Δημοφιλή άρθρα στο Binance Square
BITCOIN IS REPEATING THE 2017 AND 2021 PATTERN!!!
🚨 BITCOIN IS REPEATING THE 2017 AND 2021 PATTERN!!!
Look to this chart, $BTC will dump to $35,000 in 10 days.
Are you actually prepared for that scenario?
From my theory, I’ve identified the timing of the next cycle.
I track BTC on two axes.
TIME + PRICE.
Most people only watch price.
That's why they every time MISS the best entries.
First, the TIME axis.
Days from ATH to cycle low after each halving:
- 2012: 406 days
- 2016: 363 days
- 2020: 376 days
- 2024: still pending
These numbers are close.
So if this cycle lines up, the highest probability window for the next real bottom is Oct to Nov 2026.
That is my time target.
And when that window hits, I buy no matter what price looks like.
Because time is how you don't get front run.
Now the PRICE axis.
I've already started buying since we entered the $60,000 zone.
Even if the time window hasn't hit yet.
Why?
Because waiting for the perfect level is how you miss the whole move.
Retail says "I'll only buy at X price".
But if price never hits it, you're left behind.
So my approach is simple.
If price gives value, I start buying.
If time hits the historical window, I buy regardless.
That one framework explains everything.
Back in October, when BTC was around $114,000, I said I'd be a strong buyer in the $60,000 range.
People laughed.
They said BTC would never see $60K again.
I don't argue with noise.
I stick to the plan.
Now we've hit that zone, and the price call played out.
But the risk of a lower low is still real.
That's why the TIME axis matters.
My plan:
1) TIME axis
Oct to Nov 2026 is a strong BUY, regardless of price.
2) PRICE axis
Below $60,000 is a strong BUY, regardless of time.
If either one hits, I execute daily buys of $500,000.
And there's one more thing I watch.
NUPL - Net Unrealized Profit/Loss.
The onchain indicator that historically flags the real cycle bottom.
- 2018
- COVID crash
- 2022
It caught all of them.
Right now, we're not in that blue zone yet.
We're still far from it.
So I wouldn't be surprised to see BTC in the $45K to $50K zone by end of 2026.
That's my ultimate bottom target, where I'd feel good going heavy.
The market is messy right now, but this phase will pass.
I've studied macro for 10 years and I called almost every major market top, including the October BTC ATH.
Follow and turn notifications on.
I'll post the warning BEFORE it hits the headlines.$BTC
$ETH
#CZAMAonBinanceSquare #USNFPBlowout #TrumpCanadaTariffsOverturned #USRetailSalesMissForecast
Look to this chart, $BTC will dump to $35,000 in 10 days.
Are you actually prepared for that scenario?
From my theory, I’ve identified the timing of the next cycle.
I track BTC on two axes.
TIME + PRICE.
Most people only watch price.
That's why they every time MISS the best entries.
First, the TIME axis.
Days from ATH to cycle low after each halving:
- 2012: 406 days
- 2016: 363 days
- 2020: 376 days
- 2024: still pending
These numbers are close.
So if this cycle lines up, the highest probability window for the next real bottom is Oct to Nov 2026.
That is my time target.
And when that window hits, I buy no matter what price looks like.
Because time is how you don't get front run.
Now the PRICE axis.
I've already started buying since we entered the $60,000 zone.
Even if the time window hasn't hit yet.
Why?
Because waiting for the perfect level is how you miss the whole move.
Retail says "I'll only buy at X price".
But if price never hits it, you're left behind.
So my approach is simple.
If price gives value, I start buying.
If time hits the historical window, I buy regardless.
That one framework explains everything.
Back in October, when BTC was around $114,000, I said I'd be a strong buyer in the $60,000 range.
People laughed.
They said BTC would never see $60K again.
I don't argue with noise.
I stick to the plan.
Now we've hit that zone, and the price call played out.
But the risk of a lower low is still real.
That's why the TIME axis matters.
My plan:
1) TIME axis
Oct to Nov 2026 is a strong BUY, regardless of price.
2) PRICE axis
Below $60,000 is a strong BUY, regardless of time.
If either one hits, I execute daily buys of $500,000.
And there's one more thing I watch.
NUPL - Net Unrealized Profit/Loss.
The onchain indicator that historically flags the real cycle bottom.
- 2018
- COVID crash
- 2022
It caught all of them.
Right now, we're not in that blue zone yet.
We're still far from it.
So I wouldn't be surprised to see BTC in the $45K to $50K zone by end of 2026.
That's my ultimate bottom target, where I'd feel good going heavy.
The market is messy right now, but this phase will pass.
I've studied macro for 10 years and I called almost every major market top, including the October BTC ATH.
Follow and turn notifications on.
I'll post the warning BEFORE it hits the headlines.$BTC
$ETH
#CZAMAonBinanceSquare #USNFPBlowout #TrumpCanadaTariffsOverturned #USRetailSalesMissForecast
💥🚨EU TENSIONS EXPLODE: GERMANY SAYS “NO” TO FRANCE NOW FRANCE IS ANGRY 🇩🇪🇫🇷⚡
$CLO $BTR $RIVER
Big drama inside Europe. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has reportedly rejected French President Emmanuel Macron’s idea that the European Union should issue joint bonds to help cover spending France cannot afford. In simple words — Germany does not want to share the debt burden.
Here’s why this is serious. Germany’s debt-to-GDP ratio is around 65%, while France’s is close to 120%. That means France is carrying almost double the debt compared to the size of its economy. Germany has always been strict about fiscal discipline, and many German leaders fear that EU joint bonds would mean German taxpayers indirectly backing French debt.
This is not just about money — it’s about the future of the European Union. During the COVID crisis, the EU already issued common debt for recovery funds. Some countries now want to use that model again. But others, especially Germany, worry this could create a “debt union” where financially stronger nations constantly support heavily indebted ones.
If tensions grow, this could shake confidence in the euro and widen political divisions inside Europe. Markets are watching closely because any crack between Berlin and Paris — the two engines of the EU — can create serious instability. 🌍💶🔥
$CLO $BTR $RIVER
Big drama inside Europe. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has reportedly rejected French President Emmanuel Macron’s idea that the European Union should issue joint bonds to help cover spending France cannot afford. In simple words — Germany does not want to share the debt burden.
Here’s why this is serious. Germany’s debt-to-GDP ratio is around 65%, while France’s is close to 120%. That means France is carrying almost double the debt compared to the size of its economy. Germany has always been strict about fiscal discipline, and many German leaders fear that EU joint bonds would mean German taxpayers indirectly backing French debt.
This is not just about money — it’s about the future of the European Union. During the COVID crisis, the EU already issued common debt for recovery funds. Some countries now want to use that model again. But others, especially Germany, worry this could create a “debt union” where financially stronger nations constantly support heavily indebted ones.
If tensions grow, this could shake confidence in the euro and widen political divisions inside Europe. Markets are watching closely because any crack between Berlin and Paris — the two engines of the EU — can create serious instability. 🌍💶🔥
💼 LAST-MINUTE MONEY MOVE RAISES QUESTIONS
Two days before his reported death, Jeffrey Epstein transferred control of his Virgin Islands estate — valued around $577M — to Karina Shulyak, a longtime associate tied to his financial operations.
That timing has fueled speculation for years.
When assets of that size move suddenly, people naturally ask: Why then? Why that structure? Why her?
But here’s what’s important to separate:
🔹 Shulyak was an executive within Epstein’s business network and later became connected to the management of entities tied to his estate.
🔹 Legal and financial restructurings near the end of life are not uncommon in complex estates — especially involving trusts, foundations, and offshore holdings.
🔹 Allegations about intelligence ties or covert motives remain unproven speculation, not established fact.
Still, the timing and scale of the transfer ensured it would remain a point of public scrutiny — particularly given the broader controversies surrounding Epstein’s finances, associates, and estate management after his death.
When massive wealth changes hands under opaque circumstances, questions are inevitable.
But answers require verified evidence — not just inference.
The financial trail remains one of the most closely examined parts of the Epstein case.
$MOVE
$ME
$BERA
Two days before his reported death, Jeffrey Epstein transferred control of his Virgin Islands estate — valued around $577M — to Karina Shulyak, a longtime associate tied to his financial operations.
That timing has fueled speculation for years.
When assets of that size move suddenly, people naturally ask: Why then? Why that structure? Why her?
But here’s what’s important to separate:
🔹 Shulyak was an executive within Epstein’s business network and later became connected to the management of entities tied to his estate.
🔹 Legal and financial restructurings near the end of life are not uncommon in complex estates — especially involving trusts, foundations, and offshore holdings.
🔹 Allegations about intelligence ties or covert motives remain unproven speculation, not established fact.
Still, the timing and scale of the transfer ensured it would remain a point of public scrutiny — particularly given the broader controversies surrounding Epstein’s finances, associates, and estate management after his death.
When massive wealth changes hands under opaque circumstances, questions are inevitable.
But answers require verified evidence — not just inference.
The financial trail remains one of the most closely examined parts of the Epstein case.
$MOVE
$ME
$BERA
So Bitcoin Is Dead?
Short answer: yes. But…
What happened
This week wasn’t driven by a single event or headline. It was the result of several pressures lining up and then releasing at the same time.
Macro conditions were already fragile.
• Liquidity is still being drained.
• Rate expectations haven’t eased.
• Tech stocks started to soften again,
and crypto continues to react to that environment faster and more violently than most other assets. That part isn’t controversial. It’s been the backdrop for months.
What changed this week was the structure.
Bitcoin didn’t drift lower. It moved quickly, through levels that usually slow price down. That kind of move doesn’t come from people calmly changing their minds. It usually comes from positions being closed because they have to be.
The clearest signal showed up in IBIT. This was the highest IBIT options volume day ever recorded, almost double the previous peak. That tells you institutions weren’t sitting on their hands. They were actively trading downside and protection at size.
Heavy volume like that doesn’t mean panic, and it doesn’t mean one sided selling. It means large players were willing to transact at lower prices, immediately.
At the same time;
• leverage came out of the system fast.
• Funding rates turned deeply negative.
• Long positions were liquidated in a short window.
That’s the signature of forced selling. It’s not about conviction. It’s all about margin.
There’s a plausible explanation for why this unwind looked the way it did. A meaningful share of IBIT exposure sits inside single-asset funds, many of them outside the US, particularly in Asia. These structures isolate margin by design. They don’t cross-collateralize with other strategies. When something breaks inside them, the response isn’t gradual. Positions get cut.
The timing was important. This happened while other leveraged trades were already under stress.
• Japan’s carry trade has been unwinding.
• Silver collapsed sharply.
• China tightened its stance around stablecoins and tokenization.
• Liquidity across several markets thinned at once.
When that happens, the most liquid venues tend to absorb the shock first.
Crypto did exactly that.
By the end of the week, sentiment reflected the damage. Fear readings dropped to levels usually associated with crisis periods, not routine corrections.
That doesn’t tell you what comes next. It only tells you that a lot of people stopped feeling comfortable very quickly.
That’s the sequence of events.
Where we are?
After a forced unwind, markets behave differently.
• Leverage is lighter now.
• Funding has stabilized after turning sharply negative.
• Most of the easy liquidations have already happened.
That doesn’t mean the market is “safe.” It means fewer participants are being pushed out mechanically.
Several institutional desks described this move as momentum driven liquidation rather than a reassessment of long term fundamentals. That distinction important, because it changes how capital responds after the fact. Selling driven by margin tends to end when margin is gone.
ETF behavior fits that picture. Volume stayed elevated even as price fell. That’s not disengagement. That’s basic repositioning. Capital didn’t leave. It adjusted.
Ethereum is the quiet counterpoint. Price remains weak, but usage doesn’t show stress.
• Monthly active addresses just reached a new high.
• The validator entry queue is the largest it’s ever been.
• For every one ETH trying to exit staking, well over a hundred are waiting to enter.
That kind of imbalance doesn’t show up in price immediately, but it says something about how long term holders are behaving.
Institutional activity around Ethereum hasn’t slowed either. BlackRock, Fidelity, JPMorgan are still building and expanding real products. That work isn’t speculative and it isn’t sensitive to short term price moves.
Regulatory progress continues in the background. It’s slow and procedural, but the tone is materially different from previous cycles. Less adversarial, more technical. That doesn’t create rallies yes, but it does change the environment over time.
Bitcoin itself is sitting near long-observed historical reference levels that tend to appear after forced selling phases. These areas have never felt obvious in real time. They didn’t in past cycles either. They felt uncertain, often frustrating, and usually earlier than most people were comfortable with.
So…
Is bitcoin dead?
Long answer: It’s officially in the dead zone now (look at the rainbow chart).
Remember, long term holders start selling when everybody screams that it will go to the moon, right?
So, when do they start buying?
• • • • • •
Price could still move lower. It could also spend time going nowhere. Markets often do that after stress events.
What has changed is the quality of the selling. It looks less deliberate and more exhausted.
• Fear is high (all time record “5” at Feb 6. It’s crazy).
• Confidence is thin.
• Narratives are scattered.
That’s not a signal. It’s just context.
And context is usually the only useful thing when certainty disappears…
That was the week.
Talk again soon…
Follow me for more educational content 🫶
What happened
This week wasn’t driven by a single event or headline. It was the result of several pressures lining up and then releasing at the same time.
Macro conditions were already fragile.
• Liquidity is still being drained.
• Rate expectations haven’t eased.
• Tech stocks started to soften again,
and crypto continues to react to that environment faster and more violently than most other assets. That part isn’t controversial. It’s been the backdrop for months.
What changed this week was the structure.
Bitcoin didn’t drift lower. It moved quickly, through levels that usually slow price down. That kind of move doesn’t come from people calmly changing their minds. It usually comes from positions being closed because they have to be.
The clearest signal showed up in IBIT. This was the highest IBIT options volume day ever recorded, almost double the previous peak. That tells you institutions weren’t sitting on their hands. They were actively trading downside and protection at size.
Heavy volume like that doesn’t mean panic, and it doesn’t mean one sided selling. It means large players were willing to transact at lower prices, immediately.
At the same time;
• leverage came out of the system fast.
• Funding rates turned deeply negative.
• Long positions were liquidated in a short window.
That’s the signature of forced selling. It’s not about conviction. It’s all about margin.
There’s a plausible explanation for why this unwind looked the way it did. A meaningful share of IBIT exposure sits inside single-asset funds, many of them outside the US, particularly in Asia. These structures isolate margin by design. They don’t cross-collateralize with other strategies. When something breaks inside them, the response isn’t gradual. Positions get cut.
The timing was important. This happened while other leveraged trades were already under stress.
• Japan’s carry trade has been unwinding.
• Silver collapsed sharply.
• China tightened its stance around stablecoins and tokenization.
• Liquidity across several markets thinned at once.
When that happens, the most liquid venues tend to absorb the shock first.
Crypto did exactly that.
By the end of the week, sentiment reflected the damage. Fear readings dropped to levels usually associated with crisis periods, not routine corrections.
That doesn’t tell you what comes next. It only tells you that a lot of people stopped feeling comfortable very quickly.
That’s the sequence of events.
Where we are?
After a forced unwind, markets behave differently.
• Leverage is lighter now.
• Funding has stabilized after turning sharply negative.
• Most of the easy liquidations have already happened.
That doesn’t mean the market is “safe.” It means fewer participants are being pushed out mechanically.
Several institutional desks described this move as momentum driven liquidation rather than a reassessment of long term fundamentals. That distinction important, because it changes how capital responds after the fact. Selling driven by margin tends to end when margin is gone.
ETF behavior fits that picture. Volume stayed elevated even as price fell. That’s not disengagement. That’s basic repositioning. Capital didn’t leave. It adjusted.
Ethereum is the quiet counterpoint. Price remains weak, but usage doesn’t show stress.
• Monthly active addresses just reached a new high.
• The validator entry queue is the largest it’s ever been.
• For every one ETH trying to exit staking, well over a hundred are waiting to enter.
That kind of imbalance doesn’t show up in price immediately, but it says something about how long term holders are behaving.
Institutional activity around Ethereum hasn’t slowed either. BlackRock, Fidelity, JPMorgan are still building and expanding real products. That work isn’t speculative and it isn’t sensitive to short term price moves.
Regulatory progress continues in the background. It’s slow and procedural, but the tone is materially different from previous cycles. Less adversarial, more technical. That doesn’t create rallies yes, but it does change the environment over time.
Bitcoin itself is sitting near long-observed historical reference levels that tend to appear after forced selling phases. These areas have never felt obvious in real time. They didn’t in past cycles either. They felt uncertain, often frustrating, and usually earlier than most people were comfortable with.
So…
Is bitcoin dead?
Long answer: It’s officially in the dead zone now (look at the rainbow chart).
Remember, long term holders start selling when everybody screams that it will go to the moon, right?
So, when do they start buying?
• • • • • •
Price could still move lower. It could also spend time going nowhere. Markets often do that after stress events.
What has changed is the quality of the selling. It looks less deliberate and more exhausted.
• Fear is high (all time record “5” at Feb 6. It’s crazy).
• Confidence is thin.
• Narratives are scattered.
That’s not a signal. It’s just context.
And context is usually the only useful thing when certainty disappears…
That was the week.
Talk again soon…
Follow me for more educational content 🫶
My disappointment with the TGE ESP Prime Sale
• I participated in it at a cost of approximately 0.27414 BNB (~166 USDT) and received 2,520 tokens.
• This morning I sold those tokens for 180 USDT, meaning I only made a profit of 14 USDT for 15 Alpha Points.
• I just received the Pieverse project Booster and sold it for 22 USDT without losing any Alpha Points, meaning Prime-TGE is now even worse than the Booster.
• I bought it with a FDV of 250M, and now the project is selling tokens, bringing its FDV down to around 230M, representing just over 6% of the total circulating supply in TGE.
📊 See the $ESP chart here 👇
• I participated in it at a cost of approximately 0.27414 BNB (~166 USDT) and received 2,520 tokens.
• This morning I sold those tokens for 180 USDT, meaning I only made a profit of 14 USDT for 15 Alpha Points.
• I just received the Pieverse project Booster and sold it for 22 USDT without losing any Alpha Points, meaning Prime-TGE is now even worse than the Booster.
• I bought it with a FDV of 250M, and now the project is selling tokens, bringing its FDV down to around 230M, representing just over 6% of the total circulating supply in TGE.
📊 See the $ESP chart here 👇
🚨 ALERT: AMERICA’S SOLO CRASH IS LOADING
The latest macro data wasn’t “mixed.”
It was ugly. And it exposed the one weakness almost nobody is pricing in.
This won’t be another 2008-style global domino collapse.
That playbook is outdated.
The real threat now? Sovereign insolvency — without a formal default.
Not missed payments.
But fiscal dominance:
Money printing.
Sticky inflation.
Financial repression.
Forced buyers of government debt.
If you’re waiting for a synchronized global meltdown, you’re watching the wrong movie.
Here’s the controversial part:
The global banking system is no longer tightly interconnected the way it was in 2008. It’s compartmentalized. Ring-fenced. Regionalized.
This time, the U.S. doesn’t drag the world down.
It sinks alone.
Why?
1️⃣ The U.S. is stuck in a sovereign debt spiral.
The Fed prints. The Treasury issues. The dollar absorbs the damage.
2️⃣ Basel III trapped capital inside borders.
A crisis in New York doesn’t automatically trigger forced selling in London.
3️⃣ Emerging markets trade with each other now.
The U.S. consumer is no longer the only growth engine.
4️⃣ The Fed stays “higher for longer” fighting stagflation.
Europe and China ease.
5️⃣ The toxic concentration?
U.S. commercial real estate.
U.S. Treasuries.
Held mostly by U.S. institutions.
Meanwhile, global capital is quietly reducing exposure.
That’s not a global depression.
That’s a localized one.
What invalidates this?
• A productivity boom that outruns interest costs.
• CRE stabilizing before the refinancing wall hits.
• A true 2008-style global contagion.
I’m watching all three.
This sets up a global capital rotation, not a global wipeout.
When U.S. risk gets contained, money doesn’t disappear.
It moves.
→ Commodities.
→ Real assets.
→ Undervalued non-U.S. equities.
The U.S. stagnates.
The rest accelerates.
You can ignore this.
The latest macro data wasn’t “mixed.”
It was ugly. And it exposed the one weakness almost nobody is pricing in.
This won’t be another 2008-style global domino collapse.
That playbook is outdated.
The real threat now? Sovereign insolvency — without a formal default.
Not missed payments.
But fiscal dominance:
Money printing.
Sticky inflation.
Financial repression.
Forced buyers of government debt.
If you’re waiting for a synchronized global meltdown, you’re watching the wrong movie.
Here’s the controversial part:
The global banking system is no longer tightly interconnected the way it was in 2008. It’s compartmentalized. Ring-fenced. Regionalized.
This time, the U.S. doesn’t drag the world down.
It sinks alone.
Why?
1️⃣ The U.S. is stuck in a sovereign debt spiral.
The Fed prints. The Treasury issues. The dollar absorbs the damage.
2️⃣ Basel III trapped capital inside borders.
A crisis in New York doesn’t automatically trigger forced selling in London.
3️⃣ Emerging markets trade with each other now.
The U.S. consumer is no longer the only growth engine.
4️⃣ The Fed stays “higher for longer” fighting stagflation.
Europe and China ease.
5️⃣ The toxic concentration?
U.S. commercial real estate.
U.S. Treasuries.
Held mostly by U.S. institutions.
Meanwhile, global capital is quietly reducing exposure.
That’s not a global depression.
That’s a localized one.
What invalidates this?
• A productivity boom that outruns interest costs.
• CRE stabilizing before the refinancing wall hits.
• A true 2008-style global contagion.
I’m watching all three.
This sets up a global capital rotation, not a global wipeout.
When U.S. risk gets contained, money doesn’t disappear.
It moves.
→ Commodities.
→ Real assets.
→ Undervalued non-U.S. equities.
The U.S. stagnates.
The rest accelerates.
You can ignore this.
ETH at $1,911 After Sharp Breakdown Relief Bounce or Early Reversal? A Risk-First Guide to Navigat
Right now, Ethereum ( /USDT) is trading around $1,911, down from a recent intraday high near $2,001.42, after printing a session low at $1,897.24. On the chart, the move isn’t subtle it’s a decisive breakdown followed by a small stabilization attempt.
Let’s read what the structure is actually saying and more importantly, what you should do if this turns into deeper downside.
First, price action. ETH pushed toward the $2,000 psychological level and failed to hold above it. From there, we saw a sharp sequence of strong red candles that sliced through short-term support and accelerated into the $1,897–$1,900 demand zone. That type of impulsive move usually signals forced selling not gradual distribution.
Now look at the moving averages.
MA(7) is around $1,917.76, MA(25) around $1,964.63, and MA(99) around $1,961.52. Price is currently trading below all three, and the shorter MAs are sloping downward. That’s textbook short-term bearish structure.
When price trades below the 25 and 99 moving averages with widening separation, it often signals momentum control by sellers. Until ETH reclaims at least the MA(7) and holds above $1,920–$1,930 with conviction, the bounce remains fragile.
Now the momentum indicators.
MACD is negative, with histogram bars still red. DIF and DEA are both below zero, indicating bearish momentum remains active. Yes, the histogram may begin to contract if buyers step in — but contraction is not reversal. It’s just deceleration.
Volume is also telling a story. The selloff came with expanded volume — that confirms participation. The current small green candles near $1,910 are happening on relatively lighter volume, which means buyers are cautious.
Here’s the first educational lesson:
Not every bounce is a reversal. Some are relief moves inside a broader corrective leg.
Now let’s map key levels clearly.
Immediate support: $1,897–$1,900.
If that level fails decisively, the next liquidity pocket could sit closer to $1,870–$1,850, depending on higher-timeframe structure.
Immediate resistance: $1,920–$1,930 (short-term reclaim zone).
Stronger resistance: $1,960–$1,970, where MA(25) and MA(99) converge.
For bulls to regain control, ETH needs to reclaim $1,930 with volume and build higher lows. For bears to extend dominance, a breakdown below $1,897 with momentum expansion would confirm continuation.
Now let’s shift from analysis to education.
What should you do in this environment?
First: reduce leverage.
When volatility expands and structure turns bearish, leverage becomes dangerous. If you cannot survive a 5–8% move against your position on a lower timeframe, your sizing is too aggressive.
Second: define invalidation before entry.
If you long near $1,910, ask yourself: where are you wrong? If support at $1,897 breaks, are you exiting — or hoping?
Hope is not risk management.
Third: respect timeframes.
The 15-minute chart shows short-term weakness. The 4-hour and daily charts determine broader direction. Don’t treat a small bounce as a macro reversal.
Fourth: avoid emotional averaging down.
Buying aggressively just because price dropped from $2,000 to $1,910 is not a strategy. A valid entry requires confirmation — higher low, reclaimed structure, increasing volume.
Fifth: protect mental capital.
Sharp intraday selloffs create urgency. Urgency leads to overtrading. Overtrading increases losses. Sometimes the best decision is to step back and wait for clarity.
Another key educational point is understanding liquidity events.
Moves like the drop from $2,000 to $1,897 often liquidate overleveraged longs. That’s a reset. After liquidation clusters clear, markets sometimes stabilize. But stabilization is different from bullish continuation.
Ask yourself rational questions instead of reacting emotionally:
Is this a healthy pullback inside a larger uptrend?
Or is it the beginning of a broader lower-high sequence?
Is volume expanding on bounces or only on selloffs?
Price tells the truth — narratives follow.
If the market deteriorates further:
Lower correlated exposure across your portfolio.
Increase cash or stable allocations temporarily.
Avoid revenge trading to “win back” losses.
Stick to predefined risk per trade — 1–2% capital exposure is common disciplined practice.
In downturn phases, survival becomes the priority.
In bull markets, traders focus on maximizing gains. In corrective phases, professionals focus on minimizing damage.
Capital preservation is not weakness. It’s strategy.
Here’s my balanced take:
ETH at $1,911 is attempting a short-term stabilization after an impulsive breakdown. The market is testing whether buyers are willing to defend the $1,900 region. So far, the response is cautious — not aggressive.
Until ETH reclaims $1,930 and builds structure above it, the path of least resistance on this timeframe remains fragile.
The goal isn’t to predict the next candle.
The goal is to position in a way where:
If you’re wrong, the loss is small.
If you’re right, the reward compounds.
Markets will always move. Volatility will always test discipline.
What determines long-term success isn’t whether $ETH bounces from $1,900.
It’s whether you manage risk properly when it doesn’t.
Let’s read what the structure is actually saying and more importantly, what you should do if this turns into deeper downside.
First, price action. ETH pushed toward the $2,000 psychological level and failed to hold above it. From there, we saw a sharp sequence of strong red candles that sliced through short-term support and accelerated into the $1,897–$1,900 demand zone. That type of impulsive move usually signals forced selling not gradual distribution.
Now look at the moving averages.
MA(7) is around $1,917.76, MA(25) around $1,964.63, and MA(99) around $1,961.52. Price is currently trading below all three, and the shorter MAs are sloping downward. That’s textbook short-term bearish structure.
When price trades below the 25 and 99 moving averages with widening separation, it often signals momentum control by sellers. Until ETH reclaims at least the MA(7) and holds above $1,920–$1,930 with conviction, the bounce remains fragile.
Now the momentum indicators.
MACD is negative, with histogram bars still red. DIF and DEA are both below zero, indicating bearish momentum remains active. Yes, the histogram may begin to contract if buyers step in — but contraction is not reversal. It’s just deceleration.
Volume is also telling a story. The selloff came with expanded volume — that confirms participation. The current small green candles near $1,910 are happening on relatively lighter volume, which means buyers are cautious.
Here’s the first educational lesson:
Not every bounce is a reversal. Some are relief moves inside a broader corrective leg.
Now let’s map key levels clearly.
Immediate support: $1,897–$1,900.
If that level fails decisively, the next liquidity pocket could sit closer to $1,870–$1,850, depending on higher-timeframe structure.
Immediate resistance: $1,920–$1,930 (short-term reclaim zone).
Stronger resistance: $1,960–$1,970, where MA(25) and MA(99) converge.
For bulls to regain control, ETH needs to reclaim $1,930 with volume and build higher lows. For bears to extend dominance, a breakdown below $1,897 with momentum expansion would confirm continuation.
Now let’s shift from analysis to education.
What should you do in this environment?
First: reduce leverage.
When volatility expands and structure turns bearish, leverage becomes dangerous. If you cannot survive a 5–8% move against your position on a lower timeframe, your sizing is too aggressive.
Second: define invalidation before entry.
If you long near $1,910, ask yourself: where are you wrong? If support at $1,897 breaks, are you exiting — or hoping?
Hope is not risk management.
Third: respect timeframes.
The 15-minute chart shows short-term weakness. The 4-hour and daily charts determine broader direction. Don’t treat a small bounce as a macro reversal.
Fourth: avoid emotional averaging down.
Buying aggressively just because price dropped from $2,000 to $1,910 is not a strategy. A valid entry requires confirmation — higher low, reclaimed structure, increasing volume.
Fifth: protect mental capital.
Sharp intraday selloffs create urgency. Urgency leads to overtrading. Overtrading increases losses. Sometimes the best decision is to step back and wait for clarity.
Another key educational point is understanding liquidity events.
Moves like the drop from $2,000 to $1,897 often liquidate overleveraged longs. That’s a reset. After liquidation clusters clear, markets sometimes stabilize. But stabilization is different from bullish continuation.
Ask yourself rational questions instead of reacting emotionally:
Is this a healthy pullback inside a larger uptrend?
Or is it the beginning of a broader lower-high sequence?
Is volume expanding on bounces or only on selloffs?
Price tells the truth — narratives follow.
If the market deteriorates further:
Lower correlated exposure across your portfolio.
Increase cash or stable allocations temporarily.
Avoid revenge trading to “win back” losses.
Stick to predefined risk per trade — 1–2% capital exposure is common disciplined practice.
In downturn phases, survival becomes the priority.
In bull markets, traders focus on maximizing gains. In corrective phases, professionals focus on minimizing damage.
Capital preservation is not weakness. It’s strategy.
Here’s my balanced take:
ETH at $1,911 is attempting a short-term stabilization after an impulsive breakdown. The market is testing whether buyers are willing to defend the $1,900 region. So far, the response is cautious — not aggressive.
Until ETH reclaims $1,930 and builds structure above it, the path of least resistance on this timeframe remains fragile.
The goal isn’t to predict the next candle.
The goal is to position in a way where:
If you’re wrong, the loss is small.
If you’re right, the reward compounds.
Markets will always move. Volatility will always test discipline.
What determines long-term success isn’t whether $ETH bounces from $1,900.
It’s whether you manage risk properly when it doesn’t.
The Epstein Files What 3.5 Million Pages Really Reveal
What the Department of Justice Has Confirmed
The U.S. Department of Justice recently confirmed the public release of nearly 3.5 million pages of documents connected to investigations involving Jeffrey Epstein, alongside more than 2,000 videos and approximately 180,000 images. This disclosure was carried out under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, legislation signed in November 2025 requiring federal agencies to publish Epstein-related materials, subject to legal redactions.
On paper, this appears to be one of the largest document releases tied to a criminal investigation in modern U.S. history.
In reality, it has raised more questions than answers.
I have followed the Epstein case closely for years. What we are seeing now is not simply a document dump. It is a complex intersection of justice, politics, survivor protection, and institutional accountability.
The size of the release is not the real story.
The process is.
What DOJ Has Officially Released
According to the Department of Justice, the January publication added over three million pages to previous disclosures, bringing the cumulative total close to 3.5 million pages. The archive also includes thousands of videos and hundreds of thousands of images gathered during federal investigations involving Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell.
The Department stated that the release was intended to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act and emphasized that extensive redactions were applied to protect victims and sensitive personal information.
However, DOJ also acknowledged that more than six million pages were internally identified as potentially responsive to the law. That means roughly half of the material reviewed has not been released publicly.
Shortly after publication, DOJ removed thousands of files from public access after acknowledging that some documents required additional redaction to prevent survivor identification.
A Timeline of the Epstein Case
Jeffrey Epstein was first charged in 2006 in Florida for sex crimes involving minors. In 2008, he entered a controversial plea deal that allowed him to avoid federal prosecution and serve just over a year in jail with work release.
In July 2019, Epstein was arrested again on federal sex trafficking charges in New York. He died in custody in August 2019.
Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested in 2020, convicted in 2021, and later sentenced to 20 years in prison.
Following Epstein’s death, civil lawsuits and investigative reporting intensified pressure on the government to release records tied to his crimes and associates.
In November 2025, Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act. The first major batch of files was released in January 2026.
This was not a single disclosure event. It became an ongoing and contested process.
Congressional Oversight and Survivor Concerns
Lawmakers from both parties challenged the scope and execution of the release.
Members of Congress formally requested access to unredacted files, arguing that public trust requires independent verification of DOJ’s redaction decisions.
At the same time, Democratic members of the House Oversight Committee accused DOJ of failing to adequately protect survivors after identifying information appeared in some published materials.
Survivor advocacy groups echoed those concerns, stating that victims were retraumatized by the release.Another controversy followed reports that DOJ systems tracked how lawmakers searched the files during controlled reviews. House leadership criticized this practice, saying it undermined transparency.
What the Transparency Act Does and Does Not Require
The Epstein Files Transparency Act mandates publication of Epstein-related investigative materials, but it explicitly allows redactions to protect victims, privacy, national security, and ongoing legal matters.
It does not require full unredacted disclosure.
It also does not require every internally reviewed document to be published.
Legal compliance does not equal total transparency.
What Is Proven and What Is Not
These facts are confirmed:
1. Jeffrey Epstein was convicted in 2008 and arrested again in 2019 on federal trafficking charges.
2. Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted and sentenced to 20 years.
3. Nearly 3.5 million pages have been released.
4. More than six million pages were reviewed internally.
5. Congress continues to pursue further access.
6. Survivor advocacy groups have raised serious redaction concerns.
These points are not proven:
1. There is no verified master list proving criminal participation by every named individual.
2. Being mentioned in files does not equal guilt.
3. Federal prosecutors have stated they lacked sufficient evidence to charge additional high-profile figures.
4. There is no confirmed evidence linking Epstein to the creation of Bitcoin or control of Satoshi wallets.
Large investigative archives always contain administrative records, duplicates, and unsubstantiated references that require careful legal interpretation.
Why Document Volume Does Not Equal Transparency
Massive releases often give the impression that everything is finally exposed.
That is rarely true.
Raw investigative archives include interviews, procedural records, emails, financial logs, and internal correspondence. Without structured indexing or independent audits, they are difficult to interpret and easy to misrepresent.
Transparency without context can overwhelm rather than inform.
That is why the real debate now centers on process.
What was released.
What was withheld.
How redactions were applied.
Who controls access.
And whether survivors were properly protected.
Where Things Stand Now
The Epstein files release has not closed this chapter.
Lawmakers continue to seek unredacted access.
Survivor groups are pressing for stronger safeguards.
Journalists are still reviewing materials.
Further congressional action remains possible.
The Department of Justice technically complied with the Transparency Act.
But compliance is not the same as accountability.
Publishing millions of pages answered one question.
It opened many more.
The U.S. Department of Justice recently confirmed the public release of nearly 3.5 million pages of documents connected to investigations involving Jeffrey Epstein, alongside more than 2,000 videos and approximately 180,000 images. This disclosure was carried out under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, legislation signed in November 2025 requiring federal agencies to publish Epstein-related materials, subject to legal redactions.
On paper, this appears to be one of the largest document releases tied to a criminal investigation in modern U.S. history.
In reality, it has raised more questions than answers.
I have followed the Epstein case closely for years. What we are seeing now is not simply a document dump. It is a complex intersection of justice, politics, survivor protection, and institutional accountability.
The size of the release is not the real story.
The process is.
What DOJ Has Officially Released
According to the Department of Justice, the January publication added over three million pages to previous disclosures, bringing the cumulative total close to 3.5 million pages. The archive also includes thousands of videos and hundreds of thousands of images gathered during federal investigations involving Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell.
The Department stated that the release was intended to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act and emphasized that extensive redactions were applied to protect victims and sensitive personal information.
However, DOJ also acknowledged that more than six million pages were internally identified as potentially responsive to the law. That means roughly half of the material reviewed has not been released publicly.
Shortly after publication, DOJ removed thousands of files from public access after acknowledging that some documents required additional redaction to prevent survivor identification.
A Timeline of the Epstein Case
Jeffrey Epstein was first charged in 2006 in Florida for sex crimes involving minors. In 2008, he entered a controversial plea deal that allowed him to avoid federal prosecution and serve just over a year in jail with work release.
In July 2019, Epstein was arrested again on federal sex trafficking charges in New York. He died in custody in August 2019.
Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested in 2020, convicted in 2021, and later sentenced to 20 years in prison.
Following Epstein’s death, civil lawsuits and investigative reporting intensified pressure on the government to release records tied to his crimes and associates.
In November 2025, Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act. The first major batch of files was released in January 2026.
This was not a single disclosure event. It became an ongoing and contested process.
Congressional Oversight and Survivor Concerns
Lawmakers from both parties challenged the scope and execution of the release.
Members of Congress formally requested access to unredacted files, arguing that public trust requires independent verification of DOJ’s redaction decisions.
At the same time, Democratic members of the House Oversight Committee accused DOJ of failing to adequately protect survivors after identifying information appeared in some published materials.
Survivor advocacy groups echoed those concerns, stating that victims were retraumatized by the release.Another controversy followed reports that DOJ systems tracked how lawmakers searched the files during controlled reviews. House leadership criticized this practice, saying it undermined transparency.
What the Transparency Act Does and Does Not Require
The Epstein Files Transparency Act mandates publication of Epstein-related investigative materials, but it explicitly allows redactions to protect victims, privacy, national security, and ongoing legal matters.
It does not require full unredacted disclosure.
It also does not require every internally reviewed document to be published.
Legal compliance does not equal total transparency.
What Is Proven and What Is Not
These facts are confirmed:
1. Jeffrey Epstein was convicted in 2008 and arrested again in 2019 on federal trafficking charges.
2. Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted and sentenced to 20 years.
3. Nearly 3.5 million pages have been released.
4. More than six million pages were reviewed internally.
5. Congress continues to pursue further access.
6. Survivor advocacy groups have raised serious redaction concerns.
These points are not proven:
1. There is no verified master list proving criminal participation by every named individual.
2. Being mentioned in files does not equal guilt.
3. Federal prosecutors have stated they lacked sufficient evidence to charge additional high-profile figures.
4. There is no confirmed evidence linking Epstein to the creation of Bitcoin or control of Satoshi wallets.
Large investigative archives always contain administrative records, duplicates, and unsubstantiated references that require careful legal interpretation.
Why Document Volume Does Not Equal Transparency
Massive releases often give the impression that everything is finally exposed.
That is rarely true.
Raw investigative archives include interviews, procedural records, emails, financial logs, and internal correspondence. Without structured indexing or independent audits, they are difficult to interpret and easy to misrepresent.
Transparency without context can overwhelm rather than inform.
That is why the real debate now centers on process.
What was released.
What was withheld.
How redactions were applied.
Who controls access.
And whether survivors were properly protected.
Where Things Stand Now
The Epstein files release has not closed this chapter.
Lawmakers continue to seek unredacted access.
Survivor groups are pressing for stronger safeguards.
Journalists are still reviewing materials.
Further congressional action remains possible.
The Department of Justice technically complied with the Transparency Act.
But compliance is not the same as accountability.
Publishing millions of pages answered one question.
It opened many more.
Reality check, unfiltered.
Look, if you're sitting there refreshing charts every 5 minutes, freaking out over every little uptick or downtick like it's gonna change your life, wake up buddy.
That’s not trading. Its addiction. Either your leverage is so cranked up that one sneeze liquidates you, or you’re chasing the rush like a crack addict hitting a pipe.
Real trading? It's boring on purpose. You spend way more time doing nothing than clicking buttons. You wait for the setup that actually makes sense. Then you take it, size it right, and let it play out.
If trading feels exciting day in & day out, you're not trading. The best traders aren't hyped, they're calm because they've seen it all before and know forcing trades kills accounts.
Passion's fine, study, learn, improve, but if it doesn't come with the ability to sit through dead markets without touching anything, it turns into revenge trades, revenge sizing, revenge everything. That's how people go from up big to zero in a week.
Most "influencers" posting Lambos and "turned 5k to 500k" are lying or hiding the parts where they blew up twice last year. X is just Instagram with more crypto bros.
Don’t compare your real life grind to someone else’s carefully crafted persona. It'll mess with your head worse than any losing streak. And yeah, quick scalps on tiny time frames feel productive, but they wreck almost everyone. I know. Constant noise, and one wrong step is all it takes to throw you off balance.
Meanwhile the guy taking a handful of solid HTF trades a month, letting winners run for weeks, ends up making real money over years.
Trade count? Just meaningless bragging for people who can’t sit still. 100 bad trades might get you nothing, while 10 well-executed ones can crush that with far less risk and stress.
Trading chews up anyone who needs constant action to feel alive. The market doesn't care about your excitement or boredom tolerance. It pays the people who can handle silence, stick to a plan when it sucks, and treat losses like math instead of personal attacks.
If you can't get okay with boring, you're gonna keep losing until you either quit or run out of money. Simple as that.
$BTC
That’s not trading. Its addiction. Either your leverage is so cranked up that one sneeze liquidates you, or you’re chasing the rush like a crack addict hitting a pipe.
Real trading? It's boring on purpose. You spend way more time doing nothing than clicking buttons. You wait for the setup that actually makes sense. Then you take it, size it right, and let it play out.
If trading feels exciting day in & day out, you're not trading. The best traders aren't hyped, they're calm because they've seen it all before and know forcing trades kills accounts.
Passion's fine, study, learn, improve, but if it doesn't come with the ability to sit through dead markets without touching anything, it turns into revenge trades, revenge sizing, revenge everything. That's how people go from up big to zero in a week.
Most "influencers" posting Lambos and "turned 5k to 500k" are lying or hiding the parts where they blew up twice last year. X is just Instagram with more crypto bros.
Don’t compare your real life grind to someone else’s carefully crafted persona. It'll mess with your head worse than any losing streak. And yeah, quick scalps on tiny time frames feel productive, but they wreck almost everyone. I know. Constant noise, and one wrong step is all it takes to throw you off balance.
Meanwhile the guy taking a handful of solid HTF trades a month, letting winners run for weeks, ends up making real money over years.
Trade count? Just meaningless bragging for people who can’t sit still. 100 bad trades might get you nothing, while 10 well-executed ones can crush that with far less risk and stress.
Trading chews up anyone who needs constant action to feel alive. The market doesn't care about your excitement or boredom tolerance. It pays the people who can handle silence, stick to a plan when it sucks, and treat losses like math instead of personal attacks.
If you can't get okay with boring, you're gonna keep losing until you either quit or run out of money. Simple as that.
$BTC
乌克兰通过新法案，再次对中国新一轮制裁，这下自身导弹零件也悬了！
2026年2月8号，泽连斯基签署了一项新的总统令，宣布对包括中国、阿联酋、巴拿马以及多个前苏联加盟共和国在内的数十家企业实施制裁。理由是：这些实体涉嫌协助俄罗斯获取用于制造导弹和无人机的关键零部件。
但问题在于，乌克兰自己用的导弹和无人机，绝大多数零部件同样来自全球民用市场，而其中最大、最稳定的来源，恰恰也来自中方企业。这次乌克兰通过新制裁法案后，中方如果对乌克兰无人机零件禁止出口，哪怕通过第三方也不行，到时候乌克兰就麻烦了。毕竟连稀土通过第三方出口都可以精准追溯，无人机零件显然更容易。
根据乌克兰海关数据，从2022年到2025年，乌方进口的无人机整机及核心零部件中，中国占比常年维持在90%左右。比如FPV穿越机所用的无刷电机、飞控板、图传模块、GPS定位器，甚至改装用的手机信号中继器，基本都来自深圳华强北及长三角的电子市场。成本低、交货快、型号全——这是欧洲供应商根本无法比拟的优势。
2024年下半年，中国出于对军民两用物项出口风险的考量，开始对部分无人机相关技术实施出口管制。结果立竿见影：2025年10月，乌军前线无人机供应骤减，许多部队陷入“有战术、无装备”的窘境。乌方不得不以三倍价格紧急采购欧洲产品，但产能跟不上、成本压不住，所谓“百万架无人机”计划几乎停摆。
泽连斯基称，制裁是因为在中企出口的民用零件中，发现了被用于俄制“天竺葵”无人机等武器系统的组件。但关键点在于：这些零件本身属于通用型民用商品，既可用于消费电子，也可被改装用于军事用途——全球各国军队都在这么做，包括美军和乌军自己。
刀哥觉得最荒谬的是，乌克兰拆解俄制武器后发现，真正占大头的并非中方零件，而是来自美国、英国、德国等西方国家的高精度芯片、电源模块和导航系统。乌克兰把矛头对准中国，却对美欧视而不见。这种选择性追责，很难不让人怀疑其真实动机，或只是迎合某些西方国家的需求？
2026年2月8号，泽连斯基签署了一项新的总统令，宣布对包括中国、阿联酋、巴拿马以及多个前苏联加盟共和国在内的数十家企业实施制裁。理由是：这些实体涉嫌协助俄罗斯获取用于制造导弹和无人机的关键零部件。
但问题在于，乌克兰自己用的导弹和无人机，绝大多数零部件同样来自全球民用市场，而其中最大、最稳定的来源，恰恰也来自中方企业。这次乌克兰通过新制裁法案后，中方如果对乌克兰无人机零件禁止出口，哪怕通过第三方也不行，到时候乌克兰就麻烦了。毕竟连稀土通过第三方出口都可以精准追溯，无人机零件显然更容易。
根据乌克兰海关数据，从2022年到2025年，乌方进口的无人机整机及核心零部件中，中国占比常年维持在90%左右。比如FPV穿越机所用的无刷电机、飞控板、图传模块、GPS定位器，甚至改装用的手机信号中继器，基本都来自深圳华强北及长三角的电子市场。成本低、交货快、型号全——这是欧洲供应商根本无法比拟的优势。
2024年下半年，中国出于对军民两用物项出口风险的考量，开始对部分无人机相关技术实施出口管制。结果立竿见影：2025年10月，乌军前线无人机供应骤减，许多部队陷入“有战术、无装备”的窘境。乌方不得不以三倍价格紧急采购欧洲产品，但产能跟不上、成本压不住，所谓“百万架无人机”计划几乎停摆。
泽连斯基称，制裁是因为在中企出口的民用零件中，发现了被用于俄制“天竺葵”无人机等武器系统的组件。但关键点在于：这些零件本身属于通用型民用商品，既可用于消费电子，也可被改装用于军事用途——全球各国军队都在这么做，包括美军和乌军自己。
刀哥觉得最荒谬的是，乌克兰拆解俄制武器后发现，真正占大头的并非中方零件，而是来自美国、英国、德国等西方国家的高精度芯片、电源模块和导航系统。乌克兰把矛头对准中国，却对美欧视而不见。这种选择性追责，很难不让人怀疑其真实动机，或只是迎合某些西方国家的需求？
He Could’ve Been 💲80 Billion Richer… But Instead, He’s Sitting in Jail❗🤯🤯🤯
The 💲80 Billion “What If” Story of Sam Bankman-Fried❗
In crypto, everyone has a story about the one that got away.
The token you sold too early. The project you ignored. The dip you didn’t buy.
But no missed opportunity even comes close to the scale of what Sam Bankman-Fried left behind.
If events had unfolded differently, the former FTX CEO could have been sitting on tens of billions more than he ever imagined. Instead, those potential gains were frozen, seized, or lost as the empire collapsed.
Let’s break down the numbers behind one of the biggest “what if” moments in financial history.
The $500 Million Bet on Anthropic
Before the FTX collapse, Alameda Research invested around $500 million into AI startup Anthropic.
At the time, it was just another bold venture bet. But after the AI boom, Anthropic’s valuation reportedly surged to around $70 billion.
That single investment alone could have turned into one of the most profitable trades in tech history.
Potential missed value: tens of billions.
The $60 Million Solana Position
FTX and Alameda were among the biggest backers of the Solana ecosystem. At one point, they reportedly held around $60 million worth of SOL when the token traded near $8.
At its peak, Solana surged to levels where that position could have been worth over $2 billion.
But after the FTX collapse, those holdings were locked, seized, or sold under distressed conditions.
Potential missed value: over $2 billion.
The $100 Million Mysten Labs Investment
Alameda also invested roughly $100 million into Mysten Labs, the team behind the Sui blockchain.
As the project gained traction and funding rounds pushed valuations higher, that stake could have grown to more than $800 million.
Potential missed value: around $700 million.
The Robinhood Stake That Could’ve Been Worth $10 Billion
One of the most surprising assets tied to the FTX saga was a 7.5% stake in Robinhood, acquired through Alameda.
At today’s valuations, that stake alone could have been worth around $10 billion.
Instead, it became part of the legal and bankruptcy battles that followed the exchange’s collapse.
Potential missed value: roughly $10 billion.
Adding It All Up
Across just these four major positions:
Anthropic: tens of billionsSolana: $2+ billionMysten Labs: $800+ millionRobinhood: ~$10 billion
The combined unrealized upside is estimated at around $80 billion.
And that doesn’t even include other venture bets, token holdings, or ecosystem investments that might have appreciated.
The Real Lesson Behind the Numbers
This isn’t just a story about missed profits.
It’s a reminder of something deeper in crypto and finance:
Survival matters more than upside.
You can make the best investments in the world, but if your structure collapses, those gains never materialize.
Risk management, transparency, and trust aren’t just buzzwords. They’re the foundation that determines whether profits become real—or remain hypothetical.
Perspective for Everyday Traders
Next time you feel bad about:
Selling too earlyMissing a 10xNot buying the bottom
Remember this:
Even someone who once controlled billions in assets still managed to miss out on $80 billion in potential gains.
In markets, timing and discipline often matter more than raw opportunity.
And sometimes, the biggest losses are not what you lost…
but what you could have had if things didn’t fall apart.
#SBF #FTX $FTT $SOL
In crypto, everyone has a story about the one that got away.
The token you sold too early. The project you ignored. The dip you didn’t buy.
But no missed opportunity even comes close to the scale of what Sam Bankman-Fried left behind.
If events had unfolded differently, the former FTX CEO could have been sitting on tens of billions more than he ever imagined. Instead, those potential gains were frozen, seized, or lost as the empire collapsed.
Let’s break down the numbers behind one of the biggest “what if” moments in financial history.
The $500 Million Bet on Anthropic
Before the FTX collapse, Alameda Research invested around $500 million into AI startup Anthropic.
At the time, it was just another bold venture bet. But after the AI boom, Anthropic’s valuation reportedly surged to around $70 billion.
That single investment alone could have turned into one of the most profitable trades in tech history.
Potential missed value: tens of billions.
The $60 Million Solana Position
FTX and Alameda were among the biggest backers of the Solana ecosystem. At one point, they reportedly held around $60 million worth of SOL when the token traded near $8.
At its peak, Solana surged to levels where that position could have been worth over $2 billion.
But after the FTX collapse, those holdings were locked, seized, or sold under distressed conditions.
Potential missed value: over $2 billion.
The $100 Million Mysten Labs Investment
Alameda also invested roughly $100 million into Mysten Labs, the team behind the Sui blockchain.
As the project gained traction and funding rounds pushed valuations higher, that stake could have grown to more than $800 million.
Potential missed value: around $700 million.
The Robinhood Stake That Could’ve Been Worth $10 Billion
One of the most surprising assets tied to the FTX saga was a 7.5% stake in Robinhood, acquired through Alameda.
At today’s valuations, that stake alone could have been worth around $10 billion.
Instead, it became part of the legal and bankruptcy battles that followed the exchange’s collapse.
Potential missed value: roughly $10 billion.
Adding It All Up
Across just these four major positions:
Anthropic: tens of billionsSolana: $2+ billionMysten Labs: $800+ millionRobinhood: ~$10 billion
The combined unrealized upside is estimated at around $80 billion.
And that doesn’t even include other venture bets, token holdings, or ecosystem investments that might have appreciated.
The Real Lesson Behind the Numbers
This isn’t just a story about missed profits.
It’s a reminder of something deeper in crypto and finance:
Survival matters more than upside.
You can make the best investments in the world, but if your structure collapses, those gains never materialize.
Risk management, transparency, and trust aren’t just buzzwords. They’re the foundation that determines whether profits become real—or remain hypothetical.
Perspective for Everyday Traders
Next time you feel bad about:
Selling too earlyMissing a 10xNot buying the bottom
Remember this:
Even someone who once controlled billions in assets still managed to miss out on $80 billion in potential gains.
In markets, timing and discipline often matter more than raw opportunity.
And sometimes, the biggest losses are not what you lost…
but what you could have had if things didn’t fall apart.
#SBF #FTX $FTT $SOL
日本为啥从二战罪行中完美隐身？中国必须把话说透
最近发现一个很让人担忧的现实，那就是除了中国人之外，日本从二战历史中几乎完美隐身了！很多西方人，提到二战对日本的罪行几乎一无所知，更加可怕的是东南亚，日本人曾在越南、菲律宾、缅甸等国犯下累累罪行，日军在各地都有大屠杀记录！但80年过去了，到现在东南亚几乎没有人记得这一切，一提到对日本的态度，这些国家的网友提到的都是动漫、电影或者彬彬有礼，高科技这些，几乎没有人提到日本犯下的罪行！说实在的，这种情况太不正常了！
可以用细思极恐来形容，在亚洲兴风作浪，屠刀下有上千万冤魂的日本，就这么完美隐身了，甚至几乎没有人知道日本人还犯下过这种罪行，甚至受害者还觉得日本人彬彬有礼，不可能干出这样的兽行！简直离谱。就连美国人都被夺舍了，12月7日不是日本偷袭珍珠港的纪念日嘛，美国战争部发了个海报纪念，轰炸美军战舰的飞机还给P错了，P成了美国人自己的战斗轰炸机，合着美国人自己发动了“虎虎虎”，自己炸了自己家军港。
这还不算完，战争部废话一大堆，啥纪念死去的美国军人啦，记住耻辱啊，漂亮话全说了。但最关键的一点，谁炸的珍珠港，一个字没提，连个日本的单词都没有！还有在3月，美国国防部长赫格塞斯在硫磺岛出席二战纪念仪式的时候，甩出一句经典名言“我们要牢记美日双方士兵的勇敢精神”，这话说得，简直倒反天罡！你俩可是二战时候的死敌啊，打到脑浆子都出来了那种！
忘了美国人那时候咋宣传日本人了嘛？一个个日本人都面目狰狞，跟妖怪似的，现在怎么妖魔化中国，那时候就怎么妖魔化日本！现在倒好，日美成CP了？床头打架床尾和了属于是，所以美国人到底在怕啥？直接喊出日本是二战罪魁祸首之一就这么难吗？答案是，难，难于上青天！
我们都知道，美国是二战战胜国，苏联也是，中国也是，英法这俩打酱油的也算是，战败国主要有日本、德国、意大利还有一些仆从国。二战结束后的几十年，亲历者还活着，美国人还有西方基本上有啥说啥，电影也好纪录片也罢，把历史说得很明白。到了现在，出于地缘政治的因素，美国开始有意避开二战史观，甚至通过一些阴阳笔法，模糊掉日本战败国的身份，反而是苏联和中国在二战中的作用，被不断弱化！
甚至给很多外国人心中造成了错误的历史观点，居然有人认为二战是美日联手对抗中苏！这就离谱他妈给离谱开门，离谱到家了！所以，在现在的西方新闻中，二战是确有其事的历史，但历史中的真相必须隐藏，作为付出巨大牺牲的中国和苏联的作用，被无限缩小，反而西方成了世界的救世主，在欧洲，是英美战胜了纳粹，攻克柏林的也不是苏联红军，而是美国人？在亚洲战场，日本不是侵略者，摇身一变成了美国惺惺相惜的对手？
那中国牺牲3500万换回的胜利又算什么？历史，在美国人手里，成了可以随意粉饰的工具，不再对错的衡量，反而变成了打压对手的利剑，他们通过国际舆论话语权，不断篡改历史，刻意将中国和俄罗斯从战胜国的地位中剥离，而日本则顺水推舟成了文明的代表！
必须承认，很长一段时间，我们对美日的做法是无可奈何的，但现在我们必须向世界传递真实的历史，二战中日本就是犯下了骇人罪行，中国是战胜国，整个国际秩序就是因此而奠定的！有些事，咱不说，别人就会胡说！所以，必须正视历史，把日本曾经的嘴脸昭告天下！
最近发现一个很让人担忧的现实，那就是除了中国人之外，日本从二战历史中几乎完美隐身了！很多西方人，提到二战对日本的罪行几乎一无所知，更加可怕的是东南亚，日本人曾在越南、菲律宾、缅甸等国犯下累累罪行，日军在各地都有大屠杀记录！但80年过去了，到现在东南亚几乎没有人记得这一切，一提到对日本的态度，这些国家的网友提到的都是动漫、电影或者彬彬有礼，高科技这些，几乎没有人提到日本犯下的罪行！说实在的，这种情况太不正常了！
可以用细思极恐来形容，在亚洲兴风作浪，屠刀下有上千万冤魂的日本，就这么完美隐身了，甚至几乎没有人知道日本人还犯下过这种罪行，甚至受害者还觉得日本人彬彬有礼，不可能干出这样的兽行！简直离谱。就连美国人都被夺舍了，12月7日不是日本偷袭珍珠港的纪念日嘛，美国战争部发了个海报纪念，轰炸美军战舰的飞机还给P错了，P成了美国人自己的战斗轰炸机，合着美国人自己发动了“虎虎虎”，自己炸了自己家军港。
这还不算完，战争部废话一大堆，啥纪念死去的美国军人啦，记住耻辱啊，漂亮话全说了。但最关键的一点，谁炸的珍珠港，一个字没提，连个日本的单词都没有！还有在3月，美国国防部长赫格塞斯在硫磺岛出席二战纪念仪式的时候，甩出一句经典名言“我们要牢记美日双方士兵的勇敢精神”，这话说得，简直倒反天罡！你俩可是二战时候的死敌啊，打到脑浆子都出来了那种！
忘了美国人那时候咋宣传日本人了嘛？一个个日本人都面目狰狞，跟妖怪似的，现在怎么妖魔化中国，那时候就怎么妖魔化日本！现在倒好，日美成CP了？床头打架床尾和了属于是，所以美国人到底在怕啥？直接喊出日本是二战罪魁祸首之一就这么难吗？答案是，难，难于上青天！
我们都知道，美国是二战战胜国，苏联也是，中国也是，英法这俩打酱油的也算是，战败国主要有日本、德国、意大利还有一些仆从国。二战结束后的几十年，亲历者还活着，美国人还有西方基本上有啥说啥，电影也好纪录片也罢，把历史说得很明白。到了现在，出于地缘政治的因素，美国开始有意避开二战史观，甚至通过一些阴阳笔法，模糊掉日本战败国的身份，反而是苏联和中国在二战中的作用，被不断弱化！
甚至给很多外国人心中造成了错误的历史观点，居然有人认为二战是美日联手对抗中苏！这就离谱他妈给离谱开门，离谱到家了！所以，在现在的西方新闻中，二战是确有其事的历史，但历史中的真相必须隐藏，作为付出巨大牺牲的中国和苏联的作用，被无限缩小，反而西方成了世界的救世主，在欧洲，是英美战胜了纳粹，攻克柏林的也不是苏联红军，而是美国人？在亚洲战场，日本不是侵略者，摇身一变成了美国惺惺相惜的对手？
那中国牺牲3500万换回的胜利又算什么？历史，在美国人手里，成了可以随意粉饰的工具，不再对错的衡量，反而变成了打压对手的利剑，他们通过国际舆论话语权，不断篡改历史，刻意将中国和俄罗斯从战胜国的地位中剥离，而日本则顺水推舟成了文明的代表！
必须承认，很长一段时间，我们对美日的做法是无可奈何的，但现在我们必须向世界传递真实的历史，二战中日本就是犯下了骇人罪行，中国是战胜国，整个国际秩序就是因此而奠定的！有些事，咱不说，别人就会胡说！所以，必须正视历史，把日本曾经的嘴脸昭告天下！
I’ll say something most traders are scared to admit: sometimes it feels like the market is personally against you.
You study the chart. You wait for confirmation. You enter with confidence. And then price moves in the exact opposite direction. Again. And again. After a few losses, it’s not just about money anymore. It hits your confidence.
But here’s the truth: it’s not that every trade is against you. It’s that your system, risk management, or emotional control needs adjustment.
When you’re disappointed, don’t trade more. Trade less.
When every setup fails, step back and review:
Are you entering too early?
Are you overleveraged?
Are you trading out of revenge?
Are you ignoring the higher timeframe trend?
Losses are part of this game. Even the best traders lose many trades. What separates them is discipline. They don’t let a bad streak turn into a blown account.
Take a break. Reset your mind. Reduce position size. Focus on process, not quick recovery.
The market isn’t against you. It’s neutral. Your job is to survive long enough to align with it.$XRP $ETH #TrumpCanadaTariffsOverturned
You study the chart. You wait for confirmation. You enter with confidence. And then price moves in the exact opposite direction. Again. And again. After a few losses, it’s not just about money anymore. It hits your confidence.
But here’s the truth: it’s not that every trade is against you. It’s that your system, risk management, or emotional control needs adjustment.
When you’re disappointed, don’t trade more. Trade less.
When every setup fails, step back and review:
Are you entering too early?
Are you overleveraged?
Are you trading out of revenge?
Are you ignoring the higher timeframe trend?
Losses are part of this game. Even the best traders lose many trades. What separates them is discipline. They don’t let a bad streak turn into a blown account.
Take a break. Reset your mind. Reduce position size. Focus on process, not quick recovery.
The market isn’t against you. It’s neutral. Your job is to survive long enough to align with it.$XRP $ETH #TrumpCanadaTariffsOverturned
SOLUSDC
Διην.
9X
Μακροπρ. άνοιγμα
Μη πραγμ. PnL
-919,45USDT
分享一下月度奖励❗️白薅羊毛！
每天255用usdt和usdc互刷一下，基本上无损
大部分是4个$HAEDAL ，有时候有40个/1u
运气好说不准就中大奖了，在这个饥荒的时期，每个毛都是极其重要的！
每天255用usdt和usdc互刷一下，基本上无损
大部分是4个$HAEDAL ，有时候有40个/1u
运气好说不准就中大奖了，在这个饥荒的时期，每个毛都是极其重要的！
Markets in freefall: AI fears trigger US$4B Bitcoin ETF exodus
Anndy Lian
Markets in freefall: AI fears trigger US$4B Bitcoin ETF exodus
From Wall Street to Asian bourses, from oil futures to digital currencies, the message is clear: risk appetite has evaporated, and a defensive crouch has become the default stance. This is not merely a localised correction or sector-specific adjustment. This is a full-scale recalibration of market sentiment, driven by artificial intelligence anxieties, robust economic data that complicates the rate-cut narrative, and a commodity complex under siege from supply gluts.
In my view, what we are witnessing represents a significant stress test for the interconnected global financial system, and the results so far paint a sobering picture.
The epicentre of this week’s turmoil lies squarely on Wall Street, where fresh concerns about the long-term implications of artificial intelligence on commercial real estate and software sectors triggered a violent selloff on Thursday. The Nasdaq Composite plummeted 2.03 per cent, erasing weeks of gains in a single trading session. The S&P 500 fared only marginally better, dropping 1.57 per cent as investors scrambled to reduce exposure to growth-oriented names.
These are not trivial declines. They reflect a fundamental reassessment of valuations in sectors that have carried the market to record highs over the past year. The AI revolution, once celebrated as a catalyst for unprecedented productivity gains, has now become a source of anxiety as market participants question whether the technology will disrupt more businesses than it creates.
This flight from risk assets has produced a predictable but nonetheless significant rotation into safe havens. United States Treasuries rallied sharply, pushing the 10-year yield down to approximately 4.09 per cent, its lowest level since early December. This move tells us something important about investor psychology right now.
When capital flows aggressively into government bonds amid strong economic data, it signals that fear has overtaken greed as the dominant market emotion. The traditional playbook would suggest that robust employment figures and resilient consumer spending should push yields higher. Instead, the opposite has occurred, revealing the depth of concern about potential dislocations in equity markets.
The commodity complex has not escaped the carnage. Oil prices fell more than 2 per cent after a devastating report from the International Energy Agency projected a record global crude surplus of 3.7 million barrels per day in 2026. This figure represents a supply glut of historic proportions, one that threatens to keep energy prices depressed for the foreseeable future.
For oil-producing nations and energy companies, this outlook presents serious challenges to fiscal planning and capital expenditure decisions. For consumers and central bankers, lower energy costs could provide some relief on the inflation front, though the broader economic implications of a weakening commodity complex remain concerning.
Gold, traditionally the ultimate safe haven during periods of market stress, has also stumbled. The precious metal tumbled below the US$5,000 per ounce mark as strong jobs data dampened hopes for immediate interest rate cuts from the Federal Reserve. This development highlights a fascinating tension in current market dynamics.
Investors want protection from equity volatility, but they also recognise that a strong labour market gives the Fed little incentive to ease monetary policy. Higher-for-longer interest rates diminish the appeal of non-yielding assets like gold, creating downward pressure even during periods of elevated uncertainty.
Perhaps the most instructive lesson from this week’s market action comes from the cryptocurrency sector, which has declined 1.55 per cent over the past 24 hours, bringing its total market capitalisation to US$2.28 trillion. What makes this move particularly significant is not its magnitude but its correlation structure.
The crypto market now exhibits a 93 per cent correlation with the S&P 500 and an 89 per cent correlation with gold over the same period. These figures demolish any remaining arguments that digital assets function as uncorrelated portfolio diversifiers during stress events. When correlations approach unity across asset classes, it tells us that macro forces, specifically interest rate expectations and dollar dynamics, are driving all boats in the same direction.
The institutional dimension of the crypto selloff deserves careful attention. Bitcoin exchange-traded fund assets under management fell to US$93.32 billion from US$97.31 billion the previous day, indicating sustained selling pressure from professional investors. This was compounded by US$98.45 million in Bitcoin liquidations over 24 hours, with US$80.21 million representing long positions that were forcibly closed.
The combination of spot selling and leveraged position unwinding created a negative feedback loop that amplified the downward move. In my assessment, this dynamic represents one of the most vulnerable aspects of the current crypto market structure, where institutional flows and derivative markets can interact in ways that accelerate price moves beyond what fundamentals would justify.
Looking ahead, the technical picture for Bitcoin centres on the US$65,000 to US$66,000 support zone. A decisive break below this level could open the door to a swift decline toward US$50,000, a scenario that Standard Chartered has publicly identified as possible.
The key near-term catalyst will be the FOMC meeting minutes scheduled for release on February 19, which could provide crucial guidance on the Federal Reserve’s interest rate trajectory. Until then, markets will likely remain in a holding pattern, with participants reluctant to commit capital until they have greater clarity on the direction of monetary policy.
My view on the current situation is that we are experiencing a necessary and ultimately healthy correction in asset prices that had become stretched by optimism about technological transformation and monetary easing. The AI narrative, while powerful, had pushed valuations in certain sectors to levels that assumed perfection in execution and adoption.
Reality rarely cooperates with such assumptions. Similarly, the expectation that central banks would rush to cut rates despite solid economic data always seemed premature. Markets are now adjusting to a more realistic assessment of both opportunities and risks.
The path forward will depend heavily on whether institutional investors interpret current price levels as buying opportunities or as warnings to further reduce exposure. Daily ETF flow data will provide the most immediate signal of sentiment. A return to consistent net inflows would suggest that professional capital views the selloff as a dip worth buying. Continued outflows would indicate that de-risking has further to run.
For now, the burden of proof rests with the bulls, who must demonstrate that support levels will hold up against persistent macroeconomic headwinds and technical pressure. The markets have spoken clearly this week, and their message is one of caution, recalibration, and respect for the powerful forces that shape global capital flows.
Source: https://e27.co/markets-in-freefall-ai-fears-trigger-us4b-bitcoin-etf-exodus-20260213/
The post Markets in freefall: AI fears trigger US$4B Bitcoin ETF exodus appeared first on Anndy Lian by Anndy Lian.
Markets in freefall: AI fears trigger US$4B Bitcoin ETF exodus
From Wall Street to Asian bourses, from oil futures to digital currencies, the message is clear: risk appetite has evaporated, and a defensive crouch has become the default stance. This is not merely a localised correction or sector-specific adjustment. This is a full-scale recalibration of market sentiment, driven by artificial intelligence anxieties, robust economic data that complicates the rate-cut narrative, and a commodity complex under siege from supply gluts.
In my view, what we are witnessing represents a significant stress test for the interconnected global financial system, and the results so far paint a sobering picture.
The epicentre of this week’s turmoil lies squarely on Wall Street, where fresh concerns about the long-term implications of artificial intelligence on commercial real estate and software sectors triggered a violent selloff on Thursday. The Nasdaq Composite plummeted 2.03 per cent, erasing weeks of gains in a single trading session. The S&P 500 fared only marginally better, dropping 1.57 per cent as investors scrambled to reduce exposure to growth-oriented names.
These are not trivial declines. They reflect a fundamental reassessment of valuations in sectors that have carried the market to record highs over the past year. The AI revolution, once celebrated as a catalyst for unprecedented productivity gains, has now become a source of anxiety as market participants question whether the technology will disrupt more businesses than it creates.
This flight from risk assets has produced a predictable but nonetheless significant rotation into safe havens. United States Treasuries rallied sharply, pushing the 10-year yield down to approximately 4.09 per cent, its lowest level since early December. This move tells us something important about investor psychology right now.
When capital flows aggressively into government bonds amid strong economic data, it signals that fear has overtaken greed as the dominant market emotion. The traditional playbook would suggest that robust employment figures and resilient consumer spending should push yields higher. Instead, the opposite has occurred, revealing the depth of concern about potential dislocations in equity markets.
The commodity complex has not escaped the carnage. Oil prices fell more than 2 per cent after a devastating report from the International Energy Agency projected a record global crude surplus of 3.7 million barrels per day in 2026. This figure represents a supply glut of historic proportions, one that threatens to keep energy prices depressed for the foreseeable future.
For oil-producing nations and energy companies, this outlook presents serious challenges to fiscal planning and capital expenditure decisions. For consumers and central bankers, lower energy costs could provide some relief on the inflation front, though the broader economic implications of a weakening commodity complex remain concerning.
Gold, traditionally the ultimate safe haven during periods of market stress, has also stumbled. The precious metal tumbled below the US$5,000 per ounce mark as strong jobs data dampened hopes for immediate interest rate cuts from the Federal Reserve. This development highlights a fascinating tension in current market dynamics.
Investors want protection from equity volatility, but they also recognise that a strong labour market gives the Fed little incentive to ease monetary policy. Higher-for-longer interest rates diminish the appeal of non-yielding assets like gold, creating downward pressure even during periods of elevated uncertainty.
Perhaps the most instructive lesson from this week’s market action comes from the cryptocurrency sector, which has declined 1.55 per cent over the past 24 hours, bringing its total market capitalisation to US$2.28 trillion. What makes this move particularly significant is not its magnitude but its correlation structure.
The crypto market now exhibits a 93 per cent correlation with the S&P 500 and an 89 per cent correlation with gold over the same period. These figures demolish any remaining arguments that digital assets function as uncorrelated portfolio diversifiers during stress events. When correlations approach unity across asset classes, it tells us that macro forces, specifically interest rate expectations and dollar dynamics, are driving all boats in the same direction.
The institutional dimension of the crypto selloff deserves careful attention. Bitcoin exchange-traded fund assets under management fell to US$93.32 billion from US$97.31 billion the previous day, indicating sustained selling pressure from professional investors. This was compounded by US$98.45 million in Bitcoin liquidations over 24 hours, with US$80.21 million representing long positions that were forcibly closed.
The combination of spot selling and leveraged position unwinding created a negative feedback loop that amplified the downward move. In my assessment, this dynamic represents one of the most vulnerable aspects of the current crypto market structure, where institutional flows and derivative markets can interact in ways that accelerate price moves beyond what fundamentals would justify.
Looking ahead, the technical picture for Bitcoin centres on the US$65,000 to US$66,000 support zone. A decisive break below this level could open the door to a swift decline toward US$50,000, a scenario that Standard Chartered has publicly identified as possible.
The key near-term catalyst will be the FOMC meeting minutes scheduled for release on February 19, which could provide crucial guidance on the Federal Reserve’s interest rate trajectory. Until then, markets will likely remain in a holding pattern, with participants reluctant to commit capital until they have greater clarity on the direction of monetary policy.
My view on the current situation is that we are experiencing a necessary and ultimately healthy correction in asset prices that had become stretched by optimism about technological transformation and monetary easing. The AI narrative, while powerful, had pushed valuations in certain sectors to levels that assumed perfection in execution and adoption.
Reality rarely cooperates with such assumptions. Similarly, the expectation that central banks would rush to cut rates despite solid economic data always seemed premature. Markets are now adjusting to a more realistic assessment of both opportunities and risks.
The path forward will depend heavily on whether institutional investors interpret current price levels as buying opportunities or as warnings to further reduce exposure. Daily ETF flow data will provide the most immediate signal of sentiment. A return to consistent net inflows would suggest that professional capital views the selloff as a dip worth buying. Continued outflows would indicate that de-risking has further to run.
For now, the burden of proof rests with the bulls, who must demonstrate that support levels will hold up against persistent macroeconomic headwinds and technical pressure. The markets have spoken clearly this week, and their message is one of caution, recalibration, and respect for the powerful forces that shape global capital flows.
Source: https://e27.co/markets-in-freefall-ai-fears-trigger-us4b-bitcoin-etf-exodus-20260213/
The post Markets in freefall: AI fears trigger US$4B Bitcoin ETF exodus appeared first on Anndy Lian by Anndy Lian.
Временные ограничения в РФ
Использование Binance в России столкнулось с ограничениями. Россияне не могут продолжать использовать старые аккаунты с верификацией. Новые пользователи из России могут зарегистрироваться, однако верификация для них недоступна. Подтверждение новых учетных записей из Российской Федерации на данный момент невозможно без предоставления подтверждения иностранного адреса проживания.
Ранее зарегистрированные пользователи так-же могут пользоваться услугами Биржи, но с ограниченными возможностями, данный блок статей подскажет, на что стоит в данный момент вложить свою n-ую сумму денег, а также будем обсуждать современные реалии изменения рынка.
Чтобы не потерять советую подписаться!
До скорых встреч $TON
#RU #russia #block
Ранее зарегистрированные пользователи так-же могут пользоваться услугами Биржи, но с ограниченными возможностями, данный блок статей подскажет, на что стоит в данный момент вложить свою n-ую сумму денег, а также будем обсуждать современные реалии изменения рынка.
Чтобы не потерять советую подписаться!
До скорых встреч $TON
#RU #russia #block
比特币熊市中抄底的最佳时机？
$BTC $ETH
短期预测（2026年上半年）： 华尔街投行伯恩斯坦（Bernstein）等机构认为，当前的低迷属于“短期熊市周期”，可能会在 2026年上半年（第一或第二季度） 触底并迎来复苏。
周期性预测（2026年中后期）： 也有基于线性衰减模型的预测认为，本轮熊市的真正底部可能出现在 2026年8月23日 左右，而 2026年3月底 可能是进入底部区域的开始。
整理年观点： 富达（Fidelity）等机构的专家指出，比特币的“寒冬”通常持续一年左右，因此 2026年整体 可能都是一个震荡整理、寻找支撑的“休整年”。
$BTC $ETH
短期预测（2026年上半年）： 华尔街投行伯恩斯坦（Bernstein）等机构认为，当前的低迷属于“短期熊市周期”，可能会在 2026年上半年（第一或第二季度） 触底并迎来复苏。
周期性预测（2026年中后期）： 也有基于线性衰减模型的预测认为，本轮熊市的真正底部可能出现在 2026年8月23日 左右，而 2026年3月底 可能是进入底部区域的开始。
整理年观点： 富达（Fidelity）等机构的专家指出，比特币的“寒冬”通常持续一年左右，因此 2026年整体 可能都是一个震荡整理、寻找支撑的“休整年”。
BTCUSDC
Διην.
100X
Βραχυπρ. άνοιγμα
Μη πραγμ. PnL
+23.617,90USDT
Why Big Buys Don't Always Make Crypto Prices Go Up?
Sometimes we see that someone just bought a huge amount of $BTC , $ETH , or another coin, and we think , "Yes! The price will go up for sure!" But then we check... and the price keeps dropping. Confusing right? 🤧
Here's why it happens 👇:
💥Market Size vs Individual Buying
Even if someone buys $50 million in BTC, the market is massive. For example, BTC's daily trading volume can be over $20 billion, so a single buy might barely move the price.
💥Selling Pressure From Others
Big buys can be immediately offset if other whales are selling. Last year, we saw a whale buy ETH, but soon after, another large holder sold, keeping the price almost unchanged.
💥Macro Events
Global news affects crypto too. For instance, if the US announces higher interest rate, investors may sell crypto for safer assets, even if whales are buying.
💥Exchange and Liquidity Factors
Sometime a huge buy doesn't push the price because there aren't enough sell orders at higher prices. Think of it like trying to fill a swimming pool with a garden hose, you need more supply or demand to see movement.
💥Market Sentiment and Fear
Even with big purchase, fear can dominate. For example, during crypto dipafter FTX news, whales were buying, but the market stayed in panic mode, keeping prices down.
💥Delayed Reaction
Markets don't always react instantly. A whale buy might influence price slowly over hours or days as others notice and follow.
So, seeing someone buy a lot doesn't guarantee a pump. Crypto is unpredictable, and the market reacts to many factors at once. Always DYOR! We can analyze and guess, but surprises happen.
#BTC #Market_Update #CZAMAonBinanceSquare
Here's why it happens 👇:
💥Market Size vs Individual Buying
Even if someone buys $50 million in BTC, the market is massive. For example, BTC's daily trading volume can be over $20 billion, so a single buy might barely move the price.
💥Selling Pressure From Others
Big buys can be immediately offset if other whales are selling. Last year, we saw a whale buy ETH, but soon after, another large holder sold, keeping the price almost unchanged.
💥Macro Events
Global news affects crypto too. For instance, if the US announces higher interest rate, investors may sell crypto for safer assets, even if whales are buying.
💥Exchange and Liquidity Factors
Sometime a huge buy doesn't push the price because there aren't enough sell orders at higher prices. Think of it like trying to fill a swimming pool with a garden hose, you need more supply or demand to see movement.
💥Market Sentiment and Fear
Even with big purchase, fear can dominate. For example, during crypto dipafter FTX news, whales were buying, but the market stayed in panic mode, keeping prices down.
💥Delayed Reaction
Markets don't always react instantly. A whale buy might influence price slowly over hours or days as others notice and follow.
So, seeing someone buy a lot doesn't guarantee a pump. Crypto is unpredictable, and the market reacts to many factors at once. Always DYOR! We can analyze and guess, but surprises happen.
#BTC #Market_Update #CZAMAonBinanceSquare
🛑The 5th wave of the 1 hour sub wave of $SOL has reached our golden pocket of $78.37 😉Will the next pump be at the price of $76.78? Elliot wave Update..
🔸How are you all? I got an Elliott update on SOLUSDT. So, so far, SOL is gradually moving down with the movement of the market. The higher high before the dump can be at the price of $148.77. So, so far, it has come down with a big gain of -56.27%. So, this has become a bearish impulse wave. Currently, the SOL point (T) has been formed at the price of $67.49. So, the motive here has started to turn bullish again. Everyone can see that this is a zigzag wave because the FIB levels have reached $0.618. So, counting the sub waves in this main wave, we need to continue the impulsive move of this sub wave until it reaches the IMB area below. So, as our bullish entry price, I see the price range between $76-$77 at this time. So, there is more room for SOL to dump here, so there is no point in placing your limit order here. So, comment below what you think about this update. Have a good day everyone.
🔸How are you all? I got an Elliott update on SOLUSDT. So, so far, SOL is gradually moving down with the movement of the market. The higher high before the dump can be at the price of $148.77. So, so far, it has come down with a big gain of -56.27%. So, this has become a bearish impulse wave. Currently, the SOL point (T) has been formed at the price of $67.49. So, the motive here has started to turn bullish again. Everyone can see that this is a zigzag wave because the FIB levels have reached $0.618. So, counting the sub waves in this main wave, we need to continue the impulsive move of this sub wave until it reaches the IMB area below. So, as our bullish entry price, I see the price range between $76-$77 at this time. So, there is more room for SOL to dump here, so there is no point in placing your limit order here. So, comment below what you think about this update. Have a good day everyone.