously, when a contract call failed with too little gas left, the entire transaction would revert. A lot of code assumes this safety net is in place. Under the new rules, gas used to create a record would be refunded, leaving the contract with enough gas to write the failure state to the chain. An error that should have disappeared could become a permanent record ⚠️

That’s why developers would rather delay than take a gamble. Glamsterdam was meant to give Ethereum a new block-building system while enabling the network to handle larger blocks. Sepolia activated successfully on October 6. Hoodi was the last public dress rehearsal before mainnet, but now that rehearsal hasn’t gone to plan, and the mainnet launch date is up in the air.

My take is simple: Ethereum’s biggest fear has never been moving slowly. It’s breaking contracts that are already running on mainnet. There’s real money at stake across the chain, and any change in behavior could be amplified by arbitrageurs into a cascade of liquidations. Being a month late is a small problem; getting it wrong once is a big one 📉

For the market, this means one less short-term catalyst. ETH is now at $2,391, down 2.2% over 24 hours; Bitcoin is at $81,488, down 1.6%. With the upgrade narrative pushed back, capital can only turn its attention back to macroeconomic data and ETF flows.

Do you think this delay is responsible caution, or just another chapter in Ethereum’s old story of always being a work in progress?

Every day, I bring you the latest on Ethereum and Bitcoin—not just what’s happening, but also the logic and opportunities behind the headlines 👀🚀

#股票财报季
60.3%: $55.3 billion in a week. The hottest contracts in crypto aren’t Bitcoin anymore 🦖

🕐 最新解读群里更新

Talos’s October 22 market report covers the week of October 15–21. Perpetual contracts on traditional assets like gold, crude oil, and stocks saw a combined trading volume of $55.3 billion, up 26.2% from the previous week. That’s equivalent to 60.3% of Bitcoin perpetuals’ trading volume over the same period.

The breakdown is even more striking: gold saw $11.5 billion in trading volume for the week; SpaceX contracts on Binance saw $8.9 billion, up 35.8% week over week; and crude oil hit $6.6 billion, up 25.9%. Those three alone accounted for around $27 billion—nearly half the week’s total. Memory chips saw the biggest surge: perpetuals on SK Hynix rose 75% on one on-chain derivatives platform, while Micron perpetuals on Binance were up 22%.

Why was activity so concentrated this week? AI and memory stocks sold off across Asian and U.S. markets. Inflation was 3.7% in September, and the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield climbed above 5%. The numbers no longer add up for AI spending fueled by debt issuance. CoreWeave fell about 25% at one point, and yields on its own bonds approached 16%. Contracts that trade 24/7 became the only outlet.

SpaceX is the clearest example. It released its third-quarter results after the U.S. stock market closed on Tuesday, reporting 161% year-over-year revenue growth. Binance’s SPCX contract traded right through to Wednesday’s U.S. market open, gaining 8.5% in total. SpaceX perpetuals across the two platforms saw a combined trading volume of about $5.6 billion—more than eight times the previous day’s—but open interest fell about 8% after the earnings release. That suggests most traders were jumping in and out around the event, rather than building long-term positions 💥

Here’s the contrast: Bitcoin rose 3.3% over the same week and climbed above $84,000. Open interest in Bitcoin futures also increased 6% to $47.9 billion, while the annualized funding rate stood at a bullish 5.4%. So it’s not that money is abandoning Bitcoin to speculate on stocks. The same traders have simply opened another 24/7 battleground. Bitcoin’s 30-day correlation with the Nasdaq has already reached 0.6.

My take: it’s still hard to tell how much of this $55.3 billion was a one-off earnings-season spike and how much represents a permanent shift. Once earnings season is over and volatility dies down, trading volume will probably fall. This is a byproduct of stock earnings season ⚠️ And perpetuals keep trading even when U.S. markets are closed, with funding fees, margin requirements, and liquidation rules all in effect. The cost of holding positions overnight is never zero. Today, Bitcoin has already fallen back to $81,138, down 4.1%, slipping below the roughly $81,500 average cost basis for ETF holders. Risk appetite is fading faster than expected 📉

Do you think this wave means capital is really moving into stock speculation, or is it just a short-lived earnings-season frenzy? Let’s talk in the comments.

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
At 5:22 a.m., the U.S. stock market was still closed. In just six minutes, a batch of U.S. stock positions was wiped out 🦖
In the early hours of October 18, large sell orders suddenly appeared in U.S. stock contracts on crypto platforms. $407,000 was traded in one second, then $1.03 million the next. Less than a second later, 10 addresses collectively sold six contracts—including SNDK, MU, and SOXL—within 1.8 seconds. Every trade opened a new short position.

💬 群里一起聊行情

Six minutes later, trading volume for MU contracts surged to around $10 million per minute, triggering a cascade of liquidations. MU briefly fell to $818.57, 6% below its pre-flash-crash price, then recovered most of the loss within an hour 💥
Accounts holding actual shares were unaffected over the weekend. Those liquidated were people trading contracts with leverage. The price came back; their positions didn’t.
The IMF’s October Global Financial Stability Report gives an even clearer picture: tokenized stocks are about 1.5 times as volatile as their underlying shares. Data from 30 weekends also shows that when the Monday opening gap exceeds 1%, perpetual contracts predict the direction correctly 69% of the time—but by Sunday evening in New York, they reflect only about a quarter of the gap’s size ⚠️
The real change is in the cycle. Bitcoin peaked at $126,000 in October 2025, then hit a low of $59,100 in June 2026—a 53% drawdown. Previous bear markets saw drawdowns of 77% to 93%, making this one almost half as deep.
Who’s providing the support? ETFs saw net outflows of about $10 billion from November 2025 to June 2026, including $4.5 billion in June alone. Then $6.3 billion flowed back in from July to September. Stablecoins have contracted just 3% from this year’s peak, compared with 26% in 2022. Tokenized U.S. Treasuries grew from $9 billion to $16 billion and now stand at $14.5 billion, with around 85,500 holders.
But in reality, there’s only one major buyer. The largest bitcoin-treasury company increased its holdings from 650,000 coins to 843,775, adding 194,000. In January this year, it accounted for 97.5% of net purchases by publicly listed companies. It stopped buying after the week of June 22. Relying on a single company’s ability to raise capital for support—that’s the fragile part 📉
On the other hand, the tokenized U.S. stock market is worth around $3.45 billion. Offshore tokenized stock trading volume is just 0.084% of the median volume in traditional markets. Of the 63 stocks, nine issuing companies have directly objected. Each individual large-cap stock is capped at 0.25% of its daily volume; the first 63 stocks together have a daily cap of around $710 million, with Nvidia capped at $64 million.
Put simply, crypto now needs U.S. stocks to smooth out its cycles, but can access them only under Wall Street’s rules. The regulated format best suited to providing stability is also the most heavily restricted. So in the short term, it dampens volatility—not the cycle itself.
My take: It’s getting harder for Bitcoin to chart an independent course this cycle. Earnings season, the Fed, and Treasury yields all feed directly into crypto prices. What could really change the script is whether on-chain capital is willing to treat U.S. stocks as collateral and a place to park funds—not just another high-leverage bet.
Do you think Bitcoin can still have its own four-year cycle, or will it be driven by the Nasdaq and earnings from now on? Let’s talk in the comments 👀
Every day, I bring you the latest crypto-market developments—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind it 🚀

#btc
500 Bitcoin, worth $41 million. A wallet that had been dormant for a long time suddenly moved 🐋
On-chain intelligence firm Arkham labeled the sending address as a wallet linked to an Irish drug dealer. The recipient was a U.S. regulated exchange.

🕐 最新解读群里更新

But so far, the transaction hash, timestamp, and exact dollar amount have not been independently verified by any third party. All we have is a single platform label.
That’s the strangest part of the whole story: the funds definitely moved, but who was behind it and why are based entirely on one label.

First, the numbers. At the time of the transfer, 500 BTC was worth about $41 million. At the current price of $84,207, it’s worth about $42.1 million. Bitcoin’s 24-hour trading volume is $83.78 billion, so this transaction accounts for just 0.05% of that—hardly enough to directly affect the market.
But it coincides with another number: Bitcoin’s market dominance has reached 59.7%, and its total market cap is $2.83 trillion. At these levels, any large transaction will be interpreted as significant.

Platforms like Arkham generate labels by clustering addresses, tracing historical transactions, and incorporating intelligence submitted by some users. Labels can be changed, challenged, or simply wrong from the outset. A label is not a court ruling; court documents and law enforcement statements are what count.
So, for now, the only thing we can confirm is that 500 BTC moved from one address to a deposit address at an exchange. Three scenarios are plausible.
First, a cash-out: the owner of an old wallet is taking profits around $84,000.
Second, a custody transfer: the funds are moving to a new custodian, with no sale necessarily involved.
Third, a law enforcement seizure: the assets are being transferred to a regulated platform in cooperation with authorities.
These three scenarios have completely different implications for price. The first means selling pressure, the second is neutral, and the third could even mean the funds are locked up long term.

I’d treat this as a reminder rather than a signal, because exchanges are the only point in the on-chain world where someone can hit pause. U.S. regulated platforms are subject to the Bank Secrecy Act and can freeze funds and report suspicious transactions. The exchange’s European subsidiary was fined €21 million by the Central Bank of Ireland in 2025 for deficiencies in its transaction monitoring ⚖️
In other words, moving large sums of dirty money to a regulated platform is one of the easiest ways to get caught. Money that’s truly trying to disappear usually doesn’t take this route.

So why would anyone still choose this route? Liquidity. Depth. Only a handful of places can absorb tens of millions of dollars’ worth of Bitcoin without driving the price down. That’s the perennial tension between compliance and efficiency 🦖

In the short term, these 500 BTC look more like a sentiment story than a supply-and-demand story. A 0.05% share isn’t enough to fuel a trend. But if more dormant addresses wake up over the next week, then it’s no longer an isolated case—it’s a wave of old coins changing hands 💥
Which scenario do you find more likely: someone cashing out at $84,000, or law enforcement closing in? 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 👀🚀
Tap my profile picture to watch the livestream

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 👀🚀

#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

#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 👀🚀

#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. 👀🚀

#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 👀🚀

#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

$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