小恐龙说趋势

4 million Bitcoin are all underwater above $85,000 🐋

⚡ 有大动静群里说

On-chain analytics firm Glassnode shared a very straightforward figure this week:
Long-term holders own around 4 million Bitcoin
Their purchase prices are concentrated between $85,000 and $118,000
At the current price of around $77,000
That stash is sitting on at least $32 billion in unrealized losses 🦖

Even more concerning is the proportion
More than half of the coins held by long-term holders
Have a cost basis above the current price
A so-called long-term holder is someone who has held for over 155 days
They’re not retail investors chasing the highs—they’re the most resilient old hands

And the $85,000–$118,000 range is right overhead
The $84,000–$85,000 area has pushed Bitcoin back down four times this year
Since January, it has closed above $85,000 on only 5 days
It broke through once in September, reaching a high of $87,100, but hasn’t gotten back above it since

Things aren’t easy for ETFs either
US spot Bitcoin ETFs collectively hold around 1.3 million Bitcoin
Bloomberg Intelligence estimates their average cost basis at $81,500–$82,000
At $77,000, that means an average unrealized loss of $4,500 per coin
Across 1.3 million coins, that’s around $5.8 billion in paper losses

Now look at the past couple of days
Over the past 24 hours, more than 240,000 traders were liquidated across the market
Leveraged liquidations totaled around $1.6 billion 📉
Bitcoin is down 7.7% so far in October
And is on track for its worst October since 2014
The Fear and Greed Index fell from 43 to 36, entering fear territory

But what’s really worth paying attention to isn’t the decline
It’s the easing selling pressure
At the August low, daily realized net losses were around $630 million
During the October 24 dip, the maximum daily net loss was only $27 million
The price is falling all the same, but there are over ten times fewer people capitulating

Here’s my take:
The price is being held down not by panic selling, but by people waiting to break even
4 million coins are waiting to get back to breakeven, and 1.3 million ETF coins are too
A rebound to $82,000–$85,000 will likely run into a wall of sellers ⚠️
To truly confirm a reversal, we need to see whether it can close above $85,000 for 3 consecutive days
If it first falls below $75,000, these holders waiting to break even will start taking losses
That’s when the double-bottom scenario comes into play

What’s your cost basis for Bitcoin?
Below $77,000—would you buy more or keep waiting?

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream

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

18 years ago today, a nine-page paper challenged the entire banking system. Today, this network oversees about $1.5 trillion
On October 31, 2008, Satoshi Nakamoto published the Bitcoin white paper, proposing a peer-to-peer electronic payment system that didn’t require banks or central institutions

🕐 最新解读群里更新

18 years later, Bitcoin is trading at around $77,300, and a single BlackRock spot ETF alone oversees about $66 billion 📈

The most interesting thing here isn’t the price. It’s the complete reversal in status.
The Bitcoin described in the white paper initially circulated only on cryptography mailing lists and in small forums. It was a fringe experiment mocked by the mainstream.
During the crypto winter of 2022, more than $2 trillion was wiped from the digital asset market cap. Many people said that this time, it was really over.
But it didn’t die. Instead, it made its way onto Wall Street balance sheets. A number of publicly traded companies began treating Bitcoin as a reserve asset, while traditional financial institutions started working with stablecoins, tokenization, and blockchain settlement.
Last October, $19 billion in leveraged positions were liquidated in a single day. Volatility hasn’t diminished at all; it’s just the participants who have changed.

My take: the protocol hasn’t changed, but the on-ramps have ⚠️
The white paper’s core goal 18 years ago was simple: make payments without having to trust any third party.
Today, the biggest holders of Bitcoin are products that require trust in third parties: an ETF, a custodian, a trading platform.
That’s also what makes this week’s $6.3 billion Bitcoin theft so striking. The Bitcoin on-chain wasn’t compromised; the signing and custody processes were.
The network itself is still producing blocks according to the code. More than 95% of the 21 million Bitcoin limit has already been mined. But whether your Bitcoin is safe depends on whose hands it’s in 🦖

So the real question on Bitcoin’s 18th anniversary isn’t whether it can reach $120,000 again.
It’s how much censorship resistance remains as more and more Bitcoin ends up in the hands of a small number of custodians.
My view is that Bitcoin’s censorship resistance remains intact at the protocol level, but has been compromised at the custody level.
The real dividing line in the future will be whether self-custody tools can become easy enough for ordinary people to use.

Is the Bitcoin you hold now in your own wallet, or on a platform?
Share your thoughts in the comments: do you trust code more, or institutions? 🔍

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

Tap my profile picture to watch the livestream

#recall宣布清算拟销毁35.86%代币
$42 million raised. One year later, only $3.7 million left in the bank 🦖

📣 盘面异动群里喊

On October 31, the board of the Recall Foundation, which runs a decentralized AI agent evaluation platform, announced that it would wind down the foundation in an orderly manner in the near future.

The same announcement also stated that all 358 million RECALL tokens held by the foundation would be sent to a burn address, accounting for 35.86% of the total supply 💀

Holders will receive no distribution, no redemption, and no monetary compensation.

The board gave a straightforward reason: continuing to develop the protocol was not commercially viable.

The announcement specifically clarified that this had nothing to do with a hack or any security incident.

In other words, the tokens weren’t stolen or dumped. The project is shutting down voluntarily.

The token price tells the story even more clearly.

RECALL launched in October 2025 and peaked at $0.82.

It’s now trading at $0.032, down 96% from its high 📉

Its market cap is just $9.2 million, with a fully diluted valuation of $32.2 million.

It’s down 4.3% in 24 hours, 16.6% in seven days, and 33.6% in 30 days.

A project that raised a total of $42 million now has a market cap of less than a quarter of the amount it raised.

The announcement also explained where the money went.

As of October 30, the foundation had around $3.7 million in assets.

About $3.45 million is owed to creditors and vendors.

Around $200,000 is for winding-down costs, with another $50,000 set aside as a contingency reserve.

By that math, token holders are at the very back of the line.

Many people will instinctively see the 35.86% figure as bullish.

Cutting the supply from 1 billion tokens to 641 million sounds like serious deflation.

But a burn isn’t compensation. Those 358 million tokens were already controlled by the foundation.

Burning them simply brings the curtain down on a narrative that had already stopped selling ⚠️

More practically, the remaining 641 million tokens are still on the market.

At the current $9.2 million market cap, that supply still hangs over the market as a source of pressure.

The timeline is set in stone, too.

New competitions and staking rewards will stop on the day of the announcement.

On November 30, the official app will switch to read-only mode.

Final liquidation is expected to be completed in the first quarter of 2027, along with the burning of the remaining tokens.

RECALL tokens already staked are not included in the burn. Holders must unstake and withdraw them themselves.

New unstaking requests will no longer have a 30-day cooldown period.

My take: this isn’t a sudden collapse so much as an orderly exit.

An orderly wind-down, voluntary liquidation under Cayman Islands law, creditors and vendors paid first—the process is hard to fault.

But for the AI agent sector, this is an expensive warning sign.

Over the past two years, too many projects have treated tokens as fundraising tools, building entire cycles around evaluation, rankings, and incentives.

Once subsidies stop and real demand can’t support the valuation, shutting down becomes the only option.

There are two things worth watching next:

First, how many similar projects will switch to read-only mode after November 30?

Second, what will ultimately happen to the remaining 641 million tokens?

Are you still holding any AI tokens? Who do you think will be next?

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

89% versus 15%: in five years, North Korean hackers have gone from the sidelines to center stage 🦖
According to the latest Chainalysis figures through October 29, suspected North Korea-linked attacks accounted for nearly 89% of reported hacking losses this year. In 2021, that figure was just 15%.

👥 一起来群里抬杠

The average loss per attack also rose from $50.65 million to $185.65 million, about 3.7 times higher.
Even more striking is the cumulative tally. From 2021 through October 29 this year, reported global losses from theft totaled $22.34 billion, of which $13.24 billion was suspected to be linked to North Korea—about 59%.
Put another way, over the past five years, roughly $6 out of every $10 stolen has flowed in the same direction.

And this week's $6.3 billion exchange hack hasn't yet been included in these figures.
The data runs through October 29, and the case was only made public on the 30th. Add it in, and this year's share will look even worse.
There's a contrast here that's easy to overlook: the number of North Korea-linked attacks hasn't been extraordinarily high. What's changed is the amount stolen in each attack.
The average haul has jumped from around $50 million to nearly $200 million, suggesting that targets have shifted from individual wallets to exchanges' signing infrastructure and supply chains.
Scamming individuals means doing it one by one; hit the infrastructure once, and you can walk away with billions 💥

That's also why the industry's first response this week wasn't to pursue the stolen funds, but to freeze assets.
Tether froze more than $1.5 billion in USDT, and Circle froze about $800 million in USDC, for a combined total of roughly $3 billion.
But freezing assets only shuts the door; it doesn't mean the money has been recovered. No one can freeze stolen bitcoin at the network level ⚠️

My take is that what the 89% figure really highlights isn't how powerful North Korea is, but how concentrated the industry's risk has become in a handful of single points of failure.
Exchange hot wallets, signing systems, cross-chain bridges: a breach at any one link can mean losses in the billions.
For ordinary holders, self-custody can protect against a platform collapse, but it can't protect against compromised signing infrastructure or a poisoned supply chain 🏦
What can really change this trend is making proof of reserves standard practice, diversifying custody, and setting audit standards for cross-chain bridges.

There are two things to watch next: the proof-of-reserves report on November 2, and whether attribution in this case can ultimately be confirmed.
What do you think will be targeted next, an exchange or a cross-chain bridge? Let's talk in the comments.

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

$6.3 billion was stolen. The exchange’s first line of defense wasn’t cash—it was $5 billion worth of the same tokens 🦖

📢 ⏰ 消息群里第一时间说

In the early hours of October 31, the exchange issued its second security incident update.
Both co-CEOs signed the announcement, with the goal of beginning a phased resumption of withdrawals in about 34 hours,
provided all security checks are complete.
Unaffected services, including deposits, have continued operating normally.

The truly striking part is this line:
More than $6.34 billion in funds has been set aside,
including $5 billion worth of the same type of tokens that were stolen.
That covers about 80% of the affected amount.
The remaining shortfall is being purchased through market and over-the-counter channels.

Here’s what that means:
This isn’t as simple as saying, “We’ll cover everything.”
Of the $6.3 billion loss, about $3 billion has been frozen on-chain.
But frozen doesn’t mean back in the account.
What really needs to be filled is the hole in the balance sheet.

The $5 billion worth of the same tokens can come from the exchange’s own inventory.
The rest has to be bought on the market with real money ⚠️
That’s why withdrawals can’t simply be switched back on all at once.
Security checks come first, followed by a phased reopening.
The 34-hour timeline isn’t about slow technology—it’s about lining up liquidity layer by layer.

There’s also a timeline:
The first proof-of-reserves snapshot will be completed within 12 hours.
The results will be published on November 2.
More technical findings are expected to be disclosed within 48 hours.
So far, there’s no evidence that private keys were leaked.
But investigators have found other points of entry besides the laptop initially suspected.

In my view, the key thing to watch isn’t when withdrawals resume.
It’s the proof of reserves due on November 2.
The 80% coverage figure is the company’s own claim; the snapshot is what can be verified.
If the snapshot shows a bigger shortfall than reported, the market will vote with its feet.
On the other hand, if the numbers add up, that’s when trust repair can truly begin.

Here’s my take:
In the short term, resumed withdrawals would be good news—but a phased reopening is itself a stress test.
Whether the exchange can handle a concentrated first wave of withdrawals will shape sentiment next week 📈
Don’t just focus on the amount the announcement says is covered. Watch how they make up the remaining 20%.

Let’s talk in the comments: do you think this proof of reserves will ease concerns?
When withdrawals resume, will you pull your assets out right away or leave them there? 👀

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

#加密杠杆头寸24小时清算15亿美元
$1.5 billion in leveraged positions liquidated, gold hits a one-year low—the real culprit behind the selloff wasn’t that crypto theft 🦖

👉 进群看盘面

On the last trading day of October, Bitcoin briefly fell to $76,400, dropping below $77,000 for the first time in a month.
According to CoinGlass, October ended down about 7.7%, making it the worst October since 2014.
Over the past 24 hours, more than $1.5 billion in leveraged positions across the market were liquidated.
The Fear and Greed Index fell from 43 to 36, entering the fear zone.

The market blamed it all on that record-breaking crypto theft.
But one detail doesn’t add up: gold fell that night, too.

Gold briefly dropped to $3,891 an ounce, a new one-year low 📉
If this were just an exchange hack, money should have flowed into gold.
Instead, stocks, gold, and Bitcoin all fell together—a sign that it was liquidity itself being drained ⚠️
The real trigger was in tech stocks: Intel plunged nearly 30% in a single day, its worst drop in 50 years, while the Nasdaq fell 2.5% to 25,500 points.
The question of whether AI can actually make money is back on the table.

So here’s my take:
Bitcoin wasn’t the main character this time—it was a high-beta asset caught in the selloff.
Its pricing is increasingly in the hands of tech earnings and risk appetite.
What we need to watch next isn’t on-chain data, but Nvidia’s and Microsoft’s guidance on capital spending.
Once the leverage is flushed out, the market will be lighter—but that doesn’t mean we’ve hit bottom. Bitcoin is still 38% below its peak of $126,000.

The worst Octobers are often the most divisive.
Some people sell at a loss in a panic, while others wait for a better price.

Do you think this is the start of another downturn, or a bottom carved out in October?
Share your take in the comments 👀

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

$6.3 billion stolen: Washington has been handed the perfect reason to legislate 🦖
On October 30, CFTC Chairman Michael Selig told CNBC that this crypto heist proves the rules he proposed earlier this month are the right ones

⚡ 有大动静群里说

That same day, Trump also said he was keeping an eye on the situation

First, let’s get the facts straight
After the U.S. stock market closed on October 29, around $6.4 billion in assets was transferred out of the hot wallet of a major offshore exchange, involving dozens of tokens. It was the biggest heist in crypto history.
The exchange has set aside $6.34 billion to cover the losses and told users their assets are safe.
Within hours of the incident, Tether froze more than $1.5 billion in USDT, Circle froze around $800 million, and Ripple froze around $200 million—bringing the industry total to roughly $3 billion frozen.
The U.S. Secret Service and FBI have opened investigations. TRM Labs and Chainalysis have linked the case to North Korea’s TraderTraitor group.

Technically, this was not a blockchain hack.
The attacker used Ethereum’s EIP-7702 feature and 50 pre-signed authorizations to turn the hot wallet into an automated sweeper that siphoned off funds.
TRM’s assessment is that the exchange’s signing infrastructure was compromised—not Ethereum itself.
Selig also acknowledged that the vulnerability was introduced via someone’s laptop, and that the same kind of thing can happen in traditional finance.

But the real shift is on the regulatory front.
For the past two years, the U.S. has been trying to set rules for crypto through the CLARITY Act, but it has stalled in the Senate.
Now regulators aren’t waiting. This month, the CFTC put forward its own draft proposal to bring offshore exchanges under federal registration and subject them to U.S. market cybersecurity standards.
Selig put it bluntly: offshore exchanges don’t have the safeguards of U.S. financial markets, so they need to be given a federal option.

My take: this isn’t a tech story—it’s a turning point in the regulatory narrative ⚖️
After every major heist, regulation takes another step forward. After the 2014 Mt. Gox incident, New York State introduced the BitLicense. This time, offshore registration may be next.
For the industry, registration means higher compliance costs—and also means pushing some of the gray-market liquidity back into regulated venues.
For prices, the short-term level to watch is $75,000–$77,000. Bitcoin fell only about 3% this time, avoiding the double-digit crash we saw in 2018 📉

But once the panic subsides, what will really determine the direction is whether investors believe this regulatory framework can keep the next $6.3 billion from walking out the door 🔍

Join the discussion in the comments: do you think offshore exchanges will really be brought under federal regulation this time, or will it drag on and become another CLARITY?

Tap the profile picture to watch the livestream

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

$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 👀🚀