青衫磊落险峰行

I posted an update this morning: when the price rose, the perpetual funding rate was only 0.0025%, a quarter of the default benchmark. Checking again in the evening, the current rate was back at 0.01%, matching the benchmark. The price is still hovering around 80,300, up roughly 2% over 24 hours, after touching around 81,100 during the day.
The rate climbed back to normal from a low level, suggesting more people are willing to pay to hold long positions. This doesn’t confirm the trend; it just means the note on this morning’s claim that “it doesn’t look like a leverage-driven rally” needs a caveat: by evening, at least, the cost of leverage had returned to its usual level. The morning’s situation—“prices are up, but no one’s rushing to pay the funding rate”—didn’t last all day.

Looking back this afternoon at Micron on Binance: spot $MUB (Micron Technology bStocks, which tracks Micron’s common stock 1:1) is down about 10% over 24 hours, trading around 776, with more than $24 million in volume. The corresponding perpetual $MU is priced about the same, with a current funding rate of around 0.044%. That’s just over four times the default 0.01% benchmark. Perpetuals have seen more than a billion dollars in 24-hour volume, so this is no small market.
Prices are moving down, but traders willing to pay to hold long positions haven’t gone away. To me, these two signals together look more like someone stubbornly holding on via perpetuals, or basis trades that haven’t been fully unwound, rather than a straightforward one-sided bearish bet. The semiconductor sector is also under pressure today, but spot and perpetuals can still move to their own rhythms.

Many people use instant swaps to exchange coins and only look at the quoted rate, without considering where the fees are hidden.
Instant swaps generally don’t list a separate fee; the cost is hidden in the exchange rate you’re offered. When you swap $BTC for $USDT, the difference between the rate you see and the midpoint of the spot order book is what you pay. It may not be noticeable for small amounts, but if you swap larger amounts or do it frequently, the costs can add up.
Swapping between stablecoins—for example, USDT to USDC—often comes with zero fees or a dedicated route on various platforms. But check whether the exchange rate is actually 1:1; even a difference of a few decimal places is a cost.
My approach is simple: before making a large swap, compare the execution price with the spot limit order book for the same amount so you know the difference. You don’t need to do this every time or swap frequently. The less you swap, the lower this hidden cost.

That same morning, $SOL rose 2.75% to 95.55. $ETH rose 6.4%, while BTC gained 3.8%. SOL lagged this time around.
Looking again at the funding rates: SOLUSDT is at 0.01% for the current period, exactly the default baseline. ETH is negative, while SOL is at a normal level. That means shorts are getting squeezed in ETH, while neither bulls nor bears in SOL are particularly stirred up—it’s simply following the broader market.
SOL used to be the most responsive during rebounds, but not this time. There are plenty of possible reasons—on-chain activity, meme coins losing steam, or capital moving elsewhere—but I’m not going to draw conclusions based on just one day of data.

I saw the news this morning that Morgan Stanley is joining DTCC’s tokenization initiative. DTCC is the backbone of U.S. securities settlement, so a major bank testing tokenization on that infrastructure carries more weight than any new project publishing a white paper.
I took a quick look on-chain at $ONDO : up 4.7% over 24 hours, at 0.4087. Among projects focused on tokenized U.S. stocks and Treasuries, it’s one of the best-known names, so it’s normal for traders to jump on it after news like this.
But there’s a structural issue to think through: traditional institutions tokenizing within the DTCC system use their own permissioned chains and compliance channels, and don’t necessarily need any public-chain token. There’s a considerable gap between a bullish narrative and value accruing to a token.

Over the past 24 hours, $ETH rose 6.4% to around 2,425; $BTC rose 3.8%. The ETH/BTC exchange rate rose 2.6% to 0.0301.
What’s interesting is the funding rate. The current ETHUSDT perpetual funding rate is -0.0025%—negative. ETH has risen more than BTC, yet short sellers are the ones getting paid.
One fairly straightforward explanation: quite a few people were bearish on ETH, and this move squeezed them out rather than being driven by a crowd piling into longs. Squeezes can move fast, but they can also reverse quickly. The question is how many shorts are still left to close.
ETH/BTC has been hovering around 0.03 for a long time, so one day of gains doesn’t establish a trend. What I care more about is when the funding rate turns positive—that’s when people are genuinely willing to pay to go long.

$BTC It’s up nearly 4%, back around 80,500. Normally, at a time like this, perpetual funding rates should rise, with longs lining up to add leverage and rates climbing along with them.
I checked Binance perpetuals this morning: the current BTCUSDT funding rate is 0.0025%, against a default baseline of 0.01%—just a quarter of it. In other words, although the price has moved up, not many people are willing to pay to hold long positions.
This number can only tell us so much. It doesn’t mean spot buying pressure is necessarily strong; it could also just be shorts covering. But at least one thing is fairly clear: this move doesn’t look like it was driven by leverage. When a rally is fueled by leverage, funding rates usually move ahead of prices.

This morning, $BTC was trading around $85,522, down 0.46% from the previous day, while $ETH was at $2,696. Those are CoinMarketCap’s figures from the morning of the 7th.
According to CoinDesk, since September 23, $BTC has made three runs at $87,000, and each time it was pushed back by sellers. The lows have been getting higher, while the highs keep hitting the same ceiling, narrowing the range. An analyst at FxPro says the price is nearing the apex of a triangle; once it breaks out of this range, volatility will increase. I’ve been watching this level for two weeks. It has more patience than I do.
The broader environment actually isn’t bad. The 10-year Treasury yield fell to 5.28% on the 6th, after recently reaching a 24-year high. The market-implied odds of an October rate hike dropped from about 50% a week ago to around 19%. The S&P 500 and Nasdaq both closed at record highs. But $BTC didn’t follow. The good news is all out in the open, yet the price still can’t break through. To me, the sell orders around $87,000 carry more weight than the macro backdrop.

On Binance, $RLC /USDT was trading around $0.98 shortly after 8 p.m. tonight, up about 73% over 24 hours. It hit a low of $0.524 and a high of $1.077, with about $61 million in trading volume for this pair. At the same time, $BTC was hovering around $86,000, barely moving.
This move began yesterday. According to TokenPost, $RLC closed at $0.364 on October 4 and $0.727 on October 5, doubling in a day. Today, it continued climbing.
The strange thing is that there’s no clear catalyst. TokenPost said it couldn’t find any new iExec announcements from the past two days that would explain this surge, and a Japanese market update said the same. The derivatives market, though, has been very active: open interest rose about 1,760% in 24 hours to around $35.1 million. Such a rapid increase in open interest suggests that many traders are using borrowed money to get in.

$NEAR /USDT on Binance was hovering around 5.35 shortly after 8 a.m. this morning, up 9.1% over 24 hours, with a low of 4.81 and a high of 5.36. Trading volume was about $150 million. At the same time, $BTC was down 0.4%, at around 86,000. The broader market barely moved; NEAR made a run of its own.
TokenPost noted that about $280,000 in short positions were liquidated across Binance, Bybit, and OKX in one hour, while not a single long position was liquidated. Against $150 million in trading volume, $280,000 is barely a rounding error. So I’m not convinced a short squeeze explains this whole move. Shorts getting squeezed out looks more like a consequence of the rally than its cause.
The buyers are probably a different crowd. Bitwise’s spot NEAR ETF, ticker NRR, saw $35.5 million in net inflows on its first day. CoinMarketCap says early cumulative inflows were between $50 million and $58 million. As of October 1, the fund held about 11.5 million NEAR, roughly 0.9% of the supply, with 98% of it staked. The tokens bought are locked up, leaving a little less available to sell on the market.

On Binance, $ADA /USDT is hovering around 0.2716 tonight, up 10.8% in 24 hours, after reaching an intraday high of 0.2749. CoinDesk says that’s its highest price since May. At the same time, $BTC is up less than 1%, still moving between 84,000 and 87,000.
Trading volume has definitely picked up. CoinMarketCap data puts total market-wide volume at about $1.09 billion, or 2.06 times the 30-day median.
The reason is hard to pin down, and CoinDesk says it can’t explain it either. Two things may be relevant: RealFi, which launched on October 1 and channels stablecoins into institutional lending, with annualized returns of up to 9%; and the first phase of the Dijkstra upgrade, scheduled for late December this year or early next year. Both are good news, but neither is new today. I’ve always been more wary of a rally with no clear explanation than one with a clear one.

On Sunday, Binance’s $BTC /USDT moved from 84,754 to close at 86,530. During the session it touched 86,800. Trading volume for this day was about 684 million USDT; on Friday it was 2.268 billion—less than one-third. On Monday morning at around 8 a.m., the price was near 86,400, up about 1.9% over 24 hours. $ETH followed up to 2,727, up around 1.5%.
When volume is low, you can push it higher without needing too much money. I only refreshed the行情 twice over the weekend and didn’t place any orders; I guess quite a few people are like me. Tonight, after the U.S. stock market and U.S. Treasuries open, we’ll see for sure: that peak on Friday where it surged to 87,220 and then fell back—it’s still hanging over the top.
Another thing is due by the end of the month. BeInCrypto cites Arkham data: Mt. Gox has flagged wallets with about 34,387 BTC still remaining, and the court set the repayment deadline as October 31. Last year, the trustee announced the extension only on October 27—four days before the deadline. I don’t know whether this year will follow the same pattern.

On Friday, the SEC cleared the rule changes for Cboe BZX, allowing Volatility Shares to list six triple-leveraged ETPs. The underlying assets include $BTC , $ETH , as well as gold, silver, crude oil, and natural gas. The two for Bitcoin and Ether take exposure via futures and do not hold spot directly.
The rules have passed, but there are still registration procedures to complete before listing. Over the weekend, $BTC was still hovering around 85,000, a bit lower than the 87,000 it touched during the week. $ETH is about 2,700; the daily increase is less than one point.
It looks more like someone opened the door a little wider. For leveraged products, what gets magnified first is the day’s volatility. Before the registration is completed, don’t hear “approval” as “open for trading.” If it’s been rallying fast, it often turns back first. This line fits especially well to a 3x product.

On the day when the nonfarm payrolls came in weaker than expected, $BTC briefly pushed up to around 87,000. The vibe of “Uptober” was just getting hot. The next day, news came out that oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz were attacked, and most of the gains were wiped out. Today spot is about 84,800, and over the past 24 hours it hasn’t moved much at all.
Glassnode describes this rebound as a bit too early and overly speculative: trading volume is thin, and long-term holders are still cashing out. On Santiment, the $ETH long-vs-short sentiment ratio has dropped to 0.89, the lowest in four months. Price hasn’t really collapsed, but sentiment is already moving downward.
Macro gave it a kick of momentum, but geopolitics hit the brakes again. I think the 8.5 to 8.7 zone is still going to chop sideways. Until the Hormuz news is fully cleared, I’m not in a hurry to confirm a trend. $SOL is still hovering around 120 and feels dull compared with the broader market. Let’s see whether 8.5 can hold firm first—then we talk about moving upward.

This week, the numbers for US spot ETFs are sitting there. From September 28 to October 2, $BTC spot ETF net inflows were about $82.9 million, which is a lot less than the previous week’s roughly $2.39 billion. $ETH spot ETFs saw net outflows of about $118 million over the same period, whereas the previous week had still managed to pull in nearly $690 million. Products related to $SOL are left with only about $800,000 in net inflows.
In the morning, $BTC briefly dipped to around 87,000, and then it slipped back to hover near 85,000 in the evening. Bitcoin products are still seeing inflows, but the volume is clearly shrinking; on the Ethereum side, it’s been a steady drawdown out. My sentiment is a bit bearish, but I also don’t dare to chase short at this level—capital is just choosing seats, not withdrawing together. Let’s see whether next week’s inflows and outflows can pick up again.

US September non-farm payrolls came in below expectations. After the news hit, $BTC briefly broke above $87,000. It had just broken above $85,000 the day before; yesterday spot ETFs also saw net inflows of about $103 million. Today it even got another small push with the employment data. When jobs are weaker, the market pulls the rate-cut expectations forward. The logic is too straightforward, so the rise is fast—and the pullback is equally decisive. It touched around $87,000 and then retreated, which suggests sell pressure overhead is still there. This looks more like a short-term squeeze after the data than a trend that’s truly confirmed. Follow your position plan first and don’t let a single spike throw off your rhythm. I’m slow at trading—I just watch the show. $ETH and $SOL lifted as well, but the main act is still $BTC . Next, let’s see whether it can hold steady around the $86,000 to $87,000 range; if it can’t, then treat it as having already been a quick draw.

Yesterday the US stock market: $BTC spot ETF saw net inflows of about $102.7 million, according to SoSoValue’s data. The day before, it had just ended a nine-day streak of continuous net buying/absorbing, with outflows of about $148.7 million—then the next day it turned back around and bought again. In the same period, $ETH spot ETFs had net outflows of about $55.4 million; it has already been drawing out for three straight days, totaling roughly $118 million. $SOL funds also saw a small net outflow of about $6 million. Meanwhile, XRP funds actually pulled in about $4 million.
As for price action, $BTC has already tested around 86,000. Fear & Greed dropped from 74 to 72 and is still in the greed zone. I think the capital is just rotating between BTC and ETH: BTC is getting its rebound first, while ETH is still seeing outflows. The outlook can look very big, but inflows and outflows often aren’t in sync. At this level, I’d rather see whether $BTC can hold steady above 86,000, and whether the three-day bloodletting from ETH will stop—I’m not in a hurry to chase long positions.

Early this morning, $BTC touched around $85,000, rising about 0.93% over the past 24 hours. The spot market was still hovering between 83,000 and 83,500 just the past couple of days. Meanwhile, the US spot ETF recently just broke a nine-day streak of continuous net buying; on September 30, net outflows were about $148.7 million. Among the twelve funds, almost nobody was net buying. The money moved out yesterday, yet prices rose first this morning past $85,000. I’ve seen this kind of mismatch more than once.
I don’t really call this confirmation of a trend—more like a step has been moved in terms of positioning. When gains come fast, they often turn back first. Put it onto the order book: we’ll see whether $85,000 can hold for a few hours, and whether anyone is willing to keep buying up there—not by relying on one or two bullish candles to make a showing.

Yesterday, a set of numbers turned the mood a notch. Farside Investors monitoring shows that Bitcoin spot ETFs saw a single-day net outflow of $148.7 million; that nine-day streak of consecutive net inflows was interrupted. At the same time, Ethereum ETFs recorded a net outflow of $59.6 million.
On price action, $BTC is still hovering around 83,000, and $ETH hasn’t moved much either. In the same day, Citi raised its 12-month target price for Bitcoin from 82,000 to 113,000, and for Ethereum from 2,240 to 3,028—long-term targets moved higher, yet the day’s capital flows just turned around.
I looked at the机构-educated perspective on the long-term outlook, and it often doesn’t match the way ETF inflows and outflows move in sync. A nine-day consecutive absorption break suggests short-term momentum is cooling down; breaking for a day doesn’t necessarily mean the broader trend has flipped. Expectations for a quick rally often show strain first on the capital-flow side. I’m cautious—I’m not in a hurry to chase short or go all-in at this price level.

CoinShares reported last week’s figures: net inflows into crypto investment products were about $3.55 billion, the highest single-week level since 2026. On September 16, the Fed added 25 basis points, taking rates to 3.75% to 4.00%. Rate hikes should, in theory, weigh on risk assets—but the money hasn’t stopped.
Products tied to $BTC drew about $2.52 billion, $ETH about $702 million, $SOL about $193 million, and $XRP about $92.3 million. In the U.S. alone, one product provider accounted for roughly $3.43 billion. As for spot, $BTC is still hovering around $83,500, with almost no movement over the past 24 hours.
People like me see funds pouring in while the price doesn’t move, and my first reaction is: don’t treat the inflow as an instruction to raise prices. Money went into the products, and spot can keep ranging. I trust this more as additional positioning after the policy takes effect—not a signal to charge forward. First, let’s see whether the 83,000 mark can hold.