小恐龙说趋势

$3 billion has been frozen, but hackers still hold $1.4 billion in Bitcoin—and no one can freeze it 🧊

🕐 最新解读群里更新

A leading exchange was robbed of approximately $6.3 billion this week, setting a record for the largest crypto theft in the industry's history.
Within hours of the incident, Tether froze more than $1.567 billion in USDT, Circle froze approximately $823 million in USDC, and Ripple and World Liberty Financial also took action. The industry froze around $3 billion in total.
The exchange itself had set aside more than $6.34 billion to cover customer losses.

But legal experts have a sobering reality check.
Irina Heaver, founder of Dubai-based NEOSLegal, put it plainly: freezing is only the first step. It can stop hackers from moving or hiding the funds, but it won't automatically return the money ⚖️
Issuers can destroy the frozen tokens and issue new ones to their rightful owners. This process may not require a court ruling, but ownership and the legal basis must first be clearly established.

More importantly, the funds could be frozen this time because most of the money was held in stablecoins.
On-chain tracking shows that the hackers split approximately $1.4 billion in Bitcoin across 19 wallets. Bitcoin has no issuer and no blacklist, so it simply can't be frozen at the network level 🔒
Exchanges and service providers can only block it if it flows onto their platforms.

And then there's the uncomfortable question.
Anton Golub of Forte called it a double standard: when a major platform gets robbed, the industry freezes $3 billion within hours; when a small project gets robbed, all you hear about are court orders and legal restrictions.
He pointed to the approximately $290 million theft from Drift this April. Circle was criticized at the time for not freezing the funds.
Circle's CEO had publicly said in April that USDC would not be frozen without instructions from law enforcement or a court.
Tether also said in 2022 that it would not freeze Tornado Cash addresses without law enforcement instructions.
This time, Tether's CEO only said that protecting the industry and its partners was the top priority, without clarifying whether the company had received law enforcement instructions.

So the real question isn't how powerful the hackers are.
It's whether, if you're robbed, you get the same treatment—and that depends on what kind of money you have and who stands behind you.
Stablecoins have an off switch. Bitcoin doesn't. And small projects may not even know where to find the switch 🦖
Freezing $3 billion is a good thing, but it's too soon to call it getting $3 billion back.

Do you think stablecoin issuers should freeze funds before a court order is issued?
Let's talk in the comments.

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream.

Every day, we bring you the latest crypto industry news—not just what happened, but the logic and opportunities behind it 👀🚀

95% in stocks, 5% in Bitcoin—Wall Street has set the allocation in stone 🦖

📣 盘面异动群里喊

On October 29, Franklin Templeton listed two new ETFs on the Nasdaq.
One is called FBEQ, tracking the S&P 500; the other is FIBT, tracking the Nasdaq 100.
Both funds launch with 95% allocated to U.S. stocks and 5% to Bitcoin.
Stock dividends aren’t paid out in cash—instead, they’re automatically used to buy more Bitcoin according to the fund’s rules.

This structure is worth a closer look.
It’s not an ordinary Bitcoin ETF. It’s a Bitcoin dollar-cost averaging machine wearing a stock-market disguise.
You buy into the U.S. stock market and receive dividends, which the system then converts into Bitcoin.
For everyday investors, there’s no need to open a crypto account or manage private keys—it can all be done through a brokerage account.

Why launch it now?
Bitcoin has just fallen from above $80,000 to $76,831, down 4.88% in 24 hours and at a six-week low.
Ethereum is at $2,236, down 4.22%; SOL is at $94.78, down 5%.
Over the past 24 hours, $1.5 billion in positions have been liquidated across the crypto market, with longs nearly wiped out 💥
While others are cutting their positions, this fund is launching new products. That’s a classic countercyclical rollout.

But the 5% figure is the key.
A 5% allocation means that even if Bitcoin gets cut in half again, it would drag the overall portfolio down by only 2.5%.
Sounds steady—but the reverse is also true: if Bitcoin doubles, the portfolio gains only an extra 5%.
What you’re buying is exposure, not upside leverage.
Meaningful incremental buying will have to build up little by little through dividends. U.S. stocks pay dividends four times a year, so the process is slow ⚠️

My take:
The significance of products like this isn’t about pumping prices in the short term. It’s about making Bitcoin a default option in traditional asset allocation.
Once financial advisers’ models start including a 5% Bitcoin allocation, inflows could become a steady trickle.
But don’t expect it to recreate the explosive debut of spot Bitcoin ETFs. The maximum allocation is already set in stone.

Do you think a 5% Bitcoin allocation is smart or pointless?
Let’s discuss in the comments.

Every day, I help you follow the latest Bitcoin trends—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind it 👀🚀

Tap my profile picture to watch the livestream

#加密杠杆头寸24小时清算15亿美元
$6.4 billion—the largest crypto theft in history. Bitcoin only fell 3% 🦖

💥 ⏰ 消息群里第一时间说

After the U.S. stock market closed on October 29, about $6.4 billion in assets across dozens of tokens was transferred out of Binance’s hot wallet.
The last time this exchange was attacked was in March 2018. Not a single cent was lost then, yet Bitcoin plunged from $10,740 to $9,690 in just a few minutes—a drop of nearly 10%.

This time, the attackers are still holding more than 420,000 ETH and 18,270 BTC, worth about $24 billion. No stablecoin issuer can freeze them.
Under normal circumstances, this should have triggered global panic. But on Friday, Bitcoin’s low was only $76,400, about 6% below where it stood after the Fed’s decision.
Here’s the real question: why did the same kind of event fail to trigger even a proper market rout eight years later? 📉

First, look at the scale.
In March 2018, the entire crypto market was worth just over $400 billion. Today, it’s about $2.6 trillion—more than six times larger.
The pool is deeper, so the same stone naturally makes a smaller splash.

Next, look at who holds the coins now.
U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs now hold about 1.3 million BTC, or roughly 6% of the total supply.
BlackRock’s fund saw net inflows of $136 million on Wednesday alone, and related institutions in Abu Dhabi are buying too.
These investors hold their coins in brokerage accounts, not on exchanges, so they’re less likely to hit “sell” just because of a news alert.

There’s another detail that’s easy to miss.
The theft happened at 4:05 p.m. on Thursday, after the U.S. stock market had closed. The $17 million in ETF inflows reported for Thursday was recorded before the incident.
Friday’s flow data will be the first real read on how these investors responded.

The fear index is telling a story too.
It’s currently at 36, down from 43, putting it in the fear zone.
When the 2018 incident happened, the index was at 12—extreme fear. The market was already crashing; the attack just gave it another kick 🧊
This time, the market has fallen from neutral into fear, but it hasn’t reached the point of rushing for the exits.

The response was faster this time, too.
The exchange has set aside $6.34 billion in company funds to fully cover the losses. About $3 billion has been frozen, and withdrawals are expected to resume within 45 hours.
$1.5 billion in leveraged positions were liquidated within 24 hours. The forced liquidations are already over 💥

But I wouldn’t interpret this as bullish.
On-chain data shows that long-term holders bought about 4 million Bitcoin in the $85,000–$118,000 range. They’re all sitting on unrealized losses now.
HashKey analyst Tim Sun said before the incident that the market’s problem wasn’t panic selling, but a lack of new buyers.
Bitcoin is now about 38% below its all-time high of $126,080.
In other words, not crashing doesn’t mean it’s rising. It just means ETFs and institutions are absorbing the selling pressure.

Here’s my take:
This time, stability came from a change in market structure, not from confidence.
Coins have moved from retail accounts on exchanges into ETF shares held in brokerage accounts. Volatility has been delayed—and concentrated.
Delayed doesn’t mean gone. And concentration means that next time an event like this happens, the impact may come later, but hit harder.

Let’s talk in the comments: do you think the fact that the market didn’t crash means it has matured, or has the risk simply been pushed down the road? 🦖

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

$6.3 billion was stolen, and $3 billion of it has already been pinned down on-chain 🦖

🚨 行情变了群里说

On October 29, Binance’s hot wallet was attacked and $6.3 billion in assets was transferred out, involving dozens of tokens. It was the biggest heist in crypto history.
The alleged perpetrators were TraderTraitor, a group with North Korean ties. They were also behind the $1.5 billion Bybit case in February 2025.
But what really brought the losses to a halt wasn’t the recovery team—it was the blacklist buttons at two stablecoin companies.

Circle froze about $823 million in USDC, and Tether froze about $1.57 billion in USDT.
Together, that’s close to $2.4 billion. The exchange says about $3 billion has been recovered or frozen.
The FBI and Secret Service are both involved, and the exchange has set aside $6.34 billion to cover the losses in full.

Here’s what I find most worth thinking about:
Bitcoin and dozens of other tokens were stolen, but all the assets that were actually frozen were stablecoins.
Once Bitcoin is sent out, it’s gone—no one can stop it. But with USDC and USDT, all the issuer has to do is press a button, and the money stays stuck at that address forever.

In other words, what saved the day this time wasn’t decentralization—it was the centralized authority of two mid-sized tech companies ⚖️
Within minutes, they can turn hundreds of millions of dollars into numbers you can see but can’t touch. No court order, no private key—just a blacklisted address.

I see three second-order effects:
First, stablecoin issuers have effectively gained on-chain enforcement powers. Until now, their use has been largely voluntary; going forward, it will be written into regulations.
Second, the form your assets take determines your ability to protect yourself. If they’re stolen, stablecoins have brakes; Bitcoin only has an accelerator. That’s also an unspoken reason institutions are increasingly willing to keep their funds in stablecoins.
Third, the recovery rate in cases like this will be cited again and again, becoming the strongest argument for countries to bring stablecoins under financial regulation.
In April, a joint US-UK operation recovered $45 million and froze $12 million, reaching 20,000 victims—a completely different scale 💥

My take is simple:
Two systems of order are taking shape in the on-chain world: one written in code, and one written by people.
The code-based system tells you that possession of the private key equals ownership. The human-made system tells you that as long as your money takes the form of a liability issued by someone else, they’ll always have a back door.
These two systems don’t conflict, but for anyone holding crypto, choosing which form of money to hold means choosing which risks to take.

Let’s talk in the comments: do you think stablecoins’ one-click freeze feature is protection or a threat for ordinary holders? 🦕

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

9 hours, $8 million, and 15 years

⚡ 有大动静群里说

On September 19, 2025, in Grant, Minnesota, a father was held at gunpoint while taking out the trash.
Two brothers from Texas then woke the whole family, tied them up with zip ties, and held them at gunpoint for more than nine hours.
On October 29, a federal court sentenced Raymond Garcia to 180 months and Isiah Garcia to 186 months—15 years for one, 15 and a half for the other. 🦖

The first transfer was $36,000
The father was forced to send the first batch of cryptocurrency to an unfamiliar account: $36,000.

The real haul came later
Isiah forced him at gunpoint with a shotgun to drive for three hours to his own cabin, where a hardware wallet was kept. Millions of dollars were transferred out of it.
Raymond stayed in Grant, watching the rest of the family with an AR-15-style rifle.

The turning point came with the son
The son found an opportunity to call 911. Police arrived about 10 minutes after Raymond escaped through the back door and onto a hiking trail.
Investigators found a suitcase in a tree beside the house. Inside were a rifle and a fast-food receipt. The receipt led them to a car rental agency in Houston.
Surveillance footage showed the car had been parked outside the brothers’ home in Waller, Texas, a few days earlier. GPS records confirmed it had been to Grant and Roseville.
The next day, the two were stopped in Oklahoma. Raymond said his rifle had been stolen—but the serial number on the rifle case matched the gun found beside the house.

The most thought-provoking part is that statement
The victim’s father told investigators he suspected his cryptocurrency account details had come from a data breach, because after the first transfer, someone called the brothers and directed them to another account.
In other words, the attackers didn’t crack the blockchain first. They got hold of a list of people, learned who had money, where it was kept, and how many people lived in each home.

The most glaring thing about this case is the cost-benefit ratio
$8 million bought one person 15 years and another 15 and a half.
For a gang willing to break into a home with guns, those odds aren’t especially bad—so cases like this are only going to become more common.

Many people think self-custody means safety. In reality, it only protects against platforms disappearing and exchanges getting hacked.
It shifts the risk from online to you personally. The private keys are in your hands—and so is the gun pointed at you.

I think three things are more urgent than switching wallets
First, don’t show off your holdings or profit screenshots in public. Once your address is linked to your real identity, it becomes a map. ⚠️
Second, spread out large holdings. Multisig and geographic separation are more practical than relying on a single hardware wallet.
Third, make sure your family knows the emergency plan. This family survived because the son found a chance to call the police.

On-chain security is a coding problem; personal safety is an intelligence problem.
When KYC data leaks are combined with on-chain analysis, holders’ names, addresses, and portfolio sizes can be pieced together in detail. That’s the real new risk this year. 💥

Let’s talk in the comments: How many people around you still keep their entire net worth in one hardware wallet? 🦕

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

#加密杠杆头寸24小时清算15亿美元
Intel Loses a Third of Its Market Value in a Day; Bitcoin Gets Dragged Below $78K 🦖
During U.S. trading on October 30, the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index fell 5.7%. Intel plunged 30% at the opening, and Nvidia’s total market cap fell below $5 trillion.

🧭 群里聊方向

That same night, Bitcoin fell from above $80K to $77,553, down 5.1% in 24 hours. Ethereum dropped 6% to $2,225, while SOL fell 7.7% to $94.80. 💥
More than $1.5 billion in leveraged positions were liquidated in 24 hours, with longs taking hits almost across the board.
The trigger was earnings. Intel’s fourth-quarter guidance was just $15 billion to $16 billion, versus market expectations of $17.07 billion. Its adjusted earnings-per-share guidance was $0.25, compared with expectations of $0.43.
Third-quarter PC chip revenue also fell 5% year over year to just $8.1 billion. Management said the PC market would remain sluggish at least through the first half of 2027.
One quarter of selling $1 billion less—and 30% of its market value evaporates. That’s how U.S. stocks are pricing the AI narrative right now. ⚠️

The sell-off didn’t stop at Intel. Micron fell 5.5%, Qualcomm dropped 6.3%, Broadcom slid 4%, Applied Materials fell 5%, and Kioxia’s U.S. depositary receipts plunged 15%.
Amazon missed expectations on both revenue and earnings per share, while keeping this year’s capital expenditure at $220 billion—igniting concerns about returns on AI investment.
My take: this isn’t a problem unique to crypto. Crypto is currently a high-beta proxy for tech stocks. When chip stocks sneeze, leveraged money gets carried out of the crypto market first.
The S&P 500 fell 1.25%, the Nasdaq 100 dropped 3%, and Bitcoin fell 5%. That amplification shows the market views Bitcoin as a gauge of risk appetite, not a safe haven. 📊

Two things are worth watching. First, will tech stocks have finished deleveraging before the U.S. midterm elections on November 3?
Second, can Bitcoin hold the $77K level? If it closes below that level again on the daily chart, the next psychological threshold is $75K.
Do you think this is a false dip caused by tech stocks, or is the AI bubble starting to deflate? Let’s talk in the comments. 👀
Every day, I bring you the latest crypto market highlights—not just what’s happening, but also the logic and opportunities behind it. 🚀

#strategy旗下strc165天来首次升至99.95美元
165 days: This preferred stock has crossed $99.95 for the first time 🦖

📈 进群一起分析行情

It took Strategy a full 165 days to get within five cents of the $100 par value

At the October 28 special shareholder meeting, 99.3% of votes supported changing the dividend accrual for four preferred stocks—STRF, STRC, STRK, and STRD—so it accrues every calendar day
That’s a change from 24 record dates a year to 365 📈
STRC goes first: November 1 is its first daily record date, with payment on November 2
The other three won’t switch until January 1, 2027, with payment on January 4

Why rush to change the rules?
Because this preferred stock has been trading below par for a long time
Last week, Strategy paused Bitcoin purchases for the first time since mid-September and used $204.9 million to buy back STRC

Now, a look at the balance sheet
Third-quarter net income was $19.53 billion, including $20.91 billion in gains from digital asset appreciation
As of October 25, it held 848,517 bitcoins, up 26% year to date
On the earnings call, Saylor said that without touching common stock or relying on another Bitcoin rally, the existing balance sheet could support another $30 billion in digital credit
CEO Phong Le put it more bluntly: the main way to buy Bitcoin is by issuing digital credit—$1 billion to $2 billion a month, keeping some in dollar reserves and using the rest to buy Bitcoin 💥

But another development also landed that same week
CFO Andrew Kang will leave on November 5 for personal reasons, with Reza Virasteh taking over on January 1, 2027
New rules set by MSCI in October exclude companies dominated by a single asset from its indexes; the list will be announced on November 11 ⚠️

My take: this isn’t simply good news
Daily accrual makes preferred stock more like a money market instrument, dampening volatility and supporting its par value—making it easier to keep issuing new products to buy Bitcoin
In the past, the company relied on convertible bonds; now it relies on perpetual preferred stock. The leverage hasn’t disappeared; it’s just moved into a less visible vehicle
Two things are really worth watching: first, whether STRC can actually issue $1 billion to $2 billion a month; and second, the index list on November 11
If passive funds sell first, no amount of daily dividend accrual can support the price

Do you think this is a financing innovation for a Bitcoin-hoarding company, or just a way of pushing the risk further down the road?
Let’s talk in the comments

Every day, I’ll help you follow the financing structures of companies that hoard Bitcoin—not just what’s happening in the news, but the logic and opportunities behind it 👀🚀

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream

Two tons of gold could be made in a year. Bitcoin still has only 21 million 🦖
The U.S. fusion startup Marathon Fusion published a paper this month

🔭 进群看资金去哪

The idea is to bombard mercury-198 with high-energy neutrons from deuterium-tritium fusion, producing stable gold-197 through radioactive decay
Someone has given this the name “the infinite gold supply loophole” ⚗️
The model in the paper says a fusion reactor with one gigawatt of thermal power could produce around 2 tons of gold a year
For comparison, according to the World Gold Council, global mined gold production in 2025 was 3,672 tons
A future fusion reactor would account for only about 0.005% of annual global production
So the real contrast isn’t in the output. It’s in the expectations
The wholesale price of lab-grown diamonds has fallen by more than 90% since 2018 📉
The same narrative is now being applied to gold
First, let’s look at what they’ve actually achieved
The company says its gold production rate is 10 times the record set at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research
But CERN’s ALICE experiment produced only around 29 picograms of gold nuclei in total between 2015 and 2018
And those gold nuclei existed for less than a second
Marathon’s own engineer Jake Harter admits that the quantities are still microscopic
They only hope to reach milligram-scale production by 2027
There’s another detail few people mention: the gold produced is radioactive
It has to be stored for more than ten years before its radiation level drops to that of a banana
Metals Focus Managing Director Nikos Kavalis put it plainly:
“We’re still a long way from meaningful production, and there’s no proof of commercial viability either.”
Investment platform analyst Nagham Hassan added another point:
Diamond prices fell because factories can replicate them. Making gold requires complex infrastructure that simply doesn’t exist today
University of Basel professor Fabian Schär stated the obvious:
When the supply of any asset increases substantially, its price gets pushed down. Gold is no exception
My view is that this will have close to zero impact on gold prices in the short term
The first fusion reactor is at least a decade away
But this challenges a different pillar
For thousands of years, humanity has treated gold as an anchor of value because there’s only so much of it in the ground
Once the idea that it can be made takes hold—even if it’s just 29 picograms in a lab—the premium in its price based on absolute scarcity will start to erode
By contrast, Bitcoin’s 21 million limit is hard-coded into its protocol
As one exchange boss put it perfectly: “You can invent anything, but you can’t invent a way to make more Bitcoin.”
That’s why every time the myth of gold’s limited supply gets challenged, Bitcoin’s narrative gets a little stronger
Still, I don’t want to overstate the case. Bitcoin is still several times more volatile than gold
In the short term, safe-haven money won’t switch its preferred asset because of a single paper
Do you think technology will break gold’s scarcity?
Or is this just fireworks in a laboratory?
Let’s talk in the comments: would you rather hold gold ten years from now, or Bitcoin?
Every day, I bring you the debate over the scarcity of gold and Bitcoin—not just what’s happening in the news, but the logic and opportunities behind it 👀🚀
Tap my profile picture to watch the livestream

The $2.8 million lawsuit is about a $186 million hole 💥
On October 29, Israel put a person holding dual Israeli and Russian citizenship on a flight to the United States

🕐 最新解读群里更新

His name is Alexander Block, formerly known as Alexander Gurevich. He is accused of taking about $2.8 million from the cross-chain bridge Nomad in 2022

It started with a software update in June 2022
That update left a vulnerability: users could receive tokens on one chain without locking an equivalent amount of assets on another
Using the username Bitlik, he first made six small test transactions
Around August 1, 2022, he made four larger transactions, taking more than $2.8 million worth of tokens
He then split the money across multiple wallets and exchanged it for other cryptocurrencies
His actions effectively demonstrated the vulnerability in public. Others copied him, draining a Nomad wallet that held more than $186 million
Paradigm researcher Sam Sun called it a free-for-all
A few days later, he returned some of the tokens and contacted a Nomad executive on Telegram
He said he was willing to return the rest, but wanted to be paid for finding the vulnerability
Later, he cut off contact with Nomad, which turned to U.S. law enforcement

In August 2023, a federal grand jury in the Northern District of California indicted him on eight counts: four counts of computer fraud, one count of transporting stolen property, and three counts of transferring criminal proceeds
In December 2024, the United States requested his extradition
In May 2025, he was arrested at Ben Gurion Airport while preparing to fly to Russia. He had just changed his last name and obtained a new passport
In July 2025, the Jerusalem District Court approved his extradition
He appealed on two grounds
First, all his actions used functions that were already available in Nomad’s system. If the code allowed it, he argued, it wasn’t hacking
Second, all on-chain transfers are publicly visible, so there was no question of concealing the source of the funds
Israel’s Supreme Court rejected both arguments ⚖️
The key line in the ruling was that exploiting a programming vulnerability can constitute unlawful access to a computer, even if the software technically permits the action
The court added that public visibility on the blockchain doesn’t reveal who is behind a wallet, nor does it rule out deliberate efforts to conceal the source of funds
Supreme Court President Isaac Amit rejected his request for another hearing

This ruling matters far more than the arrest itself
It dismantles one of the crypto industry’s most commonly used lines of defense: “code is law”
The dividing line is now whether authorization was granted
The distinction between white hats and hackers no longer depends on whether you exploit a vulnerability, but on whether you asked for permission first
He is accused of taking only $2.8 million, but the hole he exposed was $186 million
Legal liability is based on how much an individual took; industry losses are measured across the entire pool. The two figures differ by a factor of 66
In December 2025, a settlement between the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and Nomad’s operator found that an inadequately tested update had caused $186 million in losses
In the days after the incident, Nomad recovered only about $22 million—less than 12% of the losses
Four years, one extradition, and one Supreme Court ruling later, this is what that recovery rate looks like

Do you think this kind of ruling will make white hats afraid to report vulnerabilities, or black hats afraid to act? 🦖
Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream
Every day, we bring you the latest security developments in cross-chain bridges—not just what’s happening, but also the logic and opportunities behind it 👀🚀

#btc
Someone voluntarily offered to return $1.24 billion, but the community says it’s not enough 🦖

📣 盘面异动群里喊

On October 29, the Zcash Community Grants committee, ZCG, submitted an initial proposal to transfer 36,200 ZEC from its treasury into the Network Sustainability Mechanism (NSM), a pool specifically set aside to fund future miner rewards.
ZCG’s treasury originally held about 91,500 ZEC. After the transfer, it would retain 55,200 ZEC, worth about $70 million at the time.
The proposal has a second cut: forgo the allocation of about 62,000 ZEC in the future, worth roughly $78.5 million, and taper the remaining grants until the 2032 halving.
Together, the two moves amount to about 98,000 ZEC, or approximately $124 million, shifted from the community fund to future block rewards 💰

The context is that ZCG currently receives an automatic allocation: 8% of every newly issued ZEC goes straight into its coffers. Under the current arrangement, this funding ends in 2028.
ZCG’s alternative is to extend the reduced grants for another four years. In other words, it’s willing to take less, but not to let go right away.
The committee says this is only an initial proposal; the full proposal will still be submitted to the community for discussion.

What really set the community off wasn’t the amount, but accountability.
Helius founder Mert Mumtaz bluntly said the proposal falls far short, arguing that the treasury is already too large and that spending decisions must be accountable to ZEC holders.
Tyler Winklevoss, co-founder of a US exchange, followed up by questioning the committee’s accountability, saying a member who even unfollows critics has no business managing $110 million ⚖️
Earlier, Zcash co-founder Sean Bowe had suggested another path: eliminate ZCG’s automatic 8% allocation entirely and transfer it all to the NSM, without touching the existing treasury.

My take is that this proposal answers which pool the money should go into, but not who gets to decide how it’s spent.
Returning coins to future miners sounds generous, but in practice it swaps today’s selling pressure for tomorrow’s inflation. The effect on price is merely shifted from sell orders to the issuance curve.
It’s no surprise the community isn’t buying it. A committee controlling nearly $100 million in assets cutting its own budget is, in itself, a conflict of interest.
The key thing to watch is that 8% allocation. If it’s eliminated, ZEC’s fixed-supply-cap narrative will be cleaner, but ecosystem funding will lose a steady cash flow.

ZEC is currently around $1,235, down 2.9% in 24 hours. BTC is around $77,215, down 3.65%, and ETH is around $2,232, down 4%.
The broader market is still bleeding after the exchange hack, and privacy coins’ internal governance strife at a time like this won’t help sentiment.

Do you think community funds like this should return the coins, or keep them to continue issuing grants? Let’s discuss in the comments.
Every day, I’ll keep you up to date on crypto’s hot topics—not just what’s happening, but also the logic and opportunities behind it 👀🚀

History says there’s a 91% chance of a year-end rally, but someone on Wall Street has dug up the 2000 playbook 📉
Jim Reid of Deutsche Bank pulled data on the S&P 500 going back to 1928. He says that in a typical year, the final market low comes around October 27, followed by a mostly one-way climb through year-end

👉 进群看盘面

On the same day, BTIG chief technical strategist Jonathan Krinsky said this year’s moves closely resemble the period after the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index peaked in 2000—and that the real selloff hasn’t even started

First, the bull case
In 21 of the past 23 midterm election years, the S&P 500 rose in the three months after its early-October low—a hit rate of about 91%
Reid called 2026 a milder version of the midterm election playbook. The S&P 500 hit a record high on May 29, is up about 11% for the year, and is less than 1% below its peak five months later
He added that seasonal patterns aren’t destiny, and concerns about Iran, AI, and France won’t just magically disappear

The bears aren’t focused on earnings—they’re watching for a washout
The Philadelphia Semiconductor Index peaked on March 14, 2000. It was still around 1,200 in early September, but by early December it was down to about 540—a drop of more than 55%. There was no Santa Claus rally that year
Krinsky expects the semiconductor ETF to rebound to the 550–570 range, then turn lower around the week of the November midterm elections. The 200-day moving average is around $475

His evidence: the market is too calm
Of the S&P 500’s 11 sectors, only Communication Services currently has a relative strength index below 49
Before the market low on March 31 this year, three sectors had a relative strength index above 50
The options market’s 20-day put/call ratio is 0.59, and the total ratio is 0.87. Around the true low in March, they were 0.67 and close to 1.0, respectively
The hedging you’d expect to see at a true bottom? Almost nobody is buying it this time

But it’s not as if there’s been no washout at all
Nomura’s Charlie McElligott says about 100 multi-strategy fund managers were already forced out during October’s AI growth scare and momentum-factor unwind
But on Fed decision day, some traders were still buying around $1.6 billion in delta exposure to Mag7 call options. The old positions had barely been cleared out before new longs moved in 💥
Two mega-cap tech earnings reports this quarter also failed to trigger a washout. Microsoft rose about 6% after hours, while Google fell about 8%, with free cash flow negative for a second consecutive quarter

Back to crypto—the logic is much the same
Bitcoin is trading at $77,653 today, down 3.13% in 24 hours. Ethereum is at $2,244, down 3.39%, and BNB is down 5.29%
At the same time, Intel fell 25.8%, AMD fell 8.4%, and Amazon fell 8.9%
Bitcoin now looks more like a high-beta tech stock: when risk appetite tightens, it follows along instead of acting as a hedge 🦖

My take is that the difference between these two playbooks isn’t whether there’ll be a rally—it’s whether a real washout has happened
To see whether crypto has been thoroughly flushed out, don’t just look at how far prices have fallen. Check whether leverage and funding rates have returned to neutral
A 3% drop doesn’t mean positions have changed hands; it may just mean the same people have shifted their positions around

So here’s the question:
Do you think this is the final drop before a Santa Claus rally, or the first chapter of the 2000 playbook? 🤔
Let’s talk in the comments: are you adding to your position now, or waiting?

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream

Every day, I’ll help you follow the real connections between macroeconomics and crypto markets—not just what’s happening in the news, but the logic and opportunities behind it 👀🚀

¥300 billion: Blackstone plans to sell the office portion of an entire Tokyo landmark building 🏢
People familiar with the matter told Bloomberg that talks with buyers are ongoing, with offers around $1.9 billion

⚖️ ⏰ 消息群里第一时间说

At the same time, Blackstone is considering another move: bundling part of the building’s trust beneficiary rights into digital securities, splitting them into smaller units to sell to individual investors

The building is called Garden Terrace Kioicho, in Tokyo’s Chiyoda Ward
It includes not only offices, but also a hotel, residences, and retail facilities
In 2024, Blackstone bought the entire complex for about ¥400 billion, setting a record for the largest investment in Japanese real estate by a foreign investor
Two years later, it’s selling only the office portion, and the asking price is already approaching three-quarters of what it paid for the entire complex 💰

What’s really worth watching isn’t the deal itself, but those four words: digital securities
Blackstone wants to divide the trust beneficiary rights into smaller units, so people who can’t afford an entire floor can own a small slice
Japan already has a legal framework for fractional transactions in real estate of this kind. By transferring rights through electronic records, the shares can be transferred like securities
In other words, a building is being transformed into an asset bundle that can be split up and sold 🦖

Here’s the contrast
Blackstone is one of the world’s largest alternative asset managers, and selling a building is usually interpreted as a judgment on its valuation
Yet at the same time, it’s turning that same building into small-denomination shares to sell to retail investors
Institutions are exiting, retail investors are entering, and the digital packaging sits in between

If this type of deal really takes off, the impact will extend beyond a single building
For funds, it offers another exit route, without having to find a buyer for an entire building at a time
For ordinary people, the barrier to entry is indeed lower—but it’s the barrier to buying, not the barrier to risk
If the building can’t find tenants, the shares still won’t generate income, and when you want to sell, there may still be no buyer
Liquidity is packaged, not conjured out of thin air

And products like these fall under different regulatory regimes in different markets. Some are classified as securities, others as trust beneficiary rights
If they’re sold across borders to individual investors, compliance costs will come back into play
Blackstone itself has yet to comment, and neither the deal nor the issuance plans have been finalized

So here’s the question:
Would you buy one-thousandth of a landmark building in Tokyo, or do you think this is just repackaging an unsold portion and selling it to retail investors? 🤔
Let’s talk in the comments—would you consider investing in a product like this?

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream

Every day, we bring you the latest on real-world assets moving on-chain. We don’t just report what’s happening—we help you understand the logic and opportunities behind it 👀🚀

#加密杠杆头寸24小时清算15亿美元
$1.5 billion in leveraged positions liquidated in 24 hours, 84% of them long positions

🚨 行情变了群里说

About $1.5 billion in positions were forcibly liquidated across the crypto market over the past 24 hours—the fiercest deleveraging wave since October.
Bitcoin briefly fell below $77,000, BNB dropped more than 7% in a day, and Ethereum and XRP followed suit 🦖

Let’s start with the numbers
$1.5 billion in positions were forcibly liquidated, about 84% of them on the bullish side 💥
In other words, it wasn’t the short sellers who took the hit—it was the traders betting on prices going up.
Liquidations were concentrated in the Asian morning session. Once the price broke below $80,000, stop-loss orders cascaded downward like dominoes.
What made it worse was that the liquidations themselves accelerated the drop: the further prices fell, the harder it was for leveraged positions to hold on, triggering another wave of liquidations.

Why did the bulls take the hit this time?
For the past two weeks, Bitcoin had been grinding back and forth between $81,000 and $85,000. Many people treated every pullback as a chance to get in.
Leverage was high, and stop-losses were clustered at the same levels.
All it took was a slight move lower for the rules to force these positions closed. It was no longer about who was right or wrong.

But the market didn’t keep crashing.
After the selling pressure was released, prices bounced back from their lows, catching short-term traders who had chased the drop.
It took just a few hours to go from a sharp sell-off to a rebound.

My take
This was a forced reset of the leverage structure, not a sudden deterioration in fundamentals.
After a major flush-out, the market usually runs lighter for a few days. Spot buying will ultimately determine the direction.
Watch three levels:
First, $80,000—the psychological level that has been repeatedly contested.
Second, $85,000. On-chain data shows that around 4 million BTC were acquired at prices above this range 📈
Once these holders break even, they may be eager to sell, making this level the first major resistance on a rebound.
Third, tonight: Bitcoin options worth about $11 billion expire on Friday.
That’s equivalent to a third of Deribit’s Bitcoin options. Market makers adjusting their positions could amplify volatility.

The macro backdrop hasn’t helped either.
The Fed held rates steady this week by a 10–2 vote, with two voting members directly supporting a rate hike.
A rate hike in December is still on the table, leaving little room for risk assets to breathe.

In a nutshell
Leverage getting wiped out is par for the course; the direction of the money is what matters.
This flush-out cleared out the weak positions. There’s only one question left: are spot buyers willing to step in?

Let’s talk in the comments: do you think this is a shakeout or a weakening trend? Are you adding to your position or waiting? 👀

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

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream

#美国中期选举倒计时，美股博弈窗口已开启？
The U.S. midterm elections are next week. The crypto industry has already spent $176 million, but only 13% of voters say it matters 💥

⚡ 有大动静群里说

This is the picture emerging from Reuters’ tally of spending in more than 100 races and a survey of 1,545 people

The spending keeps climbing, while the issue ranks near the bottom of voters’ priorities

First, the money

Reuters estimates that crypto-related groups have spent about $176 million across more than 100 races this election cycle

As of October 20, the super PAC Fairshake and its affiliates had spent about $150.8 million

In just one Ohio Senate race, an affiliated group disclosed spending of more than $46 million

Now, public opinion

A survey conducted by Ipsos for the DeFi Education Fund interviewed 1,545 adults from September 8 to 16, with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.8 percentage points

Only 13% said it was very important for candidates to support blockchain and crypto finance

That figure was 15% among Republicans and 13% among Democrats—barely any partisan divide

The top priority was keeping the next generation of financial technology teams in the U.S.: 35% said this was very important, including 45% of Republicans versus 30% of Democrats

Another 26% supported new rules to encourage innovation in the financial system

That’s where the contrast lies ⚖️

The industry is spending money to buy attention, while voters care about more practical things

63% said the financial system needs to be upgraded to counter AI and cybercrime

49% said the government shouldn’t decide what products ordinary people can buy

These two points have more impact than the word “crypto,” because they’re about security and freedom of choice

My take: that $176 million isn’t buying votes—it’s buying access

The CLARITY Act failed to pass a key Senate vote in September, and the industry has shifted its focus back to the SEC and CFTC

Elections bring in a new group of people, but the same regulators are still writing the rules

So what’s really worth watching isn’t which party wins, but whether the new Congress will revive market structure legislation after November 3

If it doesn’t, crypto’s policy outlook will remain at the mercy of regulators’ discretion—which will affect valuations more than the election results 🦖

One more thing: spending a lot doesn’t mean an issue is popular. That’s true in every industry

Do you think the $176 million was well spent? 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 👀🚀

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream

#btc
1,900 Bitcoin were moved to 9 newly created wallets within 24 hours, worth $148 million
According to on-chain monitoring firm Lookonchain, the seller of these coins was Galaxy Digital’s over-the-counter trading desk

🕐 最新解读群里更新

The timeframe was the past 24 hours, landing squarely on the market’s ugliest day

That same day, Bitcoin fell to around $78,500, and $1.5 billion in positions were liquidated across the crypto market in 24 hours, 84% of them longs 💥
While positions were being liquidated, someone was buying up the entire batch. That’s the most noteworthy thing to watch today

The key is in the details
All 9 addresses were newly created—not old wallets reallocating funds
That suggests new money is entering, rather than existing funds simply being moved elsewhere
And the coins went through an OTC desk, not directly bought up on the order book. So the price wasn’t pushed up, but ownership has already changed hands

There’s movement on the other side, too
At the same time, an address on an on-chain perpetuals platform held a short position of 843.775 BTC, with a notional value of about $66.28 million
Another whale placed an Ethereum buy order worth around $20 million and is currently down $4.63 million on its long position

Put these three trades together, and it gets interesting ⚠️
Someone is buying spot, someone is shorting futures, and someone is placing buy orders for Ethereum
This isn’t a one-sided bet on a rebound. It looks more like a three-legged structure: buying spot, hedging with futures, and keeping directional risk contained in the middle

My take: during a sharp drop, the key thing to watch isn’t the price—it’s who’s changing hands 🐋
When an OTC desk transfers coins to new wallets, it means the settlement happened off the order book, without moving the price or leaving a visible footprint
These moves often show up before the price does, but that doesn’t mean the bottom is in
Those 843 BTC shorts are still open, which shows that someone is still betting on lower prices

The real signal to wait for is whether the new wallets keep buying after receiving the coins
If these addresses keep adding to their holdings next week, then capital is genuinely changing sides
If it’s just this one batch, it looks more like a carefully planned relocation

🦖 In a crash, the loudest thing is the liquidation alerts; the quietest is the transaction record

At a time like this, would you buy spot now or wait for a clear signal? Let’s talk in the comments

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

Four vulnerabilities took a whole year to patch 🦖
XRP Ledger developers submitted four code fixes this week

🚨 行情变了群里说

Bundled into a network upgrade called fixCleanup3_5_0
The goal is to plug a loophole that let people who hadn’t been approved by the issuer obtain tokens that should have been locked

First, let’s clarify what these tokens are
For regulated assets such as stablecoins and tokenized funds, issuers can set a gate
Anyone who wants to hold them must first pass identity checks, with approval records written to a trust line
The rule sounds strict, but several exception paths had remained open

The first exception was in automated market maker pools
A pool contains two tokens, but previously only one of them was checked for approval
Now both must be approved before anyone can buy a share of the pool
That’s because a pool share is itself a token, so bypassing the check is equivalent to indirectly holding a regulated asset

The second exception was more subtle
Approval checks used to apply only to trust lines with a zero balance
Once a line already held tokens, further deposits were no longer blocked
This update closes that loophole too

The other two changes are more fundamental
A unified check has been added to keep approval rules consistent across existing and future features
Another path is related to NFT trading, which was already fixed once in August 2025
This update takes care of the remaining edge cases

The XRPL Foundation put it cautiously ⚖️
Zangana, the community and product director, said this is developers discussing what the protocol should guarantee, not a report of users suffering losses
All known unapproved balances came from funds deposited by the issuers themselves or accounts they had previously approved
No outside party has been found exploiting the remaining exceptions

The threshold for the patch to take effect is high
It requires more than 80% of trusted validators to support it for two consecutive weeks
None of the four changes has been merged into the mainnet software yet

I think the significance of this is being underestimated
When people look at public blockchains, they tend to focus on throughput, fees, and the number of ecosystem projects
But institutions really ask just one question: who can hold my assets, and can I revoke that access?
Tokenized funds, stablecoins, and even tokenized stocks all represent regulated money
Issuers must be able to prove they can control the list of holders
Just one exception path could be enough for a compliance department to reject an entire chain

XRP is currently $1.26, down 2.9% in 24 hours
Bitcoin is $78,607, down 1.91%
Ethereum is $2,246, down 3.2%
As markets fall, these kinds of infrastructure fixes are all the more worth noting 🔍

Do you think tokenized assets should be available for anyone to hold by default, or should they require whitelisting?

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

#btc
18,270 bitcoins split into 19 parts: 17 wallets each holding 1,000 coins, untouched to this day 🐋

⚡ 有大动静群里说

This is the most striking detail in the biggest exchange hack anywhere in the world this week

The hackers split roughly $1.4 billion worth of bitcoin across 19 newly created wallets

17 of those wallets have exactly the same balance: 1,000 coins each, worth about $76.6 million at current prices

On-chain data is crystal clear: these 18,270 BTC haven't moved since Thursday night

Meanwhile, Binance has confirmed that $6.3 billion was stolen in the incident and about $3 billion has been frozen. All losses will be covered by the SAFU fund and company funds 💥

In other words, everything that could be frozen has been frozen. What couldn't be frozen is sitting quietly in those 19 addresses

This perfectly illustrates the most fundamental difference between bitcoin and stablecoins

Freezing USDT takes just one word from the issuer: the funds are blacklisted on-chain. They're still in the account, but can't be spent

Bitcoin has no issuer, no customer service, and no one who can hit the pause button. As long as the private keys are in hand, those 18,270 coins can sit untouched for ten years

The hackers clearly understand this, so the first thing they did wasn't cash out—it was split up the funds

Why choose a round number like 1,000 coins?

Three possibilities

First, it makes selling in batches easier: one wallet for each batch. Sell one, move on to the next, and on-chain tracking is split into 19 dead ends

Second, it makes over-the-counter negotiations easier. 1,000 coins is an amount many OTC desks can handle in one go, avoiding repeated order-matching that could reveal their movements

Third, psychological warfare: the addresses are right there for all to see, leaving the market to watch them every day and guess when the hackers will strike

Whatever the reason, these 19 wallets are now a sword hanging over the market

Geoffrey Kendrick, head of digital assets research at Standard Chartered, is even more direct

He says this incident will accelerate the flow of funds from centralized exchanges to decentralized ones

This isn't a technical judgment; it's about trust. Users have never really feared hackers—they fear not knowing who will be next

But there's some interesting data on the other side

Over the past 4 hours, 9 newly created wallets received 1,900 bitcoins from Galaxy Digital, worth about $148 million

Some are running, while others are buying

Bitcoin briefly fell below $77,000, while exchange token BNB dropped 7.1% 📉

My take is that the real impact of these 18,270 coins is far greater psychologically than it is in practice 🦖

They make up less than one-thousandth of the circulating supply. Even if they were dumped, the market could absorb them in two or three days

The problem is that they're not moving

As long as they aren't transferred to an exchange, selling pressure remains just an expectation—and expectations are harder to price than reality

So what to watch next isn't the candlestick chart, but whether any of these 19 addresses transfers funds to an exchange

Do you think the hackers will make a move, or keep holding tight?

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 market trends—not just what happened, but the logic and opportunities behind it 👀🚀

#两地址约12.8亿枚usdt遭冻结
$6.3 billion. One engineer’s laptop became the costliest oversight in the industry 💥

🕐 最新解读群里更新

The world’s largest trading platform confirmed that $6.3 billion was stolen
The breach didn’t happen on-chain. It started with an engineer’s compromised laptop
After the news broke, Bitcoin briefly plunged to $76,623, a six-week low, while BNB fell more than 8% in 24 hours

Then came the most dramatic twist ⚖️

Over the past 24 hours, stablecoin issuer Tether froze more than $1.567 billion in USDT
Around 1.28 billion tokens were frozen across just two addresses
The platform itself announced that it had frozen around $3 billion in related assets
Arbitrum’s Security Council froze $30.5 million, while World Liberty froze $27 million in USD1 and $2 million in WLFI
On-chain investigators pointed the finger at the Lazarus Group

Put simply, this is the fastest asset-recovery effort in crypto history

But on the other hand, the platform saw net outflows of 2.142 billion USDT in 24 hours
Institutions are moving their money out, not waiting around for an announcement
Prices tell the story more directly: Bitcoin is at $78,076, down 2.1% in 24 hours; Ethereum is at $2,233, down 3.15%
AAVE fell 11.3% to $118.54, and UNI fell 10.4% to $6.48

Geoffrey Kendrick, Standard Chartered’s head of digital asset research, had an even stronger take
He said the incident would accelerate the shift from centralized platforms to decentralized exchanges
In the second quarter of 2026, spot DEX trading volume reached 23.5% of CEX volume, up 2.1 percentage points from the previous quarter
He also reiterated his $100 price target for UNI by 2030, saying that figure could still be too low

My take: what the market is pricing in today isn’t a $6.3 billion loss 🦖
It’s whether you’re willing to keep your coins in someone else’s hands
The freezing capability proved its worth this time, and the recovery was remarkably fast
But that same capability means any USDT can be frozen unilaterally, without a court order or your consent
Today it’s a hacker’s funds. Who gets frozen tomorrow depends on the list

So what’s worth watching next isn’t whether Bitcoin can hold $76,000
It’s two things: whether the money flows back onto the platform or stays on-chain, and whether DEX trading volume gains another step in the fourth quarter

How many people around you still keep most of their holdings directly on exchanges?
Let’s talk in the comments: are you self-custody or exchange all the way? 👀

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream

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

#fomc会议
Rates stayed exactly where they were, but bets on a December hike surged to 78.4% 🦖
In the early hours of October 29, the Fed voted 10–2 to keep rates unchanged at 3.75% to 4%.

📣 盘面异动群里喊

Both dissenting votes called for an immediate 25-basis-point hike, making this the most hawkish hold of the current cycle.

Warsh acknowledged at the press conference that inflation has been above the 2% target for nearly six years straight.
He was blunt: bringing inflation down is our responsibility.
But he refused to predict whether the Fed would act at its December 8–9 meeting.
The market’s answer is in CME rate futures: a 78.4% chance of a December hike, and a 67.3% chance of at least one more hike by next March.

The Fed had just raised rates by 25 basis points in September, its first hike since July 2023. This time, it chose to pause and watch the data.
Bitcoin is now hovering around $77,000, after hitting a six-week low overnight.
Glassnode puts resistance at $85,000, with the cost basis of around 4 million bitcoins stacked above that range.
Once those holders break even, they may start selling, making a rally near $85,000 more likely to hit a wall 💥

Bitcoin options worth around $11 billion also expire today, accounting for a third of Deribit’s total open interest.
Market makers will need to adjust their positions around expiry, amplifying both bullish and bearish moves near $77,000 ⚠️

In other words, the Fed isn’t unwilling to act—it just doesn’t dare to move first.
With risk-free rates close to 4%, Bitcoin has to compete for capital on its own.
Inflation hasn’t returned to 2% in six years, while the economy is described as strong in the Fed’s statement. In this combination, the December hike scenario will be hard to dismiss.
Bitget analysts put it more directly: the Fed offered no new direction, so Bitcoin’s next move will depend on Treasury yields and the dollar 📈
If yields rise further, that 78.4% probability will keep climbing, making this rally even harder to sustain.

Do you think the Fed will really hike in December, or will it once again talk hawkishly but take no action?

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream.
We bring you daily updates on Fed and crypto market developments—not just what’s happening, but also the logic and opportunities behind it 👀🚀