CC离照

Binance burned $1.197 billion worth of BNB yesterday, without spending a penny on the secondary market.

At 10:05 UTC on October 19, the BNB Foundation completed its 37th quarterly burn, sending 1,646,196.44 BNB directly to the burn address 0x000000000000000000000000000000000000dEaD. At the time, that was worth approximately $1.1973 billion, bringing the remaining total supply down to 131,512,085 BNB.

The previous burn took place on July 15: 1,615,827.795 BNB, worth approximately $931.7 million.

Break down those two figures, and the picture is less dramatic. The number of coins increased by just 30,368, or 1.88%. The dollar value increased by $266 million, or 28.5%. Of that $266 million, about $244 million came from the price rising from $576.61 to $727.34, accounting for 93.4%. The amount attributable to the larger burn itself was just $17.5 million, or 6.6%.

In other words, $1.197 billion is the valuation at the moment of the burn. The operation did not involve buying coins on the market; the Foundation simply sent BNB directly to the burn address. The official blog puts it plainly: Auto-Burn operates independently of the Binance exchange, and the burn amount is determined by the price of BNB and the number of blocks produced by BSC that quarter. This time, it also added that block production accelerated after the Lorentz and Maxwell upgrades, and the formula's parameters have been adjusted. Changes to the parameters mean historical comparisons between quarters should be taken with a grain of salt.

There are 31,512,085 BNB left to reach the 100 million target, equal to 24% of the current supply. At this quarter's pace of 1.646 million BNB, it would take 19 quarters, or nearly 4.8 years, putting the target around 2031. This figure is more solid than any dollar amount.

When CZ reposted the news, he asked which other chain burns $1.1 billion every quarter. The amount is correct, but it's important to distinguish what it measures. On one side, 1.64 million coins are genuinely gone; on the other, the dollar value fluctuates with the market. The higher the market price, the more expensive the same reduction appears. BNB is currently trading at $728.86, up 0.5% in 24 hours and 3% below its recent high of $750.

To gauge the strength of the deflation, focus on two figures: how many coins were burned this quarter, and how far the supply still is from 100 million. The dollar figure changes every day.

#中本聪国际社区Baoluo币商资本 #币安推出BinanceIntelligence #BNB

🔍 JPMorgan moved deposits onto Ethereum. The door is locked.

On October 19, JPMorgan brought JPM Coin (ticker: JPMD) to the Ethereum mainnet. It’s a deposit token: each token represents one dollar of deposits on the bank’s books. Institutional clients can transfer funds 24/7, settle tokenized assets, and post collateral. It first went live on Base last November, and in January this year the bank said it would also launch on Canton.

Retail investors can’t get their hands on it. Holding and transferring the tokens both require whitelisting, and they can’t be freely traded in DeFi pools. Kinexys processes about $7 billion a day; in April, it set a target of $10 billion in daily flows.

This is a different beast from a stablecoin. A stablecoin is a liability of its issuer: USDT has $183.1 billion outstanding and USDC $72.3 billion, backed by cash and short-term Treasury bills. A deposit token is a bank liability. The money stays on the bank’s balance sheet, with deposit insurance and capital requirements applying as usual. Here, the public blockchain is just the transport layer.

The real value is in connecting both ends. On May 13, JPMorgan Asset Management launched its second tokenized money-market fund on Ethereum, JLTXX—a U.S.-registered government money-market fund. Subscriptions go through Morgan Money, and shares are sent directly to wallet addresses. On launch day, JPMorgan itself invested $100 million, and Anchorage Digital also put money in. The fund buys only U.S. Treasuries and fully collateralized overnight repos, with daily distributions reinvested. The previous fund, MONY, was launched last year as a Rule 506(c) private placement, open only to accredited investors. Its contract address is 0x09864f52B035AE22eE739dFa5c748fA080D07bD8; you can look it up on-chain.

The asset side is on-chain, and now the cash leg is too. The middle layer no longer needs stablecoins.

Regulation is driving this. The stablecoin bill bars issuers from paying interest on reserves, pushing yield out of stablecoins and into money-market funds. Tokenized fund shares can then also serve as collateral. The money earns interest in the fund; deposit tokens move it around.

The timing is spot on, too. Stablecoin regulation takes effect on January 18, 2027, so banks need to build a track record of real-world operation before then. More than 30 institutions are working with Swift to set the rules for blockchain-based ledgers. Citi, BofA, and Wells Fargo are also working together on a tokenized deposit network, though most efforts are still confined to private blockchains. JPMorgan is the first major bank to put deposit tokens on a public-chain mainnet.

The market hasn’t bought the story. As I write this, four sources quote ETH at between 2,404 and 2,408, up 0.6% over 24 hours. BTC is between 81,957 and 82,059, up 0.4%.

This leg represents real demand for public blockchains. Gas, collateral, and settlement all require the native token. But it won’t bring in permissionless hot money: you can look up the contract on-chain, but not see who’s transferring funds.

Even if deposit tokens take off, stablecoins won’t disappear. The same dollar will be recorded once on each of two ledgers; it’s just that someone else will collect the toll.

$BTC $ETH

#中本聪国际社区Baoluo币商资本 #Bitcoin #TokenizedDeposits

There’s always been a scrappy, hands-on way to find smart money on-chain. It works, but it’s tedious. Last week, I turned the whole process into code.

Here’s how the original method works: pick a meme coin that went up several hundred times in the previous cycle, find the first 20 wallets to get in, and filter out the bots. The three to five real people left are the survivors of the last bull run. See what coins they’ve been buying recently. If several surviving wallets buy the same coin, that’s a signal.

The hard part comes after step three. You have to open the transaction history for each of those 20 wallets, spend ages checking each coin, then start all over again next time. GMGN has smart-money labels, but it’s a black box—you don’t know how its wallet pool was put together.

I turned the whole process into an open-source command-line tool with three commands:

First, scan launchpads across the web for new pools. It covers BSC’s four.meme and Flap, Solana’s pump.fun, and pools that have graduated to PancakeSwap and PumpSwap, then filters for active ones by liquidity and transaction count.

Second, enter a contract address to find the earliest real buyers. These are actual trades—regular transfers and airdrops don’t count. Each wallet comes with a transaction hash so you can verify it in a block explorer.

The third command is the one I find most useful. It automatically filters out bot wallets, then builds a profile for each survivor: which coins they’ve bought over the past 30 days, how much they bought, and whether they still hold them. Finally, it aggregates across wallets. If three or more surviving wallets bought the same coin within seven days, it generates a signal.

It supports Ethereum, BSC, and Solana, and uses only free public data sources—no API keys needed.

I was pretty meticulous about a few things. If data can’t be found, it’s marked as unknown—never filled in as zero. Every finding includes a transaction hash for verification. The tests use fixtures recorded from real on-chain responses, and all 47 pass.

The tool is read-only: it doesn’t touch private keys or execute trades. Its output is just a research lead, not a basis for taking action. Meme coins are extremely risky; a signal is still a backtest away from being worth real money.

The code is on GitHub. Search for onchain-smart-money-skill to find it. It’s licensed under Apache-2.0, so feel free to use it.

#中本聪国际社区Baoluo币商资本 #币安推出BinanceIntelligence #On-chainData

⚡ In the space of a week, five U.S. financial giants drew the same line for AI agents: they can look, but they can’t move money

Meta released Muse on September 8. Twelve days later, Amazon blocked it from the checkout page, saying it was using customers’ credentials without authorization. First the shopping cart was shut off. Then the accounts.

From October 13 to 16, earnings reports from several of America’s biggest financial institutions landed in the same week. JPMorgan’s Dimon said he wouldn’t let just any external agent into the company’s systems: “You don’t know if there are going to be thousands of rogue agents.” Citi’s statement was even firmer: third-party AI agents are not allowed to log into customer accounts or make transactions directly through its online banking service. Bank of America’s Moynihan wants a human in the loop; someone has to approve the step that sends money out. Wells Fargo didn’t close the door—it changed its online banking agreement.

Schwab was the most specific. On the company’s October 15 earnings call, CEO Rick Wurster said it was blocking agents that log in on customers’ behalf. The next day, on Bloomberg TV, he put a number on it: he gets a report every week on blocked attempts, with major agents blocked dozens of times. Dozens.

He also offered alternatives. One is Charley, Schwab’s in-house assistant, launched on September 30 and rolling out in stages from October. For now, it can only handle things like changing an address or designating an emergency contact. The other is an MCP server, which lets external large language models connect to check balances and do research; traders in the pilot can also place orders. Transfers are off limits.

The reasoning holds up. If you hand over your password, the bank can’t tell whether there’s a person or a program on the other end, and responsibility becomes hard to untangle if something goes wrong. As Wurster put it: “We can’t control it, the client can’t control it, and if something goes wrong, who’s responsible?”

The numbers add up, too. Schwab reported $3.48 billion in net interest income in the third quarter, with $492.8 billion in customer cash sitting in accounts. JPMorgan, Bank of America and Wells Fargo hold a combined $1.6 trillion in non-interest-bearing deposits. Apollo chief economist Torsten Slok has estimated that at 3%, if agents moved that money into interest-bearing accounts, the three banks would lose about $47 billion in annual revenue. That’s an upper bound, not a forecast.

The security concern is real. So is the aligned incentive: both point in the same direction, and from the outside, it’s impossible to tell which one is driving the decision.

For crypto, the signal is where the door is. An agent with its own wallet doesn’t need to borrow anyone’s password; it can sign a transaction and settle it, with no login step in between. Banks are closing off the credential-based route, not getting rid of agents themselves.

Responsibility hasn’t disappeared. It has shifted from the bank to whoever holds the keys. Hand an agent a hot-wallet key, and Wurster’s words apply to someone else: I can’t control it, and neither can you.

As I write this, BTC is quoted between $82,246 and $82,330 across four sources, up 0.3% over 24 hours. ETH is between $2,417 and $2,420, essentially flat.

Whoever keeps the permission to write is where the money will grow. Banks are keeping that permission at their own counters, so the agent economy can only move along the track that doesn’t require logging in.

$BTC $ETH

#中本聪国际社区Baoluo币商资本 #加密货币 #AI agents

📊 GDP at 4.5%, exports carrying the load, fixed-asset investment down 7.2%

At 10 a.m. today, the National Bureau of Statistics released all the third-quarter data at once. GDP grew 4.5% year on year, recovering from 4.3% in the second quarter and slightly above the 4.4% forecast from the 50 economists surveyed by Reuters. GDP for the first three quarters totaled 107.11 trillion yuan, up 4.6% year on year, while third-quarter growth was 1.2% quarter on quarter.

The headline numbers are passable. The composition isn’t pretty.

Growth was mainly propped up by external demand and industry. September exports reached $447.18 billion, up 36.3% year on year—the highest monthly figure on record. In yuan terms, they rose 29.6%. The September trade surplus was $133.53 billion. Imports and exports for the first three quarters totaled 39.94 trillion yuan, up 18.8%.

There’s almost nothing underneath that. Fixed-asset investment fell 7.2% year on year in the first three quarters, or 4.2% excluding real estate. Real estate development investment dropped 20.6%, a steeper decline than the 19.9% fall in the first eight months. Private investment was down 10.4%. September retail sales totaled 4.24 trillion yuan, up 1.1% year on year—0.7 percentage points faster than in August. The cumulative increase for the first three quarters was also 1.1%. The surveyed urban unemployment rate was 5.2% in September.

Factories, meanwhile, are buzzing. Value added of industrial firms above the designated size rose 5.5% in September. In the first three quarters, high-tech manufacturing grew 14.3% and equipment manufacturing 10.2%. Over the same period, industrial robot output rose 29.1%, lithium battery output 39.5%, and 3D-printing equipment output 62.5%.

Prices tell the story plainly. September CPI rose 0.9% year on year, with core CPI at 1.0%. PPI rose 5.0% year on year, 1.2 percentage points faster than in August, and was also up 1.2% month on month. Factory-gate prices are rising, but retail prices aren’t moving; factories have to absorb the difference themselves. Sheana Yue of Oxford Economics put it bluntly: companies are absorbing cost shocks by squeezing profit margins, rather than passing them on to selling prices.

There aren’t many policy cards left to play. Targeted interest-rate cuts and subsidies for first-home mortgage interest were announced at the end of September. In early October, another 550 billion yuan of unused debt quota was allocated to local governments. Most economists surveyed by Reuters think neither the LPR nor the reserve requirement ratio will budge through the first quarter of next year. The next monthly LPR fixing is tomorrow.

What does this mean for crypto? If China doesn’t stimulate domestic demand, the world loses an engine of reflation. The probability of a U.S. rate hike in December is still above 90%; the odds of no move in October are 84%. The Fed has already entered its pre-meeting quiet period. Gold is trading around $4,180 today, just a step away from $4,200. BTC is quoted at $82,410–$82,530 across three sources, up 0.75% over 24 hours. ETH is at $2,423.

This growth was bought with AI hardware and external demand; domestic demand didn’t contribute. It won’t drive up inflation in China or provide any extra liquidity for global risk assets. The Fed, not Beijing’s stimulus checklist, holds the pricing power over BTC right now. The only effect of this data is to push the “global reflation” trade back another quarter.

$BTC $ETH

#中本聪国际社区Baoluo币商资本 #宏观经济 #ChinaGDP

First, write down the top-ranked entry on each of the three leaderboards, then go back and see why they ranked first.

BEM tops the net inflow leaderboard, with a 24-hour net inflow of negative $6,091 and official flags for wash trading and inflated volume. The one with the most money isn’t in first place: IBS ranks seventh, with a net inflow of $259,800.

The problem is its size. IBS has a market cap of $4.99 and pool depth of $4.19, with a 24-hour change of -100%. Its 16,439 trades were made by 8 addresses. Its risk level is 4, and its risk codes include four flags: inflated volume, unverified contract, abnormal airdrop, and threat intelligence.

There are 69 assets on the full leaderboard: 28 with positive inflows total $306,300, while 41 with negative inflows total $41,900, leaving a net of $264,500. Excluding IBS, the remaining 27 split $46,500, averaging less than $1,722 each.

The social popularity leaderboard has 20 assets totaling 17.05 million; the top six account for 86.9%, while Chinese-language content accounts for just 6.43%. BTC alone accounts for 30.3%. Its official summary says that $115 million in long positions were liquidated in one hour over the weekend, and that a wallet dormant for 12.9 years transferred 248 coins. The second- and third-ranked assets are TSLAB and SPCXB; both summaries end with the same line: “No asset-specific news in the past 24 hours.”

The top six on the traders’ 7-day PnL leaderboard made a combined $1.25 million across 25 people. The first-place trader’s $251,200 included $213,800 from BAKE, or 85.1%. The second-place trader’s earnings came almost entirely from OBI, and 90% of the fifth-place trader’s came from BTCB. The only diversified one was the sixth-place KOL, whose 470 assets had a largest single-asset contribution of 15%.

After looking at all three leaderboards, there’s only one takeaway you can use directly: when you see a number near the top, first check how many addresses are behind it.

#中本聪国际社区Baoluo币商资本 #币安推出BinanceIntelligence #BinanceSquare

Binance has added “likes” to the revenue table, but hasn’t listed a unit price.

The new rules took effect at 8 a.m. today. I read through both the old and new announcements side by side. The extra money is just the surface story: the commission cap for text creators has been slashed from 50% to 20%.

Under the old Bonus Commission, creators across the entire platform were ranked weekly by base commission: the top 30 got an extra 30%, and ranks 31 to 100 got an extra 10%. Even people writing short posts could make the cut if readers placed orders. The new version is only for “the top 100 in the livestream category”; text and chat are marked N/A. In its place is an Engagement Bonus, a weekly bonus pool that counts comments, likes, and follows, with interactions from active users weighted more heavily.

The pool’s total amount hasn’t been disclosed. The announcement says “Binance's sole discretion”—Binance has unilateral discretion. Interactions have been assigned a price, but the price list isn’t in creators’ hands.

Livestream bonuses are clearly spelled out: ranks 1–30 get an extra 30% to 50%, and ranks 31–100 get an extra 10% to 30%. The settlement schedule hasn’t changed: Monday 00:00 UTC to Sunday 23:59 UTC, with USDC paid by 23:59 UTC the following Thursday.

The rules also close off ways to game engagement. Engagement from mutual-follow and mutual-like groups, accounts under the same parent account, accounts using the same device or IP address, and financially linked accounts doesn’t count. Bot-generated engagement doesn’t count, and neither do likes that are later withdrawn or follows that are later undone. The same reader counts only once per post, and following the same person counts only once per week. Last week’s rewards will still be calculated under the old rules and paid on October 21.

Here’s the key point: the platform is starting to pay for “staying” rather than just “placing orders.” But the size of the pool and the weighting aren’t public. Creators can only treat engagement as an outcome, not a metric to game.

#中本聪国际社区Baoluo币商资本 #币安推出BinanceIntelligence #BinanceSquare

🔍 A bill passed 86–11 was stopped by a single executive order

Late Friday night, Trump signed an executive order that suspended nearly all the tariff and sanctions provisions in the Lindsey Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act. It invoked the national-interest waiver built into the bill.

The law was signed and took effect on September 18. After Graham died on July 11, the Senate named the bill after him and passed it 86–11. It required the president to act within 30 days: impose tariffs of up to 100% on the top five countries importing Russian crude oil and natural gas, and the same level of tariffs on the top five entities facilitating sanctions evasion for Russian oil. The effective date was set for October 18.

Two days short, it was stopped.

Trump told reporters the pause was indefinite. Rubio offered a different timeline on Saturday, saying they would take 60 days to assess the economic impact. Same action, two timelines.

Moscow was pleased. Putin’s economic envoy, Dmitriev, wrote on X that this was “an important and truly historic moment.” In Congress, the reaction was different. Rick Scott said, “That’s not the first thing I would do.” Tillis called it “extremely irresponsible,” then asked: “What part of a bill the Senate passed 86–11 did the president and his advisers not understand?” Cornyn said, “Lindsey would be furious.” Graham’s sister Darline, who took his seat, publicly voiced her disagreement on Saturday. Pence called for the measure to be reinstated.

But no one can do anything right away. Both chambers are in recess until after the November 3 election.

The waiver was supposed to bring prices down, but the numbers don’t add up. From Friday night to Sunday, Ukraine launched more than 1,000 drones. An oil terminal in St. Petersburg caught fire; it exports about 120,000 barrels of refined products a day. At the same time, two tankers were attacked 78 nautical miles northeast of Jubail, Saudi Arabia. One was hit by a rocket.

Brent settled at $108.82 on Sunday, down $1.04. WTI was at $101.15, down $0.26. The average price of diesel in the U.S. is still above $6 a gallon. That part hasn’t eased.

For people in crypto, the 100% tariff was secondary. The provision covering “entities facilitating sanctions evasion” was the one with teeth. Payment channels, ship-to-ship transfers, and on-chain settlements all fall under that definition. That provision was suspended along with the tariffs.

Over the past two weeks, the Strait of Hormuz has been burning, tankers have been hit, and a sanctions bill passed 86–11 has been put on hold—yet BTC has moved just 0.5% in 24 hours. As I write this, six price feeds put it between $81,648 and $81,749. ETH is between $2,390 and $2,394.

Sanctions have always been treated as a constant in compliance systems. A list is a list, an address is an address: scan it and get a score. This weekend, they became a variable with a time limit—60 days, renewable or revocable, and subject to another reversal if diesel prices move again. A list can be withdrawn; an address can’t. During these 60 days, every system running off the old lists will have to recalculate its exposure.

$BTC $ETH

#中本聪国际社区Baoluo币商资本 #Bitcoin #GrahamAct

⚡ Sold twice in nine months; the new owner started by taking the mic away from some users

First, the deal. On October 15, Balaji Srinivasan’s Network School bought Farcaster from Neynar. The main app, protocol codebase, and related products all changed hands; the price wasn’t disclosed. The protocol was renamed Network State Protocol.

This was Farcaster’s second change of ownership this year. On January 21, Neynar had only just taken it over from its original developers, Merkle Manufactory. Neynar co-founder Rish said they received several offers before the sale and chose this buyer because “Farcaster needs a different operating model.”

There’s nothing unusual about the deal structure. What’s unusual is what happened on handover day.

Users opened the main app and had to choose whether to accept a “social smart contract.” Accept, get an on-chain NFT as a pass, and keep posting. Decline, and your account is downgraded to read-only. You can take your private keys, assets, follows, and post history with you, then keep using them in another client. The protocol layer remains open, and third-party clients can still connect to it.

There’s just one gateway.

The rules started settling old scores the very same day. A batch of accounts was restricted to read-only, with the explanation that posts from months earlier violated the new rules. Penalties come in three tiers, from a warning at the lightest end to a permanent ban at the harshest. They’re applied retroactively.

The scale is clear. The main app has 250,000 monthly active users, according to co-founder Dan Romero in December 2025. In May 2024, it raised $150 million in a Series A led by Paradigm at a valuation of around $1 billion. Total funding stands at about $180 million; the sale price this time wasn’t included in the announcement.

It gets more interesting from another angle. The buyer isn’t short on cash. On October 9, Network School announced a new funding round at the Network State Conference 2026, valuing it at $2 billion, with Polychain leading and a16z participating. Its headquarters are in Astana, and on July 21 it signed a memorandum of understanding with Kazakhstan’s Ministry of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Development. A buyer valued at $2 billion takes over a social protocol valued at $1 billion, with 250,000 monthly active users, that has been sold twice this year.

The math doesn’t add up easily.

What exactly is this money buying? Anyone can fork the open-source code. But you can’t fork the interface that 250,000 people open every day.

Balaji’s framework is the network state. A state needs people, and people need rules. What went live on day one of the takeover was a residency permit.

On-chain ownership puts the private keys in your hands. The microphone is still in theirs. You can take your identity and data with you, but not the crowd.

As I write this, four BTC price sources put it between $81,951 and $82,066, up 0.6% over 24 hours. ETH is between $2,416 and $2,419, down 0.6%.

Whoever controls the gateway writes the rules. Open protocols don’t change that.

$BTC $ETH

#中本聪国际社区Baoluo币商资本 #加密货币 #SocialFi

📊 JST’s First Year of Burns: 19% of the Supply Went into a Black Hole; Next Round Can Burn Only a Third

On October 17, JustLend DAO announced that the fifth round of buybacks and burns was completed on October 16. A total of 170,723,144 JST was sent to a burn address, accounting for 1.72% of the total supply and worth $23.53 million at the price on the burn date.

Five rounds in one year, burning a cumulative 1.882 billion tokens. The total supply fell from 9.9 billion to 8.018 billion. CoinGecko currently lists the total supply as 8,018,019,892 tokens, matching the announcement.

I added up the cash amounts for all five rounds using the figures in the announcements: $17.72 million in the first round, $21 million in the second, $21.3 million in the third, $34.59 million in the fourth, and $19.62 million this time. That’s $114.2 million in total.

The fourth round’s $34.59 million included a one-time $10.39 million in historical USDJ stability fees. Excluding that, the regular quarterly amount is just over $20 million.

Breaking down this round’s $19.62 million: the announcement says the funds came from two sources—$10.34 million in the remaining JustLend yield and $9.28 million in new net earnings for Q3. Dividing $19.62 million by 170.7 million tokens gives an average price of $0.115. The same announcement values the tokens at $23.53 million based on the price on the burn date. The book value was nearly 20% higher than the actual cash spent.

The structure is what matters. At launch, $59 million in accumulated JustLend yield was set aside: 30% was burned in the first round, and the remaining 70% was burned in stages. The entire amount was used up in this round. The reserves are depleted.

From here on, only recurring revenue remains. Q3 net earnings were $9.28 million. The average for the first five rounds was $22.85 million per quarter—nearly 60% more. The team says the mechanism needs to be upgraded and new businesses such as GasFree need to be incorporated, but no plan has been announced.

The real question is how long the burns can continue. At $9.28 million per quarter, that’s $37.12 million a year. Against a market cap of $1.08 billion, the buyback yield is 3.4%. The 10-year U.S. Treasury yield closed at 5.098% on October 16. Buying this deflationary token offers a lower return than simply holding government bonds.

The price has risen, though. JST was at $0.031 on October 17, 2025, and hit $0.1433 intraday on October 9—more than three times higher. As I write this, it’s at $0.1348. It’s down 1.3% over 24 hours, with a market cap of $1.08 billion. It’s still 30% below its April 2021 high of $0.1933.

Deflation isn’t a money printer. The burns are funded by operating cash flow, and cash flow has a ceiling. In the first year, the $59 million in accumulated reserves sustained quarterly burns in the tens of millions. In the second year, it depends on when initiatives like GasFree actually start contributing to the buyback pool.

$JST $TRX

#中本聪国际社区Baoluo币商资本 #JST #TRON

I dug up the PEPE that surged more than 1,000x in 2023, just to answer one question: are the people who bought it earliest still around?

Starting from the block where the contract was deployed, I scanned backward transaction by transaction to find the 20 earliest real human wallets that bought in. I excluded the contract, the pool, and the deployer, leaving 20 real people.

19 have gone inactive. The longest-inactive wallet hasn’t made a transfer in 1,281 days—it bought in and never opened its wallet again. Another was a bot: 0 seconds between two transactions. You simply can’t beat that.

Only 1 of the 20 is still actively trading.

Its last transaction was on October 3. It made 50 transfers in the past 30 days, averaging 28 hours between them. Nobody knows who it is, but the pattern doesn’t lie: a person is trading manually, not a script.

What has it been buying lately? 8 transactions for ODYSSEY, 4 for ALPHA, and one each for GLAMDOG, SUPRA, and BONE—all tokens with tiny market caps and names most people haven’t heard of.

I’m not saying, “follow its trades.” Getting in early isn’t rare at all. Of the people who bought PEPE earliest, 95% didn’t go on to achieve anything. What’s truly rare is being one of the 5% still at the table three years later.

All these records are publicly available on-chain, and I scanned them transaction by transaction without using any paid tools.

#中本聪国际社区Baoluo币商资本 #BinanceLaunchesBinanceIntelligence

10 chains, one interface. Binance has taken over the most tedious part of integrating DeFi.

On October 16, Binance Wallet launched its DeFi API, initially supporting 10 EVM chains. The docs specifically name BSC, Ethereum, Base, Arbitrum One, Polygon, and others. Solana is said to be coming soon, but no date was given.

It does two things. For position queries, provide an address to get holdings on Aave, Morpho, Venus, and other protocols, broken down by address, protocol, and pool. For transaction building—deposits, withdrawals, adding liquidity, and claiming rewards—it only assembles the unsigned transaction. Signing and broadcasting are handled by the connected wallet. Binance never holds the private keys.

There’s one integration detail to watch. More protocols support position queries than transaction building; those extra protocols are marked as display-only, and their investmentIds may be empty. An app being able to show your positions doesn’t mean it can build the corresponding transactions for you. The official list of supported items must be checked at runtime. Copy the allowlist from the docs and it’ll be out of date before long.

The protocols that initially support transaction building include Aave, Morpho, Venus, Spark, Fluid, and Lido for lending and yield, and Uniswap, PancakeSwap, and QuickSwap for DEXs. Five of the transaction-building endpoints support a simulate parameter, which provides balance changes, gas estimates, and health factor changes before signing. Redemptions also include redeemDelayDays, so users can see how long they’ll have to wait for their funds.

What Binance is taking over is distribution. In the past, building a DeFi entry point meant negotiating with each protocol one by one. Now, you can fill in a single API, use the ready-made list, and bring Binance’s pools and assets into other apps.

Wallet developers no longer need to maintain a team for integrating protocols. Binance becomes the invisible plumbing layer inside someone else’s app.

#中本聪国际社区Baoluo币商资本 #币安推出BinanceIntelligence #BinanceWallet

🔍 Two oil tankers are burning, and both sides say they control the strait

On Saturday, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy issued a statement saying two very large crude carriers had struck mines and caught fire in the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian state television said each ship was carrying around 2 million barrels of crude oil. The IRGC added that the ships had switched off their tracking systems and radar and were using an unapproved route; after the second explosion, that vessel was left unable to move.

There has been no independent confirmation.

There was an earlier version of this three days ago. On October 13, the Singapore-flagged container ship GFS PRIDE caught fire after being hit by munitions in the strait. It sank while under tow on the 14th, and all 21 crew members were evacuated. U.S. Central Command said the IRGC had fired the munitions and that there were no mines in the main shipping lane. The Joint Maritime Information Center said there was no evidence to support the claim about mines, then warned that mining activity was taking place in and around the shipping lane.

The numbers are more concrete than the statements. In a briefing on October 15, JMIC reported that from October 11 to 14, the U.S. military had assisted 121 vessel transits, averaging around 30 a day. Before the war in 2025, the figure was 138 a day. That’s 22%. Central Command said that day that more than 40 ships had transited the strait in the previous 24 hours, and that the U.S. and its regional partners were in control. Same waterway, two sets of figures. The center’s threat level remains SEVERE. On October 11 and 13, there were eight attacks involving munitions: four oil tankers and four container ships. Off Oman’s Port of Sohar, the product tanker PETRO DOLPHIN was hit, and two crew members went missing.

Oil prices moved first. At the close on October 16, Brent was at $109.86, up 3.72%. WTI was at $101.41, up 3.51%.

Reserves are also being drawn down. After its governing board meeting on October 15, the International Energy Agency said that 330 million barrels of the 400 million barrels of emergency stocks pledged in March had already been released. The remaining roughly 100 million barrels will be released faster, including 20 million barrels of diesel. Middle Eastern refined-product exports were 1.9 million barrels a day in September, down from 4.7 million before the war. Total flows through the strait that month were 10.9 million barrels a day. By the end of September, global observed inventories were 509 million barrels below prewar levels. The IEA’s own assessment is that diesel shortages could persist into 2027.

Crypto hasn’t caught this wave. As I write this, four BTC price feeds put it between $81,233 and $81,348, down 0.55% over 24 hours. ETH is between $2,390 and $2,393, down 1.4%.

The war began on February 28. Today is day 232. Oil is what’s being fought over; information is what’s being priced. Videos, statements, claims of control—all of these can be edited. The only thing that can be verified is traffic volume. 30 versus 138. When it gets back into triple digits, that will be a real signal.

$BTC $ETH

#中本聪国际社区Baoluo币商资本 #Bitcoin #Hormuz

⚡ A $124 million roster sweeps a $317 million roster; the league could shut down in six weeks

Thursday night, October 15, at Dodger Stadium. The Brewers took Game 4, 6–4, completing a four-game sweep. The three-peat is over. For the first time since 1982, the Brewers are going to the World Series—a 44-year wait.

On this day last year, same stadium, same opponent. The Dodgers beat the Brewers 5–1 in Game 4 of the 2025 NLCS, sweeping them 4–0. This year, the tables have turned. According to MLB, this is the first time in history that a team has been swept by the same opponent in the postseason, then returned the favor with a sweep a year later.

The money tells the story. The Associated Press’ Opening Day payroll figures, adjusted to the present value of deferred salaries: $124.1 million for the Brewers, 19th in the league. The Rays: $88.7 million, 26th. The Guardians: $62.3 million, last. The Dodgers ranked second at $316.6 million, behind the Mets at $352.2 million. By the competitive balance tax calculation, the Dodgers are at about $413 million.

Each of the Dodgers, Mets, and Yankees has a payroll larger than the combined payrolls of the Brewers, Guardians, and Rays. Those three teams together come to $275.1 million.

There’s one more game in Cleveland tonight. The Guardians lead the Rays 2–1, and rain pushed Game 4 to 8 p.m. tonight Eastern time. Whoever wins, the World Series will feature two teams with payrolls in the bottom half of the league. The last time that happened was 1991, when the Twins beat the Braves. The last small-market team to win it all was the 2015 Royals.

How is the market pricing this series? On Polymarket’s World Series champion contract, on October 10 the Dodgers were at 42.5% and the Brewers at 23.9%. After three games, the Dodgers had fallen to 6.5%, and by the end of the series to 0.1%. The Brewers climbed through 23.9%, 45%, 56.8%, and 64.7%—four steps up. This week, the Guardians rose from 6.1% to 20%, while the Rays fell from 23.3% to 15.9%. Total trading volume across the market was $45.15 million. It moved one game at a time. Never all at once.

The real story comes after the season. The collective bargaining agreement expires late on December 1. This summer, owners brought up a hard salary cap for the first time since 1994—the year players went on strike and the World Series was canceled outright. At the All-Star Game in July, Manfred said that over the long run, spending is highly correlated with who makes the postseason and how far they go. The Brewers are exactly the kind of counterexample the players’ union needs right now.

Competitiveness bought with a budget is rented; when the contract expires, you have to give it back. It’s the same on-chain: deposits built up with incentives move elsewhere the day those incentives stop. Yelich is the only player on the Brewers making more than $20 million ($26 million). The next highest-paid is Woodruff, on the injured list, at $22 million. The rest of the money goes toward the slow work: the draft, the farm system, and trades.

As I write this, four BTC price feeds are between $81,469 and $81,591, down about 1.2% over 24 hours. ETH is between $2,430 and $2,434, down 1.6%.

The World Series starts October 23. November is the real test. How far a $124 million team can go will determine whether owners can keep using “competitive balance” as their excuse.

$BTC $ETH

#中本聪国际社区Baoluo币商资本 #加密货币 #MLB

📊 90,000 AI songs flood platforms in a day. Labels are attached—but self-reported

90,000 songs. In a single day.

Deezer said in July that during June’s peak period, fully AI-generated tracks made up more than half of all new uploads on a given day, averaging 90,000 tracks a month. In 2025, it labeled 13.4 million tracks in total.

Platforms have made their moves within just a few days. On October 13, Deezer added a toggle for listeners to completely remove fully AI-generated tracks, albums, and the artists behind them from search results. The feature will roll out to all markets by the end of the year. On October 14, YouTube Music added labels to its playback page, with plans to expand them to YouTube itself. Apple had already asked labels to apply “AI transparency labels” behind the scenes in March. On August 20, it notified partners that these would become user-visible “Made With AI” labels by the end of the year—and that labeling would be mandatory.

Three platforms, three different approaches. The difference comes down to money.

YouTube only discloses AI involvement; it doesn’t affect whether a track can earn money. Deezer takes a tougher line: fully AI-generated tracks aren’t eligible for royalty payments, and streams generated through manipulation aren’t paid. Since January 2025, it has kept more than 42 million fully AI-generated tracks out of recommendations. Apple doesn’t detect AI itself. Its email was quite explicit: the information is reported by labels and distributors because they “know best how the content was made.”

That line is the weak point of the whole system.

Deezer’s July announcement included a telling figure: as much as 85% of streams on fully AI-generated tracks in 2025 were fraudulent. On the surface, labels are there to inform listeners. Underneath, they’re about deciding how the money gets split.

The streaming royalty pool is fixed and divided according to share of streams. The pool stays the same, while the tracks competing for it have gone from tens of thousands a year to 90,000 a day—making each share thinner. Deezer’s CEO called it “payment dilution.” In crypto terms, that’s inflation.

The on-chain world knows this pattern well. Supply expands without limit while the unit of account stays the same, gradually diluting the holdings of everyone who owns it. The difference is verification. Crypto can audit the ledger; music can only rely on upstream players to report for themselves. Deezer has built its own detection team; Apple openly says it won’t do that. Whoever lies stands to gain—that’s the hole in self-reporting.

So money is flowing through another channel. Deezer has already licensed its detection tools to outside parties, selling them for others to use.

The law is pushing things along from behind. Article 50 of the EU AI Act takes effect on August 2, requiring AI-generated content to carry machine-readable markings, with penalties of up to €15 million or 3% of global turnover. On July 10, IFPI and RIAA joined six other organizations to introduce two voluntary labels—“AI-generated” and “AI-assisted.” The Grammys are among them.

As I write this, BTC is quoted between $81,427 and $81,553 across four sources, down about 0.6% over 24 hours. ETH is between $2,423 and $2,428.

The cost of producing a song is already close to zero. Proving who made it is still expensive. The toll is collected further down the road.

$BTC $ETH

#中本聪国际社区Baoluo币商资本 #AI音乐 #Copyright

The coin with the largest outflow was also the asset that earned the most for the fourth-ranked trader this week.

The capital leaderboard covers 24 hours; the profit leaderboard covers 7 days. Today, the two leaderboards converged on one asset.

It saw a net outflow of $33,255—the largest outflow among 66 assets—yet its price rose 145.6% over the same period.

The trader ranked No. 4 made $97,400 this week, with $66,000 from this asset, accounting for 67.8% of the total.

Of 687 trades, 642 were exits and only 45 were entries. The trader touched 11 assets in all and had a 90.9% win rate.

The price is rising. The tokens are moving out.

Overall, the capital leaderboard showed a net inflow of $56,200. Thirty-six assets had net inflows totaling $134,200, while 30 had net outflows totaling $78,000.

The top-ranked asset alone took in $114,500—85.4% of all positive inflows. The other 65 assets combined accounted for just $19,600. It launched today, with a market cap of $14.17 million and 24-hour trading volume of $86.65 million. It carries all three flags: wash trading, unverified contract, and suspicious airdrop. The top 10 addresses hold 72.6% of its supply.

The top three on the profit leaderboard show a different kind of extreme.

One coin, one day. Of the top trader’s $242,300 in profits, 88.2% came from a single asset: $266,000 on October 13, followed by a $24,000 loss on October 15. The second-ranked trader has the official Smart Money label and total profits of $127,000, with $128,800 from a single asset—also on October 13.

The conversation tells the opposite story.

Discussion volume among the top 20 trending assets was 19.989 million, down 40% from yesterday on the same basis. The Chinese-language share jumped from 5.84% to 19.44%.

Of the 3.885 million Chinese-language posts, 2.249 million focused on the second-ranked asset, or 57.9%.

Its official summary says the posts were about the launch of Tesla’s Roadster, not the asset itself.

Money is concentrated in single assets, flowing in and out. Conversation is concentrated in one place, too. What’s really shrinking is the denominator behind both leaderboards.

#中本聪国际社区Baoluo币商资本 #币安推出BinanceIntelligence #币安

🔍 A stablecoin entered a bank’s core ledger. The token price didn’t move.

On October 15, New Jersey’s Cross River Bank announced that it had integrated Ripple’s dollar stablecoin RLUSD into its proprietary core system, COS, with settlement on the XRP Ledger.

The key is a single API. Businesses don’t have to build their own on-chain infrastructure to move funds between dollars and RLUSD, make cross-border payments, or transfer funds outside banking hours. ACH, wire transfers, and real-time payments are all on one platform. Cross River says RLUSD has become a new payment rail.

The bank is an FDIC-insured commercial bank that provides back-office services for fintech companies. Its customers are businesses. By opening up its core system, it lets those business customers send and receive stablecoins directly.

Here’s the scale: RLUSD has just over $2.4 billion in circulation (Ripple’s transparency page put it at $2.406 billion on October 15; DefiLlama at $2.433 billion; a company release once rounded it to $2.5 billion), with more than $1 billion on the XRP Ledger. It’s issued by Ripple subsidiary Standard Custody, which holds a New York limited-purpose trust charter and is regulated by the state Department of Financial Services. Reserves are held in segregated accounts, with monthly attestations by an independent accounting firm. That disclosure reported $2.535 billion in reserves, $128 million more than the amount in circulation.

It’s tiny compared with the overall market: USDT at $183.5 billion and USDC at $72.6 billion. RLUSD is 1.3% the size of USDT. That’s all.

The XRP Ledger’s selling points are speed and low cost: 3 to 5 seconds per transaction, fees under one cent, and $1.3 trillion in cumulative settlement volume.

Both sides were direct in their remarks. Cross River’s head of fintech banking, Adam Goller, said businesses shouldn’t have to work with several providers just to move money across borders. RippleX senior vice president Markus Infanger’s point was that stablecoins only matter if they’re integrated into the banking infrastructure businesses already use.

The limits are spelled out in the official announcement itself. The service is currently available in only a handful of U.S. states. That’s the extent of it.

As I write this, three BTC price sources put it between $81,683 and $81,796, down around 0.6%. ETH is between $2,424 and $2,427. XRP is at $1.3116, down 1.9%, underperforming the broader market.

The rail is connected. The token didn’t move. That’s it.

A bank using a stablecoin as a payment rail and a bank propping up its price are two different things. To see whether this rail can actually handle the traffic, we’ll need to see whether businesses move cross-border payments onto it—and which coin the next bank adopts.

$BTC $ETH

#中本聪国际社区Baoluo币商资本 #Bitcoin #Stablecoin

#nil $NIL @Nillion Super excited about $NIL and its inaugural launch, Dusk, on the Ethereum mainnet! As the pioneer of Blind Compute, @Nillion is building the essential internet base layer for all private data.
What I love most about their core product, Covenants, is how it enables secure, decentralized computation without exposing sensitive data. With Dusk now live and Nillion’s 7-era roadmap progressing, I am highly anticipating the deeper blind compute capabilities and seamless developer experiences. Privacy is moving from niche to absolute necessary! ⚔️ #NIL

⚡ Quantum error correction made major breakthroughs this week; Bitcoin’s answer is still on testnet

On October 15, Google Quantum AI published a result on its blog. So-called “magic state cultivation” worked on the Willow chip, with an error rate about 40 times lower than without it and T-state logical fidelity reaching 99.99%. The paper was published in Science the same day.

Magic states are the raw material quantum computers need for universal computation. They’re consumed after use. One estimate says a quantum computer could spend as much as 95% of its computing power producing them, leaving little for actual work. The problem was identified back in 2004; Google proposed the cultivation approach in 2024, and only this year verified it on a real chip.

A few days earlier, on October 2, Google Quantum AI, DeepMind, and MIT posted a paper on arXiv. Their approach breaks the processor into small, planar modules, then connects them using sparse, static boundaries to implement a semi-hyperbolic code. The physical-qubit overhead is reduced by more than tenfold compared with the standard surface code; coverage of the work reported a reduction of more than thirtyfold for the best-performing configuration.

What does any of this have to do with Bitcoin? The same group published a white paper on March 31. Its authors are Ryan Babbush, research director at Google Quantum AI, and Hartmut Neven, vice president of engineering. They compiled two sets of circuits running Shor’s algorithm to attack ECDLP-256—the elliptic curve Bitcoin and most other blockchains rely on. One requires fewer than 1,200 logical qubits plus 90 million Toffoli gates; the other, fewer than 1,450 logical qubits plus 70 million Toffoli gates. Under assumptions about a flagship superconducting processor, the run would take minutes, with a threshold of fewer than 500,000 physical qubits.

That’s about a 20-fold reduction from Google’s own 2019 estimate. They also published verification materials for a zero-knowledge proof, so third parties can check the conclusion without seeing the attack details.

500,000 versus 105. Willow has 105 physical qubits. A difference of more than 4,000 times.

Bitcoin’s answer is called BIP-360, authored by Hunter Beast, Ethan Heilman, and Isabel Foxen Duke. It proposes a transaction output type called P2MR, structurally similar to Taproot, that removes the quantum-vulnerable key path. In February, the proposal entered the official BIP repository. On March 20, BTQ’s Bitcoin Quantum testnet v0.3.0 ran a complete implementation with five post-quantum Dilithium signature variants. The network has more than 50 miners and has produced over 100,000 blocks.

What it doesn’t solve is just as clear. The mainnet isn’t live. BIP-360 is only a draft, and migration is entirely voluntary. Nothing has changed for the coins in old addresses whose public keys have long been exposed on-chain.

As I write this, BTC is quoted between $82,450 and $82,590 across four price sources, up about 2.0% in 24 hours. ETH is between $2,468 and $2,475, up about 4.7%.

Crypto prices haven’t paid any attention to this today. What to watch is when BIP-360 moves from the repository to mainnet, and how much further that 500,000 figure drops next year.

$BTC $ETH

#中本聪国际社区Baoluo币商资本 #加密货币 #Quantum computing

📊 His final remarks before the rate-setting meeting—and Warsh wouldn’t give an inch

At 11:30 this morning, Fed Chair Warsh spoke with IMF Managing Director Georgieva at the IMF’s annual meeting in Bangkok. It was his final public appearance before the October 27–28 rate-setting meeting. Starting tomorrow, the Fed enters its blackout period.

The market wanted to know whether rates would go up in October. He gave no answer. “I don’t prejudge meetings,” he replied. Then came an even firmer line: “I don’t think I should say what I’ll do at the remaining meetings in 2026.” He mentioned only two dates—October and December—saying those were “the moments to make judgments.” That was all he said.

Warsh only took over as chair on May 22 this year. Since then, he’s consistently pushed for the same thing: the Fed should say less. How much less? He’s already put together five working groups, one specifically focused on communications. In his words, the market should watch the game itself, instead of constantly keeping its eyes on the referee.

But the latest data aren’t on his side. September’s PPI rose 1.3% month over month, the biggest monthly increase since March 2022. It was up 6.3% year over year, the highest since December 2022. Energy rose 10.8%, and gasoline jumped 20.3%. Core PPI, excluding food and energy, also rose 0.7%—twice the forecast. Service prices rose 0.8%, while transportation and warehousing climbed 3.4%. This isn’t just about energy. The previous day’s September CPI, at 3.7%, also came in hotter than expected.

Normally, data like this would raise the odds of a rate hike. Instead, the opposite happened. After the CPI report, the probability of an October hike fell from 50% to 25%–29%. The 10-year Treasury yield dropped to 5.09%, a three-week low. The dollar index fell below 102.

Why isn’t the market buying it? An energy shock can’t be fixed by raising rates. Higher interest rates won’t make more oil appear. So what is the market looking at? September nonfarm payrolls grew by just 29,000. That’s it. Retail sales don’t hold up under closer scrutiny either. September’s 0.8% monthly gain looked stronger than expected, but gas stations accounted for more than half of it. Excluding gasoline, growth was just 0.2%; the control group rose only 0.1%. After adjusting for prices, real core consumption was negative.

As for December, no one’s really betting against a move. Futures pricing and most major banks point to at least one more hike before year-end, with the odds set at around 90%.

As I write this, four BTC price feeds show prices between $81,915 and $82,023, up 1.2% over 24 hours. ETH is at $2,436. Gold rose 1.3% overnight to $4,156, returning to a two-week high.

Gold moved; Bitcoin didn’t. That gap is the key question over the next six weeks. If the path of holding steady in October and acting in December takes hold, those six weeks in between will be the most comfortable window for risk assets. The less Warsh says, the more room the market has to set its own prices. And the greater the volatility.

$BTC $ETH

#中本聪国际社区Baoluo币商资本 #宏观经济 #FederalReserve