小恐龙说趋势

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream.

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

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

⚡ 有大动静群里说

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

🕐 最新解读群里更新

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tap my profile picture to watch the livestream.

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

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

📣 盘面异动群里喊

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

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

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

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

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream.

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

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

📢 ⏰ 消息群里第一时间说

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream

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

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

📊 进群看每日策略

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream.

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

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

🔎 进群看完整分析

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream

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

💡 群里更新数据解读

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream.

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

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

💡 群里更新数据解读

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#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

1,255.8 ETH deposited into a mixer in 30 transactions. The $2.19 million case from four months ago is starting to wrap up 🦖

🙋 想聊的进群

On June 14, someone exploited a settlement verification vulnerability in the now-deprecated Aztec Connect contracts, stealing around $2.19 million in assets, including 908.987 ETH, as well as DAI, wstETH, and Yearn vault tokens. For four whole months afterward, there was almost no on-chain activity.

On October 19, the attacker made a move: first redeeming the vault tokens, then swapping all six ERC-20 assets for ETH. They also exchanged another 346.767 ETH, bringing the total to 1,255.8 ETH, then deposited it into Tornado Cash in 30 transactions. At $2,405 per ETH, that’s around $3.01 million. The balances of all six stolen tokens have now been cleared 🕵️

The way the funds were split is worth noting: 12 transactions of 100 ETH, 4 of 10 ETH, 3 of 1 ETH, and 8 of 0.1 ETH. The largest transaction was 1,000 times bigger than the smallest. This wasn’t random; it was calculated. Every transaction in a mixer leaves a timestamp. The more fragmented the deposits, the less conspicuous each one is—but the overall trail becomes longer and clearer.

My take: the real warning here isn’t about mixers, but about old contracts. A protocol being deprecated doesn’t mean its contracts disappear from the blockchain. As long as someone can still call them, the vulnerability remains. A module that’s no longer maintained can still turn into $3 million in someone else’s pocket four months later.

For the market, this kind of news usually doesn’t move prices, but it does change how risk is assessed. Similar activity has been picking up lately: on October 13, a whale moved 5,170 ETH into the same mixer; on October 10, an attacker targeting a payment company moved 4,970 ETH, worth around $12.4 million. The pace of laundering is accelerating. Exchange deposit gateways are the last line of defense ⚖️

Let’s discuss in the comments: do you think there’s still a chance of recovering funds in cases like this, where the attacker waits four months before making a move? 👀

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

#比特币突破8.2万美元 #中国三季度经济增速加快至4.5%
A single 4.5% figure pushes Bitcoin back above $82,000 🦖

💡 群里更新数据解读

China’s third-quarter GDP grew 4.5% year over year, faster than the 4.3% growth in the second quarter. Total retail sales of consumer goods rose 1.1% year over year—more than twice the market’s 0.5% forecast. As soon as the data came out, Bitcoin climbed back to $82,500, up 1.3% in 24 hours. Nasdaq futures rose more than 1% 📈 The Nikkei gained 1.8%, while South Korea’s KOSPI turned positive intraday, up 0.6%.

Last week, things looked very different. AI stocks led the declines, and Friday’s sell-off in U.S. stocks sent the VIX fear index soaring as risk assets retreated across the board. After one weekend, the same market has turned green across the board. Chinese stocks rose 0.3%, gold held near $4,180, and the dollar index stayed below 102.

There are two drivers. First, China’s data suggests that domestic demand in the world’s second-largest economy isn’t as weak as people thought. Second, oil prices have fallen. Reuters attributed the decline to expectations that sanctions waivers for Russia will increase supply. Falling oil prices could ease inflation expectations, giving the Fed a reason to shift from holding rates steady to cutting them.

But don’t get ahead of yourself. The market’s baseline expectation is that rates will remain unchanged this month, in the 4.75%–5% range. The Fed only raised rates by 25 basis points last month. Rate cuts are still just an expectation, not a fact. This Bitcoin rally is driven by risk appetite, not by Bitcoin’s own narrative.

My take: this looks more like a sentiment rebound than a trend reversal. Last week, Bitcoin and Ethereum spot ETFs saw net outflows of about $910 million over two weeks. Spot-market money is still flowing out, yet prices have managed to stay above $82,000. That suggests marginal buying is coming from spot and leveraged traders during Asian trading hours. This kind of money comes in fast—and leaves just as fast. What really matters is whether Bitcoin can hold above $82,500, and whether oil prices keep pushing inflation expectations down. If another wild card emerges in the Middle East, all this green could disappear in a single day ⚠️

Let’s hear your thoughts in the comments: is this rally getting a second wind from macro factors, or is it another bull trap? 👀

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

#纳指100本周跌5.5%创18个月最大周跌幅 #比特币突破8.2万美元
The Fear Index surged 21.5% in a day, its biggest single-day gain in over four months—but history says this wave of panic will probably fade on its own by Monday 🦖

🚨 行情变了群里说

On Friday, Wall Street’s fear gauge, the VIX, jumped 21.5% in a single day to close at 19.99. The S&P 500 fell 1.09%, while the Nasdaq 100 dropped 5.5% for the week, its biggest weekly decline in 18 months. Meanwhile, Bitcoin held above $82,000 all weekend, most recently trading at $82,001 📉

First, let’s look at the most counterintuitive numbers. CoinDesk tracked 32 instances since January 1990 when the VIX rose more than 20% in a single day on a Friday. On the next trading day, the VIX fell 25 times and continued rising only 7 times. A typical Monday decline was 4.5%. One month later, the VIX was lower than on the day of the panic in 25 cases, with a median drop of 16%.

In other words, Friday’s panic looks more like traders buying insurance before the weekend than the start of a trend.

But the options market is betting the other way. Someone spent $1.7 million to buy 9,200 VIX call options expiring November 18 with a strike price of 20, then spent another $1.1 million on 12,500 contracts with a strike price of 23. The bet is that the VIX will close above 23 in the third week of November. In other words, history is on the side of things calming down, while the money is betting on continued panic ⚠️

The signals from Bitcoin are more direct. Bitcoin’s own volatility index, BVIV, was down 1% on Friday, staying below 40%, and barely moved over the weekend. Prediction market Polymarket puts the odds of an AI bubble bursting this year at just 9%. The fact that a 24/7 risk asset didn’t join the stock-market panic suggests the leverage structure hasn’t broken—for now.

But don’t mistake a Monday rebound for a safety net. The real risks are elsewhere. On Saturday, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard said two oil tankers caught fire after hitting mines in the Strait of Hormuz, pushing oil prices higher again. Meanwhile, credit default swap costs for AI-related companies hit a record high, and Poland scrambled fighter jets amid developments in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. If any one of these three situations escalates, a VIX at 23 won’t be a bet—it’ll be reality 📊

My take: Friday’s sell-off wasn’t about fundamentals; it was about positioning. The AI trade was too crowded, and investors had to reduce their positions before the weekend, driving up the fear index. But Bitcoin didn’t fall below $80,000, which suggests that money hasn’t left risk assets—it’s just changing seats. What really matters is where oil opens on Monday and the credit spreads of AI companies, not that 21.5% green candle on the VIX.

In 25 of the 32 historical cases, things calmed down on Monday. But in the other 7, a macro event followed up—and this time, the Strait of Hormuz is already on fire.

Do you think Monday’s open will bring a further sell-off or a rebound? Let’s talk in the comments.

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream.

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

#比特币突破8.2万美元
103,612 people liquidated in 24 hours as $359 million was wiped out, 78% of it from long positions 🦖
According to CoinGlass data, $359 million was liquidated across the crypto market over the past 24 hours: $281 million in long positions and just $78.11 million in shorts. The largest single liquidation was $7.27 million.

🕐 最新解读群里更新

At the same time, Bitcoin was trading at $81,072, down 0.22%; Ethereum was at $2,375, down 1.33%; and SOL was down 1.4%. Risk aversion is written all over the charts 💥
This wasn’t a major plunge so much as a pullback that specifically flushed out longs. Bitcoin had only just reclaimed $82,000 the day before, but less than 24 hours later it had slid back to around $81,000.

First, look at the liquidation breakdown: $281 million in longs, or 78.3%, compared with just $78.11 million in shorts. That shows leveraged traders were almost unanimously betting on a rise. All it takes is a small move down for stop-losses and liquidations to trigger one another. A $7.27 million liquidation is enough to punch a hole in a thin order book 📉
Then there’s the spot market. Bitcoin ETFs saw net outflows of $228.6 million this week, after $681.1 million flowed out last week. That’s nearly $1 billion over two weeks, with October still seeing net outflows overall. Liquidations can wipe out leverage, but they can’t eliminate selling pressure from ETFs ⚠️
The macro backdrop hasn’t helped either. September PPI rose to 6.3% year over year, while diesel prices were up 21% year over year—so inflationary pressure is still there. The Fed raised rates to 3.75%–4.00% in September, the first hike since July 2023. Markets put the odds of another 25-basis-point hike in October at just 15.5%, but expectations for December remain around 75%. The cards in Warsh’s hand haven’t gotten any better.

My take: the liquidation of 78% of long positions is a self-correction in an overcrowded trade, not confirmation of a trend reversal. A genuine bottom needs spot buyers to step in, not just short covering. Watch two levels next: the $80,000 mark and whether ETFs return to net inflows next week. If $80,000 holds, this is leverage getting washed out. If it breaks, this pullback could turn from a leverage flush into a trend reversal.
Do you think this is just a leverage flush or the start of a trend reversal? 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 👀🚀

$320 million pulled out of Ethereum ETFs in one week, with 93.4% coming from a single fund 🐋

📈 进群一起分析行情

U.S. spot Ethereum ETFs saw net outflows of $320.1 million over the five trading days from October 12 to 16. Over the same period, Bitcoin ETFs had net outflows of $228.4 million—about $91.7 million less than Ethereum ETFs. This is a rare reversal this year. Over the past year, Bitcoin ETFs have usually taken the hit, with Ethereum following behind.

What’s really worth noting is the breakdown. Three of those five trading days accounted for $259.5 million in outflows: $129.5 million on October 14, $60.3 million on the 15th, and $69.7 million on the 16th. BlackRock’s iShares Ethereum Trust (ETHA) alone saw $299 million flow out, accounting for 93.4% of the week’s total. Fidelity’s Ethereum fund, by contrast, had net inflows of $10.5 million. Same week, same type of product—one fund saw outflows, while another saw inflows. 📊

So this looks more like a large redemption than institutions collectively turning bearish on Ethereum. The redemption process involves authorized participants returning shares to the issuer in exchange for the underlying assets or cash. It doesn’t mean an equivalent amount of ETH is immediately dumped on the spot market. The two asset classes saw combined outflows of more than $548 million. Ethereum is currently at $2,414.66, down 0.74% over 24 hours, with a market cap of about $294.9 billion. The Fear and Greed Index is at 53, still in neutral territory.

My take: one week of data isn’t enough to establish a trend, especially when 93.4% of outflows are concentrated in a single fund. One institution’s portfolio rebalance can rewrite the whole picture. Over the next two weeks, watch two things: whether ETHA continues to see one-way outflows, and whether slowing outflows from Bitcoin ETFs actually turn into net inflows. The first will tell us whether this is just a portfolio reshuffle; the second will tell us whether risk appetite is truly returning.

Do you think this Ethereum move is institutions rebalancing, or is Ethereum really in trouble? Let’s talk in the comments. 🦖📉

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream.

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