海盗鸭

"$30 billion" has been in the spotlight for more than four months since it was first heated up. Only after the list was explicitly clarified for the first time on September 26 can it be considered truly implemented. First, let’s set the record straight: this is not "a $30 billion tax cut." Rather, it is that about $30 billion worth of goods trade has been brought into a reciprocal tariff-reduction framework—each side at around $30 billion, with a two-way total of roughly $60 billion. This is roughly a single-digit percentage of the bilateral trade in goods, not a very large share.

The list is very specific. On the China side, the preferential measures cover small home appliances, toys, festive decorations, and children’s safety seats. On the U.S. side, the preferential measures apply to agricultural products, fish and seafood, raw logs and wood products, cosmetics, and medical devices. Strategically sensitive categories such as semiconductors and advanced equipment are explicitly excluded from discussion.

Where does the tariff reduction go? The focus is the 301 tariffs imposed since 2018, with rates in the range of 7.5% to 25%. The direction is to roll back to the MFN (most-favored-nation) base tariff rates—or even lower. But there is another layer that is often overlooked: a tariff cut does not equal a tax exemption. The MFN base tariff rates are still retained. For businesses, this isn’t a "zero-tariff windfall"—it is that "some of the extra punitive costs" are being taken away.

The timeline is also worth noting: the arrangement was first proposed at the meeting between the heads of state in Beijing in May. In July, the Ministry of Commerce said the two sides were discussing and working to advance it. In September, the process moved into intensive consultations—right through to implementation, it took a full four months. The pace itself is a signal: it isn’t a temporary product of a crisis negotiation, but a consensus that has been repeatedly confirmed.

My assessment is somewhat cool-headed: the political symbolism of this list matters more than its economic scale. The easiest-to-reach, low-sensitivity consumer goods are removed first to serve as a showcase, while the truly tough bones—chips, rare earths, and the availability of computing power—have not budged one inch.

So what to watch next is not the tariff-item schedule itself, but the implementing documents: the specific tariff codes, the effective dates, and rules of origin. The release of the list is only the starting point.

In your industry, are you one of the beneficiaries in this $30 billion tariff list—or are you among the categories that are excluded?

#U.S._China Reach Consensus to Cut $30 Billion in Tariffs

30-year U.S. Treasury yield reaches 5.4439%—a number nobody has seen since 2004.

On September 24, long-dated Treasuries were still being dumped, and the 30-year yield briefly climbed to a peak of 5.446% intraday. On the same day, the 10-year yield moved above 5.14%, the highest level since July 2007, while the 2-year yield rose to 4.908%. This isn’t the result of a single headline—it’s a continuation of the so-called “Black Wednesday” on September 23.

That day saw four things happen at once: the U.S. September composite PMI’s initial reading came in at 58.4, the fastest expansion in more than five years; Brent crude moved back above $100; Fed officials said inflation has not shown a downward trend; and auctions for $70 billion in 5-year Treasury notes were held— the winning yield was 5.033%, the highest since 2006. The bid-to-cover ratio was only 2.21 times, below the average of 2.33 times for the previous six auctions. Primary dealers were forced to take down 15.8%, the highest in two years. This was the 11th consecutive 5-year note auction with soft demand.

What I want to say is: this yield curve is telling a different story from “inflation.” When the supply side keeps expanding—outstanding Treasuries exceed $3 trillion, and aging bonds issued at 1%-2% have to be refinanced in a 4%-5% environment—while marginal buyers start to demand higher prices, the pricing anchor shifts from “when will inflation come down” to “who will buy these bonds.”

The Treasury Department repurchased $5.187 billion in long-dated Treasuries on September 10, then announced another buyback of up to $6 billion on September 23. Relative to the existing outstanding market, that scale is almost negligible—hence the bizarre phenomenon of “the more they buy, the higher prices go.”

My view: as long as oil prices don’t fall and employment and PMI don’t cool, it will be difficult for the long end to be supported by buybacks. If you want to watch closely, focus on two things—the bid-to-cover ratio at the long-dated Treasury auctions in the fourth quarter, and whether foreign official holdings keep declining.

Do you think the signal that this long-end rally has topped will show up first in oil prices, or first in employment data?

#U.S. 30-year Treasury yield hits the highest level since 2004

$DOGE surged to $0.1059, the highest since June. It opened at $0.0999 intraday, then pulled back to around $0.0992—classic spike-and-retrace. The explanation is far more solid than the “Elon Musk post” theory: before the rally, a large whale accumulated 240 to 360 million DOGE, and open interest jumped by about 10% to around $350 million within an hour. Among the more than $1 billion in liquidations on the day, DOGE shorts accounted for only $12.66 million. The spot DOGE ETF saw inflows of $909,700 that day, the largest single-day amount since January.
My take: this is a leveraged move, not a spot consensus. The RSI at 69.4 is already pressed up against the exhaustion line. The 50-day EMA is still below the 200-day EMA—none of the bearish crossovers have been resolved. When price is pushed up by open interest, pullbacks usually happen just as fast as the rise.
For this move, should you treat it as the start of meme season, or just a borrowed liquidity-driven rally?
#Dogecoin上涨15%

Engineers from the Cardano Foundation have merged native Cardano support into the official x402 codebase—documentation for the “exact” payment method and a TypeScript implementation have been added to the Foundation’s repository. The client, server, and facilitator components were contributed by the Foundation, covering three networks: mainnet, preprod, and preview. Supported assets include $ADA , as well as Cardano’s native stablecoins USDM, DJED, and iUSD.

What is x402? It revives the long-dormant HTTP 402 “Payment Required” status code: the server returns the price, the client signs a transaction, the facilitator verifies it and settles it on-chain, and then delivers the content—no account, no API keys, and no checkout page. This standard is governed by the Linux Foundation, and the endorsement list includes AWS, Google, Visa, Mastercard, Stripe, American Express, Ripple, Shopify, the Solana Foundation, and the Stellar Development Foundation. In plain terms, it’s a payment rail for AI agents.

But I must be clear about the limitations: the facilitator has only run real transactions on the preprod testnet so far; there have been zero settlement cases on mainnet. The Foundation has not published the number of platforms enabled for Cardano settlement, the ADA/CNT payment amounts, or the number of agents. The so-called “hundreds of platforms” refers to the service set that can be reached via x402—that’s capability, not traffic.

Market reaction: it rose about 4% in $ADA 24 hours to a four-month high, about 18% over seven days, to roughly $0.2455, and it moved above the 200-day moving average of $0.2140. Around the same time, the stablecoin supply on Cardano was about $68 million—off by one to two orders of magnitude versus leading L1s.

So my stance is very direct: this is a milestone at the developer tooling layer, not a capital-flow event. The $ADA price increase is about a “narrative parity position,” not “usage growth.” And x402 itself is chain-agnostic—anyone can adopt it, and integration doesn’t create a moat. The real race is who can first produce real mainnet settlement volume.

One question: would you treat “a link to a hot standard” as a reason to buy, or would you wait for on-chain settlement data before acting? If you wait, which specific metric are you watching?

#Cardano integration of the x402 payment standard

On September 25, the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance updated its FAQ on crypto assets, pushing the March interpretive guidance one step further: on a network that is already fully functional, announcing a repurchase program by itself will not turn tokens into securities; nor will ongoing services such as maintaining, upgrading, or funding the ecosystem be treated as “the essential efforts of others” in the Howey test. Conversely, if the network is not up and running, repurchases packaged as “returns for holders” may still constitute a security.

On staking, it’s even more direct: as long as the instrument is nothing more than a simple receipt—no misappropriation by the issuer, no lending, no promise of returns, and no additional incentive stacking—Ethereum liquid staking receipts are not considered securities. Re-staking is not covered.

I think the key takeaway of this guidance is the four words “cannot be misappropriated”: whether $ETH staking receipts can enter the safe harbor depends on whether the issuer is willing to stay away from that principal.

The question is: to remain in the compliant zone, how many issuers are willing to give up the opportunity to re-pledge those returns?#SEC says that repurchases and upgrades do not necessarily make tokens securities

On September 25, Hester Peirce posted on X the resignation letter she submitted to the White House, with the caption “T minus 7”—the letter is dated September 21, and her departure date is October 2. The person who first took office as an SEC Commissioner in January 2018 and is nicknamed the “crypto mom” in the industry is ending a term of about 8 years and 9 months, and will go to Regent University School of Law in November to become a deputy professor.

Her résumé tells the whole story: her second term officially expired on June 5, 2025, but she continued in a “holdover” capacity because her successor hadn’t been put in place. In 2025, she became the head of the newly established SEC crypto working group, took part in guidance related to mining, staking, and meme coins, and pushed forward the “innovative exemption” path for the first formal rules—Regulation Crypto Assets and the tokenization of securities.

For ordinary users, what matters isn’t just that “another person has left,” but the structural change: after she departs, the SEC will have only two commissioners—Atkins and Uyeda. The rules allow those two to form a quorum. That means decisions can move faster, and fewer internal objections will be recorded. Crypto-related guidance will be easier to issue, but the buffer of “someone singing counterpoint” will be thinner.

There are three actionable parts. First, keep an eye on the White House’s nominee for her successor—not on the farewell speech. The new commissioner’s stance will determine the enforcement approach in 2027. Second, focus on the comment period for the “innovative exemption” and Regulation Crypto Assets; the timeline for formalizing the rules carries more practical trading significance than personnel news. Third, pay attention to the holdover mechanism itself: after a commissioner’s term ends, they can remain for up to about 18 months—roughly from June 2025 to October 2026—so this flexibility has basically been fully used. These windows—when people leave but the seat remains vacant—are often the periods when policy is most likely to loosen.

What I personally care about more is the other side: a two-person commission, with the quorum barely satisfied. Once one of them is absent due to recusal or health reasons, the agenda stops. With crypto legislation stalled in the Senate, the regulator can only move forward through documents like this; with fewer people, that path becomes narrower.

Which do you think is her biggest legacy: the innovative exemption, token classification, or the end of the “enforcement-first” era?

#SEC Commissioner Peirce will step down on October 2

On September 25, CoinMarketCap completed its acquisition of Coinglass, with the deal amount undisclosed.

First, let’s talk about the scale on both sides. Coinglass was founded in 2019. It covers more than 2,500 products across 28 exchanges, has over 5 million monthly active users, and has more than 10,000 paid API customers. In the industry, it’s one of the most commonly used tools for open interest, funding rates, and liquidation heatmaps.

CoinMarketCap has roughly 115 million monthly active users. After being acquired by Binance in April 2020, it has continued to operate independently.

For ordinary users, the actual day-to-day change is almost zero—and that’s a good thing: Coinglass will remain independently operated. Its brand, team, website, app, free tools, API, and pricing policies will all stay the same. The purpose of the acquisition is to fill in the missing piece of derivatives data. Going forward, when you look at spot prices and trading volume on CoinMarketCap, you’ll also see changes in leveraged positions, liquidation concentration, and funding rates—without having to toggle between two separate sites.

I tend to believe that for retail traders, the most valuable thing is precisely “not having to fuss.” Coinglass’s free tier has long been the core of its customer acquisition. If, after the acquisition, the company starts putting up paywalls using free features and pushing users into its own ecosystem, then this acquisition’s net value to users would be negative.

A simple and verifiable test: over the next six months, check whether those features that used to be free have been moved behind paid tiers.

Another long-term point worth watching is data neutrality. Spot data and derivatives data come from the same company, and that company’s parent also runs one of the world’s largest trading platforms. Whether data definitions, exchange inclusion standards, and ranking algorithms might shift subtly matters far more than simply adding one more feature. The value of a tool comes from neutrality—not from having more features.

So I have a very specific question for you: if, one year after the acquisition, the Coinglass free version truly has zero changes in its functionality, would you switch the liquidation heatmap from the standalone site to CoinMarketCap? Or is the migration cost for a data tool basically not something you care about?

#CoinMarketCap completes the acquisition of Coinglass

US-listed Bitcoin spot ETFs turned year-to-date net inflows positive for the first time within 2026.

The turning point came from the massive spike on September 21: roughly a $999 million net inflow in a single day—the largest so far this year, and also the strongest since October 2025. It was mainly driven by three leading products. After that, there were net inflows for six consecutive trading days, totaling about $2.84 billion, which wiped out the roughly $5.8 billion year-to-date gap left before mid-July, and flipped it into an estimated cumulative net inflow of about $0.8 billion.

The disagreement starts from here.

The bullish side keeps the books on policy. U.S. Treasury Secretary Bessent announced in August that he would increase purchases of bonds to manage liquidity. Since August 19, about $4.6 billion has flowed into related funds. In the same period, $BTC rebounded from under $58,000 in early June to around the $85,000 level, briefly touching $87,395—the highest since January. Estimated average cost for ETF holders is between $81,700 and $82,000—after the price broke above $85,000, this group returned to the profit zone for the first time since January.

The bearish side watches two things. First, in this leg up, about $919 million worth of crypto shorts were liquidated, suggesting that part of the price momentum came from forced covering rather than purely fresh, “real money” allocations. Second, the scale doesn’t quite match: year-to-date net inflows of roughly $0.8 billion this year, compared with $35.2 billion in 2024 and $21.4 billion in 2025—right now it can only be seen as a recovery starting point, not a trend.

I lean toward staying in the middle with caution: ETF fund flows themselves aren’t a directional indicator; they’re more like an amplifier. The real variable is whether liquidity-policy measures can keep getting implemented—not whether we see a single daily bar of nearly $1 billion. Next, I’ll watch two things: when the streak of consecutive net inflow days breaks; and when the price returns near the average cost line, whether the newly un-risked holders add more or redeem.

Historically, unusually large single-day inflows have shown up multiple times near local turning points. Do you believe this one?

#Bitcoin spot ETF turns to net inflows within the year

Strategy Want to change preferred share dividends to “calculated daily.” On September 24, the board approved a proposal covering four issues: STRC, STRF, STRK, and STRD. For each natural day—including weekends and holidays—becomes the dividend record date, with the announced dividend paid on the next business day.

The company clearly said it would not change the interest rate or the total amount. The extraordinary general meeting is on October 28, but only ordinary shareholders have voting rights—preferred shareholders don’t get to decide themselves. If it’s approved, STRC would be recorded at the earliest on November 1 and paid on November 2; the other three would wait until 2027.

My take: this isn’t about giving shareholders more money. It’s about turning the accrued value of each preferred share into something that increases every day, making them behave more like a money market fund. The key question is whether Strategy can lower the financing cost on its preferred-share funding used to buy $BTC ; specifically, can the cost tied to $MSTRB be reduced?

If dividends are split into 365 portions, will it truly boost valuation? Or is it only hiding volatility inside the daily net asset value?

The Limit Break Payment Processor V2 contract was exploited, exposing a batch of NFT listings on the old EVM marketplace of Magic Eden. The affected users are those who placed orders between February and October 2024: the "full approval" they had granted that year remained valid even after the business was shut down—cancelling listings or invalidating signatures couldn’t stop it.
The attackers took 10 Meebits, 50 Otherdeeds, and 235 Desperate ApeWives. Revoke.cash estimates the loss to be at least $2.8 million. V3 was urgently paused, but V2 couldn’t be paused—so only white-hat front-running could save the day. In the end, 23,155 NFTs worth over $5.7 million were rescued, but 660 WETH weren’t caught in time.
My take: this is a textbook example of an "approval residue" risk—when the market is shut down and the contract is stopped, your approve is still sitting on-chain. Cancelling a listing does not equal revoking an approval. If you ever placed orders on the $ETH mainnet and on ApeChain, you should revoke your V2 approval once.
When did you last check your own approval history? Do you clean it up regularly?

Strategy（$MSTRB ） will change the dividend payment frequency of the four preferred shares to daily.

On September 24, the board approved the proposal. On September 25, it filed the preliminary proxy statement. On October 28, a special shareholders’ meeting will vote on it. If approved, STRC will proceed first. November 1 is the first record date, and November 2 is the first dividend payment date. STRF, STRK, and STRD will follow starting January 1, 2027, with payments made on January 4 to holders recorded between January 1 and January 3.

The key point is: the dividend rate remains unchanged, the total amount remains unchanged, and the company’s payment obligations remain unchanged—only the frequency changes. STRC will move from twice per month to every day. The other three will move from once per quarter to every day. As CEO Phong Le puts it, after switching from quarterly payments to daily payments, the number of record days in a year increases from 4 to about 365.

Why the hassle? It’s due to the ex-dividend gap for preferred shares. When STRC makes monthly dividend payments, the median drop in the ex-dividend date price is about 49 basis points; after switching to semi-monthly payments, it narrows to about 36 basis points. With the frequency increased to daily, the price “trough” caused by ex-dividends is diluted to almost nothing—holders don’t need to sell early to avoid the ex-dividend date, nor do they experience lag from receiving cash and reinvesting it manually. The company’s goal is very straightforward: to keep STRC trading long-term in the $99–$100 range.

My view is that this is a makeover of a 12% coupon preferred share toward a money-market-fund-like experience—using the dividend payment cadence to emulate “accrues daily, withdrawable at any time,” thereby attracting capital that treats it as a cash substitute. Saylor calls it “the world’s first security that accrues and pays dividends on calendar days.” That statement is itself positioning, not technical showmanship.

The question is: if the coupon is packaged into something cash-like through frequency, will you still treat it as cash? Behind a yield of more than 10% are credit and duration exposures. Would you accept those in exchange for a cash flow that arrives every day?

#Strategy plans to pay dividends daily on four preferred shares

Take a deeper look at $QNT : what’s truly worth noting isn’t how much it’s up, but “why banks suddenly became willing to do tokenized deposits in 2026”.

Tokenized deposits are different from what we’re familiar with. They don’t use the same “issue, reserve, redemption” setup as the stablecoin playbook. Instead, banks move real deposit liabilities on-chain, and clearing still happens within the banking system. That sidesteps a deadlock: when banks issue their own stablecoins, deposits can leave the balance sheet; but with tokenized deposits, the liabilities stay on their own books—only the clearing and settlement plumbing changes. The Clearing House can push this forward, and the underlying logic is right here.

Institutional conditions come together in 2026. On March 17, the SEC and CFTC released joint interpretive guidance on how federal securities laws apply to virtual assets. The guidance categorizes virtual assets into five classes to assess whether they’re securities and introduces the concept of “securities separation.” It also covers activities like mining, staking, wrapping, and airdrops. It doesn’t replace the Howey Test, but for the first time it puts “which actions do not constitute a securities offering” into official interpretation. Earlier, on January 29, the two agencies’ chairmen had already announced a joint push for “Project Crypto.” On September 17, the SEC then granted temporary, conditional exemptive relief for trading venues of tokenized securities, allowing the use of permissioned AMMs and liquidity pools to trade tokenized NMS-listed stocks. On the legislative front, after the CLARITY Act passed the House, it stalled in the Senate—so regulatory interpretation is, in practice, filling the legislative gap.

String these three developments together, and the logic becomes clear: it’s not that Quant suddenly got stronger—rather, in a matter of months, its track moved from a “gray zone” to a “guided zone.” Quant’s positioning is at the interoperability layer—connecting existing fiat rails like RTP and CHIPS with on-chain ledgers. And that positioning’s value only becomes real once banks actually start moving clearing on-chain—which has just begun with the first batches of live deployments.

That’s also my caveat about this main thesis: the institutional tailwind is sector-level, not token-level. The guidance and exemptive relief address “whether it can be done,” but not “who makes money and how much.” As a technology provider, how much network traffic Quant can turn into its own revenue will only become clear after the network opens in 2027.

One step further: if tokenized deposits really roll out and improve clearing efficiency across the banking system, then in the long run the most disrupted piece may be the intermediary layer that currently profits from cross-border settlement fees.

Do you think this direction is realistic within the next three years—or is it yet another story that was simply told too early?

#QNT上涨39%

Circle has issued an additional 500 million $USDC on $SOL —two transactions of 250 million each. As soon as the news broke, the most common interpretation in the comments was, “There’s again fresh capital coming in”—but this understanding is likely wrong.

Let’s start with the mechanism. Circle’s minting and burning are demand-driven: if someone on-chain needs it, it mints; if there’s no demand, it burns. What’s truly worth watching is what happened on another chain during the same time period. The clearest example was June 29 this year: Circle burned 250 million USDC on Ethereum, while simultaneously minting 910 million on Solana—net about 660 million moving from Ethereum to Solana. This sequence follows CCTP (Cross-Chain Transfer Protocol): burn first, then mint natively. The total USDC supply across the whole network doesn’t change at all; what changes is which chain those coins are on.

There’s also a number trap: the “cumulative issuance” that the media loves to cite is gross minted volume, not net supply. The cumulative minting on Solana has already reached the order of $7 billion, but this figure includes portions that were burned over the years and moved cross-chain, so it has nothing to do with how much USDC there is “right now” on Solana. More importantly, newly minted coins first sit in Circle’s treasury address; that doesn’t mean they’ve actually reached trading platforms and DeFi protocols.

My view is that this news looks more like a cross-chain transfer plus market-making inventory preparation, not newly added purchasing power. The real bullish signal should show up after minting—if stablecoin net supply rises, on-chain borrowing and the open interest in perpetual contracts move with it, that would indicate the money is truly being put to use. Conversely, if only the treasury balance increases while trading activity doesn’t move, then it’s just warehouse stock that changed locations.

So here’s the question: when you judge whether these 500 million coins are “inventory” or “real demand,” which metric would you watch? Would you look at changes in Solana’s USDC net supply, or directly track DEX trading volume and borrowing rates?

#Circle issues 500 million USDC on Solana

September 25 02:30 (UTC) — a Bitcoin ($BTC ) address that had been dormant for more than four years has moved. It transferred out 4,499.99 BTC in one batch, which was worth about $380 million at the time (roughly around $84,000).

On-chain records show that the largest input was received on April 21, 2022, and then it sat untouched for more than four years.

The key is the next step: as of later that day, the receiving address’s balance was still completely unchanged, and there was no flow of funds to any known exchange hot wallet. On-chain evidence can only prove “they moved house,” not “they sold the goods.”

I tend to think this isn’t a sell signal. Real distribution usually leaves traces along the path into an exchange. Long-term holders more commonly take actions like switching custody, pledging as collateral, or moving OTC—none of which typically leave obvious footprints on the order book.

But $84,000 is already right in the bull-bear tug-of-war zone. With movements of this magnitude from an old coin, do you treat it as an early warning—or just noise?

On September 24, Ondo’s official account confirmed that after the founder passed away, the project team was seeking to sell. The news triggered a sharp ONDO price fluctuation that very night—when I saw this announcement, I suddenly remembered an in-person discussion from a few winters ago.

At that meeting, there was someone working on RWA. He spoke around Ondo for half an hour about how to bring U.S. Treasury bonds on-chain. I didn’t remember any of it—I just recall him saying that what these kinds of projects fear most isn’t regulation; it’s when there’s no one to take over and the ownership of the property can’t be clarified. Back then it sounded like casual talk, and after the meeting ended, I forgot about it.

Looking back now, what he described has already turned into an asset that others are bargaining for. The project got built, but after it’s built, who it belongs to is a different matter—and on-chain, things like this will only become more and more common: the protocol is still running, the founder is no longer there, and do the votes that people invested back then still carry weight? $ONDO

Have you seen any project make it through this step?

After this round of talks between China and the U.S. ends, both sides each released their lists of outcomes. The most tangible item on them is: a $30 billion, reciprocal tariff reduction arrangement. The U.S. side also said that the trade truce would be extended to next January. In both sides’ official wording, the term “reciprocal” is used.

$30 billion sounds like a lot, but I’m not planning to figure out what portion it is of the bilateral trade value, because whether the percentage looks good or bad doesn’t change the judgment. What I care about more is the expiration date on the list: next January. Why January—rather than the end of the first quarter, or six months later? This date itself is a piece of information.

From another angle, the value of a truce agreement has never been about how much tax it reduces, but about writing the date of the next showdown onto the paper. Whoever wrote the date, controls the tempo.

As for what this date was calculated against, and over the next six months, who is more likely to break first, I’ll cover that in the comments section.

First, let me ask: Do you think this $30 billion is just an appetizer, or is it everything?

On September 24 at 11:00 UTC (19:00 Beijing time), Binance opened spot trading for Hyperliquid (token code $HYPE ). The three trading pairs HYPE/USDT, HYPE/USDC, and HYPE/TRY were listed at the same time, with a listing fee of 0 BNB. Deposits were opened in advance, but withdrawals would only be enabled at the same time on September 25.

After the announcement came out, HYPE did indeed rise briefly—by about 1.5% to 1.9%—and then it reversed.

What I want to talk about is not the price up or down, but the layer of structure that was ignored this time: Binance attached a Seed Tag to HYPE. This tag is not decorative—users must complete a risk assessment once every 90 days and agree to the terms in order to trade in the spot or derivatives (leverage) zones. A risk banner remains permanently on the trading page. The tag itself is also periodically re-checked against indicators such as trading volume, liquidity, and development activity.

The subtle part is the mismatch. With a market cap of roughly $20.9 billion, ranking first on the public-chain income leaderboard, it doesn’t really qualify as a “new project,” yet it received a tag typically reserved for early tokens. I don’t think this means demand is lacking; it feels more like they wrapped a risk buffer around a top asset first.

The frictions are very real. A 90-day cycle risk test, geographic restrictions (users in the US, Canada, the Netherlands, etc. can’t trade the spot pairs; TRY is only available to verified Binance Turkey accounts), and the fact that withdrawals are delayed by one day—these three layers compress in the short term the portion of demand that can actually place orders. Meanwhile, the supply side hasn’t changed. The first day’s activity is more likely that pre-positioned capital is reallocating inventory, rather than new buy orders driving price discovery.

So I’m inclined to think that judging whether this listing “works” based on the first day’s成交 volume is basically meaningless—that’s just noise. What matters is whether Binance’s volume can hold steady a few hours after the open, and whether it truly siphoned off a slice of Hyperliquid’s original on-chain order flow.

A top protocol gets accepted by the largest exchange, yet the price falls first—do you think this is a “sell the news” kind of capital battle, or is the friction from a Seed Tag like this actually playing out in reality?

# Binance Lists Hyperliquid (HYPE)

From September 15 to 20, 6,678 wallets on the XRPL were emptied—about 11.7 million $XRP and nearly $20 million were transferred out, executed in six waves. First, someone manually drained eight wallets holding more than 99,999 XRP each; then a script scanned 1,682 wallets; after that, the next five waves reused the same set of scripts and private keys. Even harsher, the attacker sent 5,001 AccountDelete transactions to delete the accounts entirely, taking the remaining reserve funds as well.

Key point: This isn’t an XRPL vulnerability—every transfer was signed legitimately. What went wrong was the way the private keys were stored, mainly pointing to the D'CENT App wallet. Around 5.6 million XRP have already been bridged to Ethereum for cash-out.

My take is that self-custody has been hyped too much: importing a hardware wallet’s seed phrase into a phone app is like downgrading a cold wallet into a hot one. Once a seed phrase has appeared on a connected device, it shouldn’t be trusted anymore.

Have you ever imported your cold wallet’s seed phrase into a phone app?

A notable signal emerged last week in Citigroup’s profit revision index: the number of analysts cutting U.S. corporate earnings forecasts for the first time in 23 weeks surpassed those raising them, ending the longest cycle of upward revisions since September 2021.

The mechanism matters more than the numbers themselves. Stock prices roughly equal earnings divided by the discount rate, and this round of pressure is coming from both ends at once. On the numerator side, earnings were lowered for consumer staples, discretionary, materials, and financials. Kemper from BNP Paribas Wealth Management pointed directly to rising cost of living and energy prices as the cause. On the denominator side, the Federal Reserve raised rates by 25 basis points this month (the first increase in three years) and signaled that there could be another hike later this year; meanwhile, the 10-year Treasury yield has already moved close to the key threshold of 4.5%.

Historically, when “earnings downgrades + higher rates” occur together, what often follows is valuation compression rather than an earnings collapse. Helen Jewell of BlackRock reminded that the market currently still expects U.S. corporate earnings to grow at a rate of 15% to 18%, and that figure alone leaves plenty of room for downward adjustment. Michael Wilson of Morgan Stanley issued a quantitative warning: if valuations keep slipping and energy prices push policy tightening further, the S&P 500 could fall by as much as 7%.

My view is clear: this looks more like the end of a valuation-expansion phase than the beginning of an earnings downturn. The truly dangerous variable isn’t the pen in analysts’ hands—it’s oil prices. Brent returning above $100 is precisely the direct catalyst for rekindling the tightening expectations.

Let me leave you with a question: if the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield really does move above 4.5%, which type of asset would you cut first—long-duration bonds, growth stocks, or crypto?

#WallStreet profit forecasts turn bearish for the first time in 23 weeks

$ETH From around $1,900 to above $2,800, it has now pulled back to 2,678. The weekly chart is still up 8%. In this pullback, three signals have shown up on-chain.

First, the ETH balance on exchanges is declining—liquidity is being moved toward self-custody and staking. Second, the priority fee is rising—there are truly people competing for block space on-chain; it’s not just transfers. Third, exchange stablecoin reserves are being replenished—money comes first, and the orders follow.

I don’t buy the simplistic equation “on-chain indicators = bullish,” but I do recognize priority fee: it reflects real demand, not wallet shuffling. On Ethereum, those who can continuously pay high priority fees are basically DeFi, L2 settlements, and traders trying to front-run. When that activity returns, it matters more than the price itself.

Risks are also very straightforward: if fees are rising only because a small number of bots are front-running, then this move is fake. How do you usually tell these two situations apart—has real demand returned, or are bots propping up prices against each other?

#Ethereum Breaks Through $2700