交易的芋圆

ETH touched 2807 but quickly retreated to 2780: Upgrades bring capacity expansion—and also compatibility exam questions. I’m waiting for a pullback

I’m slightly bullish on the structure, but I won’t chase after this spike and pullback. The Ethereum Foundation has a reminder for Glamsterdam that’s easy for “capacity expansion” positive news to overshadow: EIP-8037 and 8038 plan to reprice gas used for state creation and state access, bringing fees closer to the actual resource cost of running on nodes. The Foundation replayed historical mainnet transactions under the new rules and found that most contracts aren’t affected, but a small number of contracts that rely on fixed gas assumptions may need higher gas limits; in very rare cases, even increasing the limit could still lead to failed execution. Programs that hard-code a 2300 gas transfer amount, fixed gas for external calls, branch logic that depends on gasleft(), or programs that use pre-signed transactions with a fixed gas limit are especially worth checking.

This doesn’t mean the mainnet repricing has changed today, and it also doesn’t mean all transaction fees will rise at the same time. The Foundation states that the repricing is currently running in development nets; the next step is to pass public testnets first. Contract teams can check affected addresses and reproduce it on the Platåberget testnet, and wallets and RPC services also need to update their gas estimations. Capacity expansion should make sure nodes can bear the sustained growth in state—not just raise the block gas limit while ignoring the resource costs. But if applications haven’t fixed those hard assumptions before the upgrade, localized transaction failures will become a real user-experience issue. For ETH’s mid-term network quality, this is an engineering progress worth tracking; for tonight’s coin price, it’s not a guaranteed ticket to profit.

OKX’s public ETH perpetual just touched $2806.96, currently around $2778.6. After the 15-minute surge with increased volume, the next candle falling back from around 2803 back into the 2780 area suggests兑现 above 2800. The 24-hour range is 2607—2807. Funding rate is about +0.0023%, with open interest around 610,400 ETH and a notional value of about $1.697 billion. A 02:51 old post asked for a stop-the-fall and recovery between 2740—2746 back to 2756; the first observation area 2768—2772 and the second observation area 2790—2810 were both later touched as well. This confirms the price path—not that I had real fills or profits. Since the target range has already been touched, I have to redraw my entry and invalidation lines.

If I were trading for myself, I’m currently at 0 positions waiting for confirmation. If 2766—2775 pulls back with shrinking volume and forms a stop-the-fall, and then the 15-minute chart reclaims around 2790, I would try a spot long using at most 2% of principal. First watch 2800—2807, then 2825—2840; at 2807 I cut one-third. If it falls back and drops 2765 by half, and if the 15-minute candle closes below 2752, I close everything. If price breaks above 2807 with volume directly without a pullback, I won’t chase. If 2800 is rejected again and price breaks below 2752 with volume, then fails on the retest near 2765, then I’d try a low-leverage short with at most 0.5% of principal, targeting 2738 and 2715, with a stop-loss if it reclaims above 2790. For the engineering upgrade, watch the testnet results and compatibility reports; for short-term trading, watch price action and retreat discipline—don’t mix the two.

$ETH

The above is only my personal market observation and does not constitute investment advice.

Circle lets institutions borrow BTC for USDC: not having to sell coins doesn’t mean there’s no risk. After it surged to 87,300, I won’t chase.

My view on this news is: the financing on-ramp has indeed added one more option for institutions, but after BTC accelerated to above $87,000, I’m not treating product launch as a buy point. On September 21, Circle announced that eligible Circle Mint institutional customers can deposit native BTC, mint 1:1 backed cirBTC, and then use it as collateral on a supported third-party lending market to borrow USDC; the loan returns to the Circle Mint balance. The process currently covers Arbitrum and Ethereum, with the first integrated lending protocol being Morpho. Aave is a future support plan, not something already integrated. Binance’s official news also reported the launch, but what truly determines the terms and liquidation is the specific lending market—not Circle guaranteeing a fixed interest rate.

The significance of this route is that treasuries can obtain dollar liquidity without selling BTC, reducing the need for multiple manual switches between custodians, wrapped assets, lending protocols, and institutional accounts. According to Circle, cirBTC reserves are independently verifiable on-chain; the underlying BTC is custodied by Circle National Trust. This explains why institutions might be willing to explore it, but it’s not risk-free. Changes in market utilization can alter borrowing rates; the collateral ratio and liquidation threshold may also be adjusted. If BTC drops sharply, the debt is denominated in USDC while the collateral value falls—so the pressure to top up or get liquidated still exists. The audience is eligible institutions, not a “free dollar” for all retail traders. What’s worth tracking next is the actual outstanding borrowing balance, collateral size, interest rates, and liquidation history—not just the headline of a number announcement.

The market is already hot: OKX publicly listed the latest BTC perpetual at about $87,326, with a 24-hour range of $80,541—$87,374. The funding rate is roughly +0.0037%, with about 30,095 BTC open interest and a notional value of around $2.628 billion. The most recent 15-minute candlestick (not yet completed) has surged from about $86,700 to $87,374, with clearly increased volume. This is price action; it can’t prove that this trade was driven solely by the Circle news. At 02:31, what I wrote was: hold $85,300—$85,500; only if that’s held and then we rebound to $85,850 would I consider spot positions. My first observation zone is $86,320, and my second observation zone is $86,800—$87,300. Now that price has already broken through those ranges, the old planned observation path has been validated by price action—but that doesn’t mean my plan executed trades or that I made money as projected. After crossing the target zones, the new buy point must be recalculated.

If I were trading it myself, I would be at 0 position and wait for a pullback. Only if $86,800—$87,000 holds on reduced volume and the 15-minute chart closes back above $87,200, would I use at most 2% of principal for a spot long, observing $87,375—$87,600 and $88,200—$88,800. At $87,600, I’d cut a third; if it falls back to $86,700 and that level weakens further, I’d cut half. If the 15-minute closes below $86,250, I’d exit everything. If it simply pumps directly above $88,000 without pulling back, I’d rather miss it than chase. Conversely, if after the high it falls on increased volume and breaks below $86,250, then fails on the retest at $86,800, I’d only try a short with the lowest leverage—up to 0.5% of principal—with targets at $85,600 and $85,050. Once it reclaims $87,200, I’ll close the short. The news is just a research lead; risk control is still determined by price invalidation levels.

#CircleLaunchesInstitutionalBTCBackedBorrowing $BTC

The above is only my personal market observation and does not constitute investment advice.

THORChain puts ZEC ahead of XMR: the mainnet hasn’t opened the gate yet—XMR rebounds to 584, and I’m not chasing

Right now I’m watching XMR. I won’t add to my position just because the cross-chain narrative is heating up again. In the developer interview summary on THORChain dated September 17, they said the stability-focused sprint has ended, and the team has returned to its normal release cadence. The current work sequence is to get Zcash onto the mainnet first, and then push Monero next. The two most important words here are “sequence.” Even if the XMR code is ready, it doesn’t mean mainnet swap is already open—and it doesn’t mean there’s a guaranteed go-live date tomorrow. The developer also mentioned that enabling it requires node operators to coordinate. Ideally, after a vault rotation, operators would be given an approximately three-day notice window. After that, they plan a small-scale soft launch and use several weeks to observe the quality of the running system.

Why am I taking this detail seriously? If native cross-chain XMR truly runs stably, it could let users complete swaps without relying on centralized custody or wrapped assets, theoretically improving liquidity entry points. But in the beginning, opening, node support, order-book depth, and slippage all need to be verified one by one. Even the team has reminded people not to make large transactions during the soft launch; I certainly won’t swap “technically possible” or “testnet can trade” into “mainnet is mature and liquidity is sufficient.” I previously checked that the official pool page still said “XMR swaps are coming.” This time, the interview summary is more specific about proceeding with ZEC first, then XMR later, and about node coordination—but it still doesn’t provide evidence that anything has actually been live. What’s truly worth tracking is: mainnet announcements, the node enablement window, pool depth, fixed-amount swap slippage, and whether trade execution continuity holds up in reality.

In the market, KuCoin has publicly shown the latest成交 for XMR perpetual at around $584.42. In the 02:09 post I wrote, my plan was to stop the decline and recover 557–562 and only consider trying a long on the spot if price reclaimed 568, with targets at 574–576 and 580. Now the price has indeed bounced past those observation levels, which suggests that later the old path happened—but that’s only a conditional plan. It doesn’t mean I actually got filled or profited. After the last sharp drop, the rebound to around 584 means the short-term move has already left the low zone. If I treat an as-yet-unlaunched cross-chain function as a reason to chase, the distance to entry and the stop-loss would look pretty ugly.

If this were my own trading, I’d still be at 0 position right now. Only if 581–584 pull back on shrinking volume and hold, and a 15-minute candle closes above 588, then I would use at most 1.5% of principal to try a spot long. I’d first look at 592–596, then 602–608. If it hits 596, I’d cut one-third. If it drops back to 580, I’d cut by half. If a 15-minute candle closes below 574, I’d close everything. If price directly breaks above 596 with increased volume but doesn’t pull back, then I would only watch and not chase. Another scenario: if 574 breaks down on volume and the rebound to 580 fails, then I’d consider a low-leverage short using at most 0.4% of principal, targeting 568 and 560. If it then reclaims 585, I’d immediately stop loss. If the node enablement message ends up being delayed, I’ll reassess—rather than force myself to carry losses with the old narrative.

$XMR

The above is only my personal market observation and does not constitute investment advice.

BSC will make room for payments: the Q4 plan isn’t live yet: BNB around 799—I’ll keep waiting

Let me state my stance clearly first: this message is broadly positive for payment experience on BNB Chain, but it’s not an upgrade that’s already effective today, and it’s not a reason to chase price just because you see the words “reserved channel.” On September 1, BNB Chain announced the BSC Payment Lane, with plans to launch in Q4 of 2026. It aims to address a real-world problem: when the network is congested, low-Gas transfers that are sensitive to time—such as merchant payments, remittances, and exchange withdrawals—can get pushed behind high-tips speculative trades. Officially, payment transactions show up in about 99.6% of BSC blocks, so this is a genuine, high-frequency use case.

The mechanism isn’t about opening a separate private lane. During congestion, the protocol will reserve the minimum Gas amount for eligible payment transactions—expanding when it’s busy and shrinking when demand drops. This is a “floor,” not a “ceiling.” Payments can still use more capacity, and they’ll still be ordered by tips. Native BNB transfers, USDT, USDC, and audited tokens approved via governance can enter. DEX trading, general transaction ordering, and MEV logic remain unchanged—wallets and users don’t need to switch transaction types. Before launch, validators will vote on the reserved size, congestion thresholds, and the adjustment speed. In other words, the hard facts are: the plan has been published for Q4, but the parameters and governance outcomes haven’t been implemented yet.

This is worth watching because what stablecoins and merchant payments fear isn’t usually ordinary fees—it’s uncertainty during peak times. If the Payment Lane can confirm transactions reliably under congestion, service quality for exchanges, wallets, and payment apps will improve. But it won’t magically create payment demand. The on-chain transfer volume, stablecoin net inflows, merchant retention, and fee revenue will be the real acceptance metrics afterward. I won’t directly equate infrastructure optimization with BNB inevitably going up.

As for price action: OKX’s BNB perpetual contract is at about $799.2. The 24-hour range is 762–807.4. Funding rate is around +0.01%. Open interest is about 68.7k BNB, with a notional value around $54.93 million. In the 01:47 post I wrote that I expected consolidation at 794–797, then after 15 minutes reclaiming 800.5 we’d look at 803.5 and 807–810. The price did reach 807.4, but it’s now back below 800 again, which shows the old path was validated by market action—but the continuity isn’t good enough. I can’t turn the observation plan into a completed trade or claimed profit.

If I were trading on my own, I’d still be at 0 position and waiting. Only if 797–799 holds on decreasing volume, and after 15 minutes price reclaims 801.5, I would use 2% of principal to spot long—first watching 804–805, then 807.4–810. If it drops to 805, I’d cut one-third. If it falls back to 799, I’d cut another half. If after 15 minutes it closes below 795.5, I’d exit everything. If instead price shows strong volume holding above 807.5 and then retests 804.5 without breaking it, I’d add up to another 1%. If it drops back to 802, I’d close the follow position. Conversely, if 795.5 breaks down on strong volume and the retest fails around 799, I’d use at most 0.5% of principal to try a low-leverage short—targets 790 and 786. If it immediately reclaims 801, I’d stop out. If the direction is wrong, I’ll leave—no using the Q4 plan to justify short-term losses.

$BNB

The above is only my personal market observation and does not constitute investment advice.

ZetaChain vote passes moving to Solana: true migration is still one vote short — the second vote: SOL at 118, I won’t chase

First, my stance: this message is somewhat positive for Solana’s ecosystem narrative, but it doesn’t give a direct reason to buy more at the current SOL price. The Binance Square trending topic #ZetaChainVotesToMigrateZETAToSolana corresponds to ZetaChain governance phase one results. Public governance data cross-checked by multiple sources shows: the proposal received 99.4% approval, participation rate 58%, exceeding the 40% legal threshold. The direction is to gradually stop independent L1, and migrate ZETA 1:1 into Solana native SPL tokens, with the codebase and operational focus shifting to the Anuma application.

The most critical boundary is this: passing the first vote doesn’t mean the chain is already shut down, nor does it mean the token migration is already complete. The existing ZetaChain is still running; staking and validator processes will continue temporarily. A second governance proposal is still required to determine the snapshot height of balances, the stop-chain block, claim mechanics, exchange swap arrangements, and the process for exiting chain assets. The total supply plan remains unchanged, but switching from 18-decimal precision to SPL’s 9-decimal precision also means even very small balances will require rounding treatment. Writing today’s news as “migration is completed” would blur together governance authorization, technical execution, and user delivery into one indistinct thing.

We also need to cool down expectations about SOL’s real impact. If a project abandons building its own Cosmos chain and chooses Solana, that does show Solana’s execution environment, liquidity, and application infrastructure are attractive to the team. Once ZETA becomes SPL, trading and app interactions will use SOL to pay network fees. But such fee demand is relatively small compared with SOL’s overall market size. Only if the migration goes smoothly, Anuma users truly stick around, and on-chain trading remains active could it possibly create sustained on-chain incremental demand—not “99.4% approval” automatically equals a SOL buy order.

On the board, SOL is around $117.8, with a 24-hour range of $109.01–$119.1. OKX perpetual funding rate is about +0.0072%, with open positions of roughly 3.108 million SOL and a notional value of about $366 million. In the last cycle, I asked to hold $117.1–$117.5 and reclaim $118; price briefly touched $118.49, but the first target at $118.8 has not been reached. Since price has now returned below $118, I can only say the confirmation was temporary and follow-through is insufficient—I can’t call it an actual filled trade or profit.

If I’m trading it myself, I’m currently keeping a 0 position. Only if there’s a pullback to $117.2–$117.6 on shrinking volume and then a reclaim above $118.15 on the 15-minute chart, I would use 2% of principal to spot buy, targeting $118.8–$119.1 and $120.2. At $118.8 I would cut one-third first; if it drops back to $117.55 I would cut the other half. If the 15-minute close is below $116.9, I would exit the rest. If instead it trades back above $119.1 on volume and then revisits $118.5 with no break, I would at most add another 1%. If it falls back and breaks below $117.9, I’ll close the follow position at break-even (at $117.9). On the other hand, if $116.9 breaks below on volume and the retest back above $117.6 fails, then I would consider a low-leverage short using at most 0.5% of principal, with targets at $116 and $115.2, and I’d stop out immediately after it reclaims $118.2. If the second vote is delayed, exchange coordination is obstructed, or the migration details are unclear, I will reduce the weight of this narrative.

#ZetaChainVotesToMigrateZETAToSolana $SOL

The above is only personal market observation and does not constitute investment advice.

Zebra 6.3.0 strengthens node security: this is not a price catalyst. If ZEC breaks below 1486, I’ll step back.

Let me state my stance first: I’m broadly positive about the project’s maintenance, and I remain cautious about the current price—so I’ll wait and observe. When I scanned Zcash’s official channels today, the Zebra release page from the Zcash Foundation still lists 6.3.0 as the latest official version as of August 10. This timing must be made clear—it’s not a sudden news release tonight, nor can it be used to explain the drop you’re seeing right now. But as a security progress update for Zcash’s current network node software, it deserves to be broken out on its own, not just followed by the candlestick chart.

6.3.0 isn’t a marketing feature. The official change log shows it adds DNS seeds for both the mainnet and testnet, supplements the getdeprecationinfo interface, and improves synchronization progress when approaching the chain tip. The security-critical part is this: IPv4-mapped-to-IPv6 inbound addresses are normalized, preventing the same node from bypassing disconnect-by-IP rules and connection limits. If a malicious node uses rewritten blocks with coinbase height to delay the discovery of the chain tip, Zebra will immediately re-request and re-score it. Blocks outside the synchronization window will no longer wrongly penalize innocent download nodes. Nodes that propagate consensus-inactive blocks will also be re-recorded as misconduct. There’s also the constraint that the total value pool must not exceed MAX_MONEY. My understanding is that these changes improve node resilience to interference, synchronization reliability, and operational determinism—not automatically create spot demand for ZEC.

The market has already given another answer: ZEC is currently quoted around $1479, with a 24-hour range of 1461.37—1572, pulling back about 6% from the high. On OKX, the perpetual funding rate is about -0.0021%, with positions around 120,800 ZEC and a notional value of roughly $179 million. In my previous round, I asked for 1486—1492 to hold, and to re-collect 1505 before I would try going long with a small amount. Later, 1486 and then 1482 were both lost in succession, so the old long thesis is invalid. This only shows that the exit condition was triggered by the market—it doesn’t mean I actually opened a position or made money.

A negative funding rate means shorts are paying, but it’s not, by itself, a buy-the-dip signal.

If I were trading myself, I’d stay with 0 positions right now. Only if 1468—1474 stops falling again, and then a 15-minute volume surge closes back above 1488, I would use 1.5% of principal to try a spot long. The first target would be 1498—1505, then 1518. At 1498, I’d cut one-third; if it falls back to 1476, I’d cut half again. If the 15-minute chart closes below 1460, I’ll exit everything. If it directly stands above 1505 and then retests 1494 without breaking it, I’d add at most 0.5%. If 1486 is lost, I’ll immediately close the follow-on position. Conversely, only when 1461 breaks down on heavy volume and the retest of 1474 fails, would I consider a low-leverage short using at most 0.4% of principal. Targets would be 1448 and 1435. If it reclaims 1483, I’ll stop out immediately.

I’ll record the project’s security updates, but entry must be confirmed by price structure. If Zebra later releases new security advisories or we see abnormal node upgrade rates, I’ll reduce risk first and won’t average down based on emotion.

$ZEC

The above is only my personal market observation and does not constitute investment advice.

ETH upgrades are not launching today: Glamsterdam is still on the Devnet—I’ll continue waiting around 2750

First, my stance: I’m leaning more toward ETH’s mid-term upgrade path being bullish; for the short term, I’m still on the sidelines. I won’t treat the roadmap as a ready-made buy order.

The latest roadmap page on ethereum.org is very clear: Glamsterdam is currently in the devnet testing stage. The next step is the Sepolia testnet fork on October 6; the mainnet only gives an “expected Q4 2026” with the exact date not yet confirmed. The page also specifically reminds that while the scope has been frozen, mainnet-related changes are still possible before launch, and the Meta EIP is still a draft.

The most common market mistake is turning “scheduled for an upgrade” into “already live,” then directly converting technical expectations into a coin-price target.

The value of this upgrade isn’t low. One of the core parts is ePBS, which incorporates the handoff between proposers and builders into the protocol. According to official explanations, it can expand the execution-payload propagation window from about 2 seconds to about 9 seconds, reducing reliance on third-party relays. Another feature, Block-Level Access Lists, will pre-list the state dependencies involved in transactions, paving the way for parallel reads and execution and enabling faster synchronization. At the same time, state creation and access will be repriced—aiming to control database bloat rather than simply pushing the Gas limit higher and higher.

In simple terms, this is a combined engineering effort for scaling, censorship-resistance, and node sustainability. But for it to matter in practice, three things must all happen: the devnet works, clients achieve compatibility, and the mainnet date gets confirmed.

On the screen, ETH is currently around $2,749, with a 24-hour range of 2,607–2,768.57. OKX perpetual funding rate is about +0.0018%, with open positions around 627,700 ETH and a notional value of about $1.725 billion. After the price stands above 2,700, the heat is still high, but the funding rate hasn’t spiraled—suggesting sentiment is bullish, yet not broadly overcrowded.

In my previous plan, I asked for 2,750–2,755 to absorb and then for a 15-minute reclaim of 2,762. Even though price spiked to 2,768.57, it didn’t complete a stable confirmation; it then pulled back to around 2,733. So the old plan can’t be written as already executed, and definitely can’t be claimed as profitable.

If I were trading on my own, I’m currently keeping a 0 position. I’ll only use 2% of my principal for a spot test long if 2,740–2,746 show shrinking volume and stop falling, and then the 15-minute candle reclaims above 2,756. First target: 2,768–2,772; second: 2,790–2,810. If it touches 2,768, I’ll cut one-third. If it drops back to 2,745, I’ll cut half. If the 15-minute closes below 2,732, I’ll exit everything.

If instead it directly stands above 2,769 with volume and then retests 2,758 without breaking it, I’ll add at most 1%. If it falls back to 2,748, I’ll close the follow position immediately. Conversely, only when 2,732 breaks down on high volume and the retest back to 2,745 fails, will I use up to 0.5% of principal to try a low-leverage short; targets are 2,715 and 2,695. A renewed reclaim of 2,755 is the stop-loss.

A successful fork on Sepolia can only increase the probability of mainnet launch, but it can’t replace price confirmation. If the test is delayed or the scope changes again, I’ll lower my position expectations and keep waiting.

$ETH

The above is only my personal market observations and does not constitute investment advice.

US 10-year Treasury yield pushes toward 5% again: BTC stays around 85.8K—I'm not chasing this resilience

Let me state my stance upfront: slightly bullish in the short term, but I’m not chasing it now. The Binance Square hot topic #US10YearTreasuryYieldNears5% is worth discussing, because this isn’t just a number that affects bonds. The latest daily yield curve released by the U.S. Department of the Treasury shows that on September 18, the 10-year Treasury yield was 4.93%; the 20-year and 30-year yields were 5.38% and 5.34%, respectively. The Fed’s H.15 data also shows that the 10-year yield once briefly hit 5.01% on September 16, and was still at 4.94% on September 17. So “pushing toward 5%” is a fact supported by official data; it’s not just a headline driven by sentiment. But keep in mind that Treasury data are end-of-day values, and you can’t treat them as real-time traded prices at this moment.

The transmission to BTC is quite direct: the higher the risk-free rate, the higher the opportunity cost of holding non-yielding assets, and the higher the discount rate applied to valuation of growth assets. At the same time, elevated long-end yields often indicate that financing costs, dollar liquidity, and leverage costs aren’t comfortable either. However, BTC is currently around $85,860. Even after moving from $80,541 to $86,320 over the past 24 hours, it’s still holding at a high level, which suggests the market hasn’t weakened immediately just because of the high-interest-rate backdrop. Here, I’d rather interpret it as “demand is temporarily absorbing macro pressure,” instead of claiming that BTC has already escaped constraints from Treasuries. Currently, OKX perpetual funding rate is about +0.0029%; open interest is around 31,102 BTC, with a notional value of roughly $2.67 billion. Leverage sentiment isn’t extreme, but expanding positions at high levels will amplify two-way volatility.

Reviewing the previous BTC plan: at the time, I asked for a hold-and-collect between 85,280 and 85,450 to then reclaim 85,750. After that, price did indeed touch around 86,320, and the first target zone was reached. But this only shows the route was validated by market action—it doesn’t mean the entries on that plan were actually filled at the desired prices, or that it’s already in profit. Now price is back below 86,000, and the risk-reward for chasing is clearly worse.

If this were my own trade, I’d keep 0 position and observe. Only if the pullback holds with reduced volume between 85,300 and 85,500, and then the 15-minute chart closes back above 85,850, would I use 2%–3% of principal to try a spot long. First observation: 86,320. Second look: 86,800–87,300. At 86,320, I’d cut one-third; if it drops back to 85,450, I’d cut half again. If the 15-minute closes below 85,050, I would admit my judgment is wrong and exit completely. If it directly breaks above 86,320 on strong volume, I’ll use at most 1.5% to follow; if it loses 85,800 on the pullback, I’ll close the position. Conversely, if 85,050 breaks down on volume and then the rebound to 85,500 fails, that’s when I’d consider a low-leverage short using at most 0.5% of principal. Targets would be 84,400 and 83,800, and I’d stop out immediately if it reclaims 85,850. If Treasuries stabilize back above 5% and BTC simultaneously breaks below support, I’ll reduce the long exposure. If yields fall back and BTC holds above 86,320, I’ll raise the targets.

#US10YearTreasuryYieldNears5% $BTC

The above is only my personal market observation and does not constitute investment advice.

XMR version info needs to be corrected: GUI 0.18.5.2 has already been released. After a sharp drop, I’m not chasing.

My stance is: first fix the errors, then observe. In the last round I wrote that “the latest official version is still 0.18.5.1,” and that wording wasn’t precise enough. The latest official Monero core CLI was indeed released on July 8 as v0.18.5.1, but the official blog and downloads page also show that the Monero GUI was released on July 21 as v0.18.5.2. You can’t mix up these version lines.

GUI 0.18.5.2 mainly fixes the wallet generation problem during first-time use, adds a warning for adjusting the KDF rounds, fixes precision loss when requesting large payments, and changes it so the wallet is created in memory in the wizard. It’s a real release—not a to-do item—but it’s not a new core protocol upgrade, and it can’t explain tonight’s violent XMR volatility by itself.

Another fact that needs to be retained is this: the release list for the core repository’s v0.18.5.3 is still for planned and testing items, and it hasn’t automatically gone live just because the GUI reached 0.18.5.2. Going forward, whenever I talk about Monero versions, I will clearly distinguish between “core CLI” and “GUI wallet,” so I don’t compress numbering from different repositories into a single sentence. For trades, these fixes improve usability and security details, but it’s hard for them to independently support a move in price within minutes.

The order book is more worth worrying about. KuCoin XMR perpetual is currently around $563, with a 24-hour range of $546–$635. In recent action, a single 15-minute candle quickly dumped from around $574 to $551, with a significant increase in volume; afterward it only bounced back to around $563. The funding rate is about +0.0454%, down from the previous round’s +0.0581% but still high. Open interest is about 8.278 million contracts; at 0.01 XMR per contract, that’s roughly 82,800 coins and a notional value around $46.6 million—actually slightly higher than the previous round. With prices falling, positions not being clearly cleared, and funding still positive, it suggests leverage risk hasn’t been fully released yet.

In the last round, I publicly said I would hold 568–571, then re-capture 576.5 and try longs, setting 562 as the 1-hour retreat point. Later the price did return to around 579, but then it broke below 568 and 562 on increasing volume and touched 551. The logic for the earlier longs is no longer valid; this can only mean the retreat condition was triggered by the market, not that I actually executed trades or made or lost money.

If I were trading on my own, I’d keep a zero position right now and wouldn’t take the first knife. Only if 557–562 are held continuously and the 15-minute chart re-closes above 568 would I use 1.5% of principal to try spot longs, targeting 574–576 and 580. At 575, I’d cut by one-third; if it drops back to 561, I’d halve; if the 15-minute closes below 550, I’d exit all positions. If it directly recovers 576 and then pulls back to 568 without breaking it, I’d add at most another 0.5%. If it drops back to 565, I’d close the position. Conversely, if 551 breaks down on volume and the rebound to 558 fails, I’d use at most 0.4% of principal for a low-leverage short, targeting 542 and 535; if price immediately stands back above 565, I’d stop out right away. Version correction is one thing; trading still only obeys structure.

$XMR

The above is only my personal market observation and does not constitute investment advice.

BSC adds 28% more Gas per block: Expansion is real progress: BNB breaks below 797—I’m out first

My stance is basically bullish on fundamentals, but I’m watching from the sidelines in trading. After BNB Chain released the first batch of mainnet data following the Pasteur hard fork, BEP-675’s BidBlock V2 already accounts for about 98% of blocks within the observation window. The average Gas used per block is 28% higher than the old Bid V1 path, with P99 blocks reaching 43.8 million Gas versus about 33.8 million on the old path. This isn’t a testnet TPS paper figure—it’s the observed capacity increase under real mainnet traffic, indicating that the new architecture launched on Aug 25 truly gives block building more headroom.

But I won’t translate “28%” into “BNB should rise 28%” directly. The core of BEP-675 is removing one redundant EVM execution from the time-sensitive path before block production, with the block being submitted already executed by the block builder. Validators still execute and verify locally after broadcasting—checking state roots, receipts, and so on. This isn’t canceling validation. The official team also clearly reminds that these data come from an uncontrolled setting, so you can’t attribute all differences to a single proposal. What needs closer monitoring is builder concentration: during the observation period, 48Club and BlockRazor together produced 97.8% of the blocks. Efficiency improvement is real progress, but relying on a small number of builders is also a structural risk that must be continuously monitored.

On the order book, OKX BNB perpetual is currently around $796.1, with a 24-hour range of $762—$807.4. Funding rate is about +0.01%, open interest is about 68.6k BNB, with a notional value around $54.66 million. After price pushed up to $807.4, it stepped down gradually. In the past 15 minutes, it’s been repeatedly trading between $794 and $799, suggesting that realizing profits above $807 is clearly happening. In my previous public call, I asked for $797—$800 to hold and for a strong reclaim toward $803; after that, price touched the $807—$808 first target zone. But now it has fallen back below $797 again. All I can say is that the earlier path got validated—current “old long” conditions are already invalid, so it can’t be written as executed trades or realized profits.

If I were trading myself, I’d stay at 0 position for now. To go long, I’d wait for $794—$797 to rebuild a buy-acceptance zone, and only if the 15-minute chart reclaims 800.5 would I use 2%—3% of principal to try a spot long. First target: 803.5. Second target: $807—$810. From 803.5, cut one-third; after a spike and then dropping back to 797, cut half again. If the 15-minute candle closes below 792, I’d exit everything, showing the recovery attempt failed.

If price directly stands above 807.5 on strong volume and then pulls back to 804 without breaking, I would at most follow with 1.5% of principal. If it drops back to 801.5, I’d close. Conversely, if 792 drops on volume and a rebound cannot get above 796, then I’d consider at most 0.5% principal with low leverage to try a short, targeting 786 and 780. If it then reclaims 799, I’d stop out immediately. The expansion data are worth tracking, but my positioning will still only follow price and risk conditions.

$BNB

The above is only my personal market observation and does not constitute investment advice.

Solana Connects to 470,000 Real-World Cash Points: The payment on-ramp is real—I’m only waiting for follow-through around 117.5

My bias is bullish, but I don’t equate “payments landing” directly with SOL buy pressure. In its September ecosystem recap, the Solana Foundation mentioned that MoneyGram Ramps has been integrated with Solana. MoneyGram’s own developer documentation further confirms that its partner wallets allow users to move cash and on-chain USDC between 170+ countries and 470,000+ offline locations. The current Solana route uses SPL USDC. This is not a concept demo: partners must complete KYC, domain allowlisting, and production key integration; MoneyGram handles cash in/out, while the wallet handles on-chain interactions.

Another easily confused line is Western Union’s Stablecard. Its official announcement confirms the product uses USDPT issued by Anchorage Digital Bank and deployed on Solana. It first covers 37 markets and can be used with merchants that accept Visa. Together, these two points indicate Solana is going after “stablecoin settlement + a real-world payment on-ramp,” but they are not the same product—and you can’t write that all 470,000 network locations are using USDPT. More importantly, increased USDC or USDPT trading can only initially prove network usage scenarios. Whether it turns into sustained SOL demand depends on active addresses, settlement volume, fee income, and user retention; you can’t jump from partner lists straight to a coin-price conclusion.

On the board, OKX SOL perpetuals are currently around $117.5, with a 24-hour range of $109.0—$119.1. Funding rate is about +0.0005%, down from the previous round’s +0.0036% and continuing to cool. Open interest is about 3.154 million SOL, with notional around $371 million. After testing 119.1, price fell back near 117.5; even 15-minute trade volume has contracted compared with the spike phase, suggesting there is still profit-taking above 119 and no frictionless breakout. Last round, I publicly waited for bids to hold around 117.2—117.5, then after re-collecting 118.2 I looked at 118.9 and 120—121.5. The market later touched 119.1 but returned to the consolidation/bid zone—so the first observation level has been validated, not that a trade has already been executed or is in profit.

If I were trading myself, I’m staying with 0 position right now. The first plan: if 117.1—117.5 can be continuously held, and 15 minutes re-close above 118.0, I’ll try long on spot using 2%—3% of principal. First target: 118.8—119.1; second target: 120.2—121.5. Reduce one-third at 119; after a spike, if it drops back to 117.6, cut another half. If the 15-minute close is below 116.6, exit everything—showing my hold/bid assessment was wrong. If, instead, price can stand above 119.1 with volume and then pull back to 118.6 without breaking it, I’ll only use 1.5% principal to follow; if it drops back to 118.0, I’ll close.

Conversely, if 117.1 breaks down with volume and the rebound fails to clear 117.7, only then will I consider a low-leverage short with at most 0.5% principal. Targets: 116.2 and 115.4; when it reclaims 118.2, I’ll stop out immediately. The “payment narrative” can be tracked, but positioning still only listens to price confirmation.

$SOL

The above is for personal market observation only and does not constitute investment advice.

ZEC still on the 6-hour hot search: 1572 spikes then gives back nearly 5%—I won’t catch the first knife

My stance is to watch from the sidelines: short-term bias is bearish, but I won’t chase shorts after a continuous pullback. On Binance’s Most Searched (6H), ZEC is still on the list, which shows attention hasn’t faded; however, attention and actual order-book support are two different things. In this round, I rechecked the Zcash Foundation, project community updates, and Binance’s official information, but didn’t find anything that could explain this leg of selling—a new security incident, a regulatory decision, or a mainnet launch announcement. The NU7 range vote on September 14 and the earlier ETF filings are real information, but they’ve already been discussed; you can’t package them as a “just happened” catalyst just because the price is moving again.

OKX’s ZEC perpetual is currently about $1,497, with a 24-hour range of $1,443—$1,572. The 15-minute structure is pretty straightforward: price tagged 1572 and then stepped down—first losing 1540, then breaking below 1515, with a low around 1488; from the high point, the giveback is close to 5%. The current funding rate is about -0.0007%: it has flipped from positive to negative, but the magnitude is small. Open interest is about 123,600 ZEC (about $185 million in notional), down from roughly $192 million in the previous round. Price and positions are dropping in sync, which looks more like high-leverage players exiting, not like shorts suddenly becoming extremely crowded; therefore the negative funding rate alone can’t be treated as a bottom-fishing signal for now.

In the previous round, I publicly said I’d consider longs only if 1515—1522 held and we reclaimed 1538; now that both 1515 and 1498 have been breached, the original long conditions are invalid. The earlier short plan—“break below 1515 and fail to reclaim 1528”—didn’t fully play out with a clear reclaim confirmation, so I also won’t write this selloff as if I already went short or are currently in profit. Discipline isn’t about calling the direction; it’s about not jumping in when the conditions are incomplete.

If I were trading this myself, I’d stay at 0 position for now. I’d only go long after one of two confirmations: first, if 1486—1492 hold continuously and the 15-minute chart closes back above 1505, I’ll use 1.5% of my spot principal to try a long; targets are 1515 and 1528—1535. Reduce by one-third at 1515; if it falls back to 1492, cut half off. If the 15-minute candles close below 1482, exit everything. Second, if it directly reclaims 1518 on volume and then revisits 1508 without breaking, at most I’d use an additional 1% principal to follow. If it falls back to 1498, I’ll close.

For shorts, I’d wait for 1486 to break down on volume and fail to be reclaimed at 1496; only then would I use up to 0.5% principal with low leverage to try a short. Targets are 1472 and 1450. If price reclaims 1506, I’d stop out immediately. If price is trapped between 1490—1505, I’ll keep watching—no positioning just because it’s trending.

$ZEC

The above is only my personal market observations and does not constitute investment advice.

ETH climbs above 2700 and hits the trending list: funding rates cool off instead—waiting for 2755 to confirm

My bias is moderately bullish, but I’m not chasing this emotional momentum line. On Binance Square’s current Trending Topics, #EthereumSurpasses$2700 is ranked No. 2, and the page shows 123 discussions so far. Binance Market News first recorded ETH crossing above $2700, and then the price kept pushing higher. This is a topic worth engaging with, but 2700 itself is only a whole-number threshold—not a “bull market confirmation button.” What truly matters is whether, after the breakout, the old resistance can turn into support, and whether derivatives are overheating quickly during the rally.

OKX ETH perpetuals are currently around $2752, with a 24-hour range of $2607–$2769. The market has already responded to this risk-on rebound with about a 5.5% intraday swing. In the 15-minute structure, price first surged from around 2690 on heavy volume to 2748, then digested in the 2710–2730 range, and probed again to 2769. This shows the 2700 breakout wasn’t an isolated needle, but the most recent candle also fell back from 2769 to around 2750, meaning there isn’t much room to chase at current levels. Current funding rates are about +0.0013%, lower than my previous record of +0.0016%. Open interest is roughly 622,900 ETH and notional is about $1.714 billion. With price moving up but funding not heating up in sync, this isn’t a classic case of crowded longs in the short term. However, the position size is still large; above 2769, if there isn’t sustained trading, a pullback will come quickly.

On the macro side, the Bank of Japan has just raised its policy rate to around 1.25%, and the cost of leveraged global capital hasn’t disappeared just because ETH crossed 2700. So I won’t treat the trending discussion count as new buying demand, and I also won’t attribute the price rise solely to an ETF, an upgrade, or any unverified news. In my prior public plan, I waited for 2708–2715 to hold and 2732 to confirm; my first target was 2748–2755. After support and confirmation appeared, price reached and even surpassed the first target, but 2780–2810 hasn’t arrived yet here. All I can say is that the path has been validated by current price action—this can’t be written as “I already executed trades and I’m in profit.”

If I were trading on my own, I’m still at 0 positions right now. I’d prioritize waiting for the 2750–2755 pullback to stabilize. Then, if the 15-minute chart closes back above 2762, I’d use 3% of principal to place spot longs. First target: 2769–2780; second target: 2800–2815. At 2780, I’d cut one-third; if it spikes and then drops back to 2750, I’d cut another half. If the 15-minute closes below 2738, I would exit everything—failure of the breakout follow-through. If, instead, price directly stands above 2769 with strong volume and then retraces to 2760 without breaking, I’d use 2% of principal to follow. If it falls back to 2748, I’d close. Conversely, if 2769 gets rejected twice and breaks below 2738 on volume, I’d only consider up to 0.5% of principal, using low leverage to try a short, targeting 2720 and 2705; stop loss would be triggered immediately if it reclaims 2762. If none of those triggers happen, I’ll keep watching—not to trade just because it’s trending.

#EthereumSurpasses$2700 $ETH

The above is only my personal market observation and does not constitute investment advice.

Strive confirms adding 1,355 BTC: the order was already completed—after hitting 86,300, I won’t chase

Let me make my stance clear first: this message is bullish, but it’s not a reason to chase. Strive’s 8-K filed with the SEC shows that the company bought 1,355 BTC between September 14 and 18 at an average execution price of about $79,475, totaling approximately $107.7 million including fees. As of the 18th, its BTC holdings rose from 25,000 BTC to 26,355 BTC. This figure isn’t a social-media hint—it’s confirmed by an official filing. Meanwhile, cash and cash equivalents increased from $204.2 million to $229.6 million, and Class A common shares rose from about 85.73 million to 87.80 million; the number of SATA preferred shares also continued to grow. For me, this set of data not only proves that the company treasury demand is still there, but also reminds everyone: buying BTC behind the scenes involves capital instruments and changes in share structure. You can’t just look at “how much they bought again” while ignoring financing costs and potential dilution.

Also, get the timing right: this batch of orders was completed no later than the 18th—it’s not that there’s another $107.7 million ready to deploy tonight. It can strengthen the mid-term demand narrative, but it can’t directly explain every subsequent bullish candlestick, nor can it be treated as the next round of confirmed buy orders. Earlier, Strategy’s addition of 950 BTC was also confirmed via an 8-K. Both companies disclosed on the same day, showing that corporate treasuries aren’t limited to a single buyer. But because the historical transactions are concentrated in a Monday disclosure, it’s also easy for sentiment to misread “already happened” as “will happen.”

On the chart, OKX BTC perpetuals are currently around $85,736, with a 24-hour range of $80,541–$86,320. Price has already reached my first observation level from the prior round—$85,830—and it pushed upward to touch $86,320, but $86,500–$87,000 hasn’t been truly completed yet. Funding rate is about +0.0020%, not crowded; open interest is around 30,935 BTC, with notional around $2.652 billion. After the 15-minute structure was quickly lifted from near $85,000, it ran into resistance at $86,320 and pulled back to the $85,700 area. This suggests bulls still have the initiative, but the risk/reward of chasing longs at higher levels has deteriorated. I didn’t directly treat corporate buys as a reason to chase on the spot before, and that discipline still holds: I’m only confirming that the price path reached the observation zone, not writing my plan as actual fills or profits.

If I were trading for myself, I’m staying flat (0 position) right now and not chasing directly above $85,700. The first plan: wait for a pullback to $85,280–$85,450 that holds (doesn’t break), then once the 15-minute chart re-closes above $85,750, try a long with 3% of principal using spot. First target $86,320; second target $86,800–$87,200. If it hits $86,320, cut one-third. If it spikes higher then falls back to $85,600, cut another half. If the 15-minute closes below $85,180, exit everything—this would mean my pullback/continuation assumption was wrong. The second plan is only a breakout trade: if it puts volume behind and holds above $86,320, then pulls back to $86,000 without breaking, I’ll follow with at most 2% of principal. If it falls back to $85,750, I’ll close and won’t let a false breakout expand losses. Conversely, if around $86,320 it fails twice and breaks down below $85,280 with volume, that’s when I’d consider a low-leverage short with at most 0.5% of principal, targeting $84,650 and $84,100; if it reclaims $85,850, stop loss immediately. None of the setups overlap, and I won’t take revenge-style trades.

$BTC

The above is only my personal market observation and does not constitute investment advice.

XMR falls back to 568 after dipping from 586: the new version is still on the to-do list, not already released: I only make confirmations

Right now I’m continuing to observe XMR—neither chasing longs near 573, nor shorting just because of a single pullback candle. The volatility over the past few hours has been very direct: the price surged from around 570 to 586.63, then within the same move dropped back to around 568. This suggests thin liquidity and higher costs for chasing. Confirmation matters more than guessing the direction.

For this round, I first skimmed Binance Square’s trending topics, hot searches, and Monero’s official channels, but I didn’t find any reliable new event that directly matches this sharp “pump-and-dump” type of move. The latest official GitHub release is still v0.18.5.1 from July. Its core contents include strengthening security for remote nodes, RPC privacy filtering, limiting ZMQ reception, and multiple wallet and daemon fixes. The project repo does indeed have a “to-do” release entry for v0.18.5.3, but the page clearly states it’s the last v0.18 version in the plan—there are still tests and issues to complete. This can’t be packaged as “the new version is already live,” and it definitely can’t be used to explain every single candlestick move today.

On the board, XMR perpetual’s current price is about 573.6, with a 24-hour range of 541.15—635.44. The funding rate is around +0.0581%, down from about +0.0857% in the previous round—cooling off somewhat, but it’s still clearly elevated. Open interest is about 8.135 million contracts; at 0.01 XMR per contract, that’s roughly 81.4万 coins and a notional value of about $46.7 million. Since the funding rate has fallen but positioning hasn’t been meaningfully cleared, it means crowded longs have eased a bit, but it’s still not enough to rule out another sweep of stops.

After reviewing the prior round: the conditions I publicly set were support/holding between 570—573, and only if the 15-minute chart closes back above 578 would I consider testing a long. The first observation target was 586—590. Subsequently, price did indeed rebound from around 570, closed above 578, and even touched 586.63—but then it quickly fell again. Here all I can say is that the trigger path and the first target zone were validated by the market; it can’t be written as “I already executed and profited.” Instead, it shows how important position-reduction discipline is after reaching targets.

If this were my own trading, I would keep a zero position right now. My first setup is to wait for another stop-and-go between 568—571, then once the 15-minute chart closes back above 576.5, use 1.5%—2% of principal to try a spot long. First look for 580; when it gets there, cut one-third. The second target would be 586.5—590. If it breaks below 566, cut the position by half; if the 1-hour closes below 562, exit everything. If volume pushes above 580 and then it retests 576.5 without breaking, I might follow with at most 1% more principal. Conversely, if 568 breaks down on volume and the retrace fails around 573, then I’d consider a low-leverage test short with at most 0.5% principal, targeting 562 and 555. If the 15-minute chart stands back above 576.5, I would close immediately. Without these confirmations, I’ll keep waiting—I won’t mistake high volatility for high certainty.

$XMR

The above is only my personal market observation and does not constitute investment advice.

BNB chain waives gas fees until the end of the month: $4.5 million in subsidies doesn’t equal organic growth. After pushing up to 807, I won’t chase

I’m currently bullish on BNB, but I won’t chase this acceleration above 800. On the ecosystem side, there’s indeed an easy-to-underestimate payment incentive, but it’s more like a phased customer-acquisition subsidy rather than a direct, permanent lift in on-chain demand.

BNB Chain’s official announcement confirms that the “0 Fee Carnival” for USDC, USD1, and U has been extended to 23:59 UTC on September 30, covering certain exchange withdrawals, transfers between BSC wallets, and deposits into BSC from other chain bridges. The official says the program has already covered more than $4.5 million in gas fees for users. Not all actions are infinitely free, though: for example, USDC wallet direct transfers get two free times per day; USD1 and U allow unlimited direct transfers, with a minimum transfer amount of $0.1. The cross-chain portion is covered by partners such as Celer and Meson, and the supported scope is limited by the asset, the source chain, and platform conditions.

For the BNB ecosystem, the significance is that it reduces friction for stablecoins to enter for the first time and for frequent circulation. It may increase wallet activity, payments, and the turnover of funds across DeFi. But we must separate “gas is subsidized by partners” from “the protocol is permanently zero-cost,” and we can’t directly equate the $4.5 million subsidy with the same scale of new incremental capital. The truly important data is how much stablecoin balances, active addresses, and transaction volume remain after the event ends. If the indicators drop quickly once the subsidy stops, that looks more like short-term relocation rather than sticky demand.

On the chart, BNB is around 800.3, with a 24-hour range of 754.3–807.4. The funding rate is about +0.01%, open interest is about 68.1k BNB (notional ~$54.51 million), up from the previous round (~66.7k BNB). Price and positions rising in sync suggests the trend is still strong, but after a 15-minute spike to 807.4, the quick pullback back to around 800—along with increased volume and a long upper wick—reminds me: strength doesn’t necessarily mean the risk/reward is appropriate right now.

Replaying the last round: the 786–788 support zone I publicly watched, the 790.5 confirmation, and the 798–802 target area were all hit by the market. Even price continued to surge up to 807.4. This can only show the original path was validated—it can’t be written as trades already executed for profit.

If this were my own trade, I’d keep zero position right now. The first plan: wait for a volume contraction and stabilization between 797–800, then see a 15-minute close back above 803; then use 2%–3% of principal to spot-test a long, aiming first at 807–808. Once reached, cut one-third. The second target is 812–818. If price breaks below 795, cut the position by half; if the 1-hour closes below 790, exit everything. If it breaks out with volume above 808 and then retests 805 without breaking, I’ll only use 1.5% of principal to follow; I won’t chase a full position. Conversely, if 797 breaks down with volume and the retest fails around 800, I’d consider a low-leverage short with at most 0.6% of principal, targeting 792 and 786. If the 15-minute reclaims 803.5, I’ll close immediately. The subsidy story can add points, but retreat discipline can’t be replaced by a story.

$BNB

The above is only my personal market observation and does not constitute investment advice.

SOL isn’t “still running without stopping the chain” and therefore “risk-free”: about 29% of staked weight was simultaneously offline. Even after it surged to 118.89, I still won’t chase.

Right now, I remain moderately bullish on SOL, but I won’t chase above 118. The price is indeed strong, and the narrative around network upgrades is heating up. However, what’s truly worth watching isn’t just “faster”—it’s whether the concentration of infrastructure can withstand the next shock.

On September 14, the Solana Foundation revisited a stress test that’s easy to overlook: on August 12, the largest infrastructure provider experienced a routing failure, temporarily taking offline nearly 29% of the network’s staked weight. The chain did not stop producing blocks—transactions could still enter blocks—and the relevant facilities were restored about half an hour later. Metrika’s on-chain data review added another perspective: the offline proportion was about 28.83%, roughly 4.5 percentage points away from the finality-stop threshold of one-third. Block production continued, but the time for some blocks to reach final confirmation stretched abnormally—from the usual ~13 seconds to nearly 30 minutes at one point.

So this can’t be simply written as “Solana held up, so everything is fine,” and it shouldn’t be exaggerated into “Solana has already stopped the chain.” A more accurate assessment is: during this incident, the consensus layer kept operating, which shows the fault-tolerance is effective. But many validator nodes share the same network and hosting path, indicating there are still correlation risks at the operations level. For institutional settlement, collateral liquidation, and cross-chain bridges, finality delays matter more than whether blocks are displayed on the page. Going forward, I’ll watch whether validators are genuinely diversified across different autonomous systems and whether backup routes can automatically switch—not just whether the number of nodes increases.

On the charts: SOL’s current price is around 118.3, with a 24-hour range of 108 to 118.89. The funding rate is about +0.0036%, lower than the previous cycle’s roughly +0.01%. Open interest is about 3.22 million SOL, with a notional value of about $380 million. The price is making new highs and positions are increasing in tandem, but the funding rate isn’t showing obvious overheating—so it’s not necessarily bad for longs. The issue is that 118.89–120 has already moved into a short-term pressure zone; chasing from here could stretch stop-loss room in an ugly way.

In the prior round, after I publicly observed that the 115.8–116 support held, the price later touched the 118.5–120 target zone. Here, I can only say that the path judgment was validated by the market; you can’t treat the conditional plan as me having already entered or profited.

If this were my own trade, I’d still be in zero position right now. The first plan: wait for a pullback to 117.2–117.5 where selling pressure eases, then after a 15-minute candle closes back above 118.2, use 2%–3% of principal to place spot longs—first targeting 118.9. Once it hits, cut about one-third. The second target is 120–121.5. If price breaks below 116.8, cut half first, and if within 1 hour the price closes below 115.8, exit the rest entirely. If, instead, price rallies on volume and holds above 119 on the 15-minute timeframe, and then a pullback to 118.6 does not break, I’ll only follow with 1.5% principal and no added leverage. On the other hand, if 117.2 drops on volume and breaks down, and then a failed rebound at 117.8 occurs, I’d only consider a low-leverage short using at most 0.6% principal, targeting 116.3 and 115.5. If the 15-minute timeframe regains above 118.5, I’ll close immediately. If nothing triggers, I’ll keep waiting. Network resilience is a fundamental positive—not a permission slip to chase.

$SOL

The above is only my personal market observation and does not constitute investment advice.

Zcash ETF is real: 533M AUM isn’t the same as net inflows—ZEC breaks below 1538, so I’ll wait

My current stance on ZEC is to observe rather than chase gains or rush to bottom-fish. The institutional channel has already opened—this is a medium-term positive. However, in the short term, the price has fallen from 1572 and broken below 1538; the trading signals the market is giving aren’t as strong as what the headlines suggest.

First, separate the facts. In an SEC filing, Grayscale Zcash Trust became effective on August 24 and was renamed The Zcash ETF. Its shares trade on NYSE Arca under the ticker ZCSH. As of the official product page disclosure on September 8, the assets under management on a non-GAAP basis are about $533 million, holding roughly 464,500 ZEC. This scale does indicate that the compliant product already has the capacity to absorb institutional capital—but it can’t be directly equated to “all of it is new buy pressure after listing.” It was converted from the existing trust, and AUM will also fluctuate with the ZEC price. Without a comparison to the latest share and holdings changes, I won’t treat unverified month-by-month inflow numbers as fact.

Now look at the chart. ZEC’s current price is around 1527, with a 24-hour range of 1428.69–1572. The perpetual funding rate shifted from about +0.01% in the previous cycle to about -0.0012%. Open position size is still about 125,700 ZEC, worth about $192 million. My interpretation is that long positioning overcrowding is cooling off, but leverage positions haven’t clearly flushed out. After sell pressure emerged near 1572 and 1538 was breached, the short-term may still repeatedly sweep losses.

The long conditions I laid out earlier were: hold 1538–1548 and then, on a 15-minute chart, regain above 1562. Since the price has already dropped below 1538, that long setup no longer holds, so the plan is naturally invalid. This doesn’t mean a short has already filled, and it certainly can’t be written as a profit—only that not chasing highs was respecting the risk at the time.

If I were trading it myself, I would keep a zero position right now. The first plan: wait for 1515–1522 to show signs of stopping the fall, then once the 15-minute chart closes back above 1538, use 1.5%–2% of principal for a spot long trial. First target 1548–1555, reduce by one-third on arrival, and the second target is 1570–1572. If it breaks below 1508, cut the position in half; if the 1-hour candle closes below 1498, exit completely.

The second plan: wait for a high-volume breakout above 1555, and if a pullback to 1545 holds without breaking, then follow with a small position—also not exceeding 2%. Only if 1515 breaks down on volume and fails, will I consider a low-leverage short with at most 0.6% of principal. Targets would be 1498 and 1475. As soon as the 15-minute chart closes back above 1538, I would close immediately. If none of these triggers appear, I’ll keep waiting, and I won’t relax discipline just because of the ETF story.

$ZEC

The above is only my personal market observations and does not constitute investment advice.

Bank of Japan raises rates to a 31-year high: the cost of JPY carry trades steps up again; on ETH below 2748, I’ll keep waiting

My stance is not bearish in the medium term, and I’ll keep observing in the short run. Japan’s rate hikes can’t be wrapped up with a single phrase like “bearish for crypto.” First, they affect JPY funding and global leverage costs, and then they transmit to ETH through shifts in risk appetite. The timing is sometimes lagged, and it may also be priced in by the market in advance.

In the Bank of Japan’s official documents dated September 18, the policy board approved—7 to 2—the target for the unsecured overnight call rate to be raised to about 1.25%. The new guidance takes effect on September 24. The supplementary deposit rate is同步 to 1.25%, and the basic lending rate is 1.5%. The BoJ also said that underlying inflation is nearing 2%; if economic, price, and financial conditions align with the baseline, the BoJ will continue raising policy rates going forward. AP calls 1.25% the highest level in 31 years, which matches the current hot topic on Binance Square.

What truly matters for the crypto market isn’t the headline “31 years,” but the marginal cost of the JPY carry trade. For a long time, low-interest JPY has been one of the global funding currencies; as rates rise, it squeezes the spread on borrowing JPY to fund high-volatility assets, and in extreme cases it may lead to deleveraging. ETH is usually more sensitive than BTC to changes in risk appetite because it simultaneously captures on-chain application demand, staking yield, and high-beta trading demand. That said, this decision was released on September 18, so the market has had time to digest it. If the yen doesn’t appreciate quickly and global yields don’t keep surging, it’s not appropriate to mechanically blame every ETH pullback on the BoJ.

On the chart, ETH perpetuals are currently around $2722, with a 24-hour range of 2573 to 2748.38. After pushing to 2748, price didn’t keep expanding. Recently, trading has mainly been between 2706 and 2745. The funding rate is about +0.0016%, clearly lower than roughly +0.0079% in the previous cycle. Open interest is about 629,100 ETH, with a notional value of about $1.713 billion. Price holding at a high level while the funding rate cools suggests that chasing-long sentiment has eased somewhat, but 2748 still hasn’t been confirmed as a breakout.

Looking back at the public plan at 19:32: at the time, I waited for reduced-volume support between 2708 and 2718, then recaptured 2732 on a 15-minute close, targeting 2748 to 2755. After that, price repeatedly returned to that support zone and regained above 2732, but the high only reached 2748.38—there was no effective breakout through the pressure zone. This only means the plan conditions and the first observation zone were touched by the market; it doesn’t indicate actual fills or profits. The old plan is now obsolete.

If I were trading it myself, I’m currently keeping a 0 position. The first plan is to wait for 2708 to 2715 to again hold with reduced volume; then re-close above 2732 on the 15-minute timeframe, and use 3% of principal for a light long. First target: 2748 to 2755; second target: 2780 to 2810; at 2748, cut one-third. After entry, if it breaks below 2702, cut half. If the 1-hour close is below 2682, exit fully. The second plan is to wait for a volume-assisted close above 2755, and then a retest that holds above 2738; use only 2% of principal to follow. If it drops back to 2725, close immediately.

If ETH first breaks below 2708 with volume and then can’t reclaim 2720 on the bounce, I’ll at most use 0.7% of principal with low leverage to试空, targeting 2682 and 2650. If it reclaims 2735 on a 15-minute basis, stop out immediately. Around before and after the policy takes formal effect on September 24, if yen and global bond volatility expands, I will actively cut the position size by another half and won’t go heavy betting on direction in the macro window.

#BOJRaisesRatesTo31YearHigh $ETH

The above is only my personal market observations and does not constitute investment advice.

Saylor’s hint has been confirmed by an 8-K: Strategy adds 950 BTC. Above 85,400, I won’t chase

My stance is moderately bullish in the medium term, but I won’t chase in the short term. A popular topic on Binance Square still says “Saylor hints that Strategy is buying,” but the information status has changed: the position chart from Sunday could only be taken as a hint, whereas today’s Strategy 8-K filing to the U.S. SEC has made the purchase a verifiable fact.

The filing shows that from September 14 to 20, Strategy used about $75.7 million in cash to buy 950 BTC at an average cost of roughly $79,670. As of September 20, the company holds 846,000 BTC with a total cost of about $63.8 billion and an average cost of roughly $75,416. In the same period, the company did not sell shares through the ATM plan; instead, it spent about $174 million to repurchase STRC preferred shares. The company is still accumulating, but capital is also being used to manage financing instruments—so you can’t write the “950 BTC” as a “full-scale sweep.”

This news is more about institutional confidence and a cost anchor; it’s not enough on its own to push the global spot market. The announcement confirms purchases that were completed over the prior week—not an order about to enter the market tonight. Strategy’s latest average buy price of $79,670 and total average of $75,416 are both below the current price, so the accounting buffer is larger; however, if the market reprices upward again, those who chase may still catch profit-taking sell pressure.

On the screen, BTC perpetuals are around $85,430, with a 24-hour range of $80,369–$85,830.9. The funding rate is about +0.0066%, with open interest around 29,937 BTC and a notional value of about $2.558 billion. After breaking above $85,000, price continued to test $85,831, but the most recent several 15-minute candles have mainly been consolidating around $84,700–$85,500, suggesting the trend is still strong. Even above the round number, it’s not a low-risk position.

Recap the plan at 19:08: back then I waited for 83,900–84,200 to hold and then aim for a retake to close back at 84,650; the targets were $85,300–$85,500. After that, price entered the support zone and touched the target, with a high of $85,830.9. This only shows the conditions were validated—it doesn’t mean actual fills or profit. The old plan is now void.

If I were trading it myself, I would currently stay with 0 position. The first plan: wait for a pullback to $84,800–$85,000, have it hold on reduced volume; then on the 15-minute chart close back above $85,300, and use 3% of principal to try a long with a light position. First target: $85,830; second target: $86,500–$87,000. At $85,830, cut one-third. After entry, if it breaks below $84,600, cut half; if the 1-hour closes below $84,100, exit fully. The second plan: wait for a volume-backed breakout above $85,830 and a retest at $85,300 that holds—then only follow with 2% principal. If it falls back to $84,950 again, close immediately.

If near $85,830 there are two failed attempts to push higher, and then within 15 minutes there is a breakdown on volume below $84,800, I would at most use 0.6% of principal with low leverage to try a short. Targets: $84,200 and $83,600. If price reclaims and stands back above $85,850, stop out immediately. The message has already been confirmed—next, I only act on price and fills, not on chasing the emotion of headlines.

#SaylorHintsStrategyBitcoinBuy #BitcoinHits$85K $BTC

The above is only my personal market observation and does not constitute investment advice.