FioraX
Verified Creator
Tất cả bài đăng chỉ nên tham khảo | Chia sẻ nhận định cá nhân không phải lời khuyên đầu tư | DYOR| DM: @Fiora_X
19 Following
1.0K+ Followers
2.3K+ Liked
62 Shared
Posts
All
Quotes
Videos
Live
Binance partners with Franklin Templeton: Tokenized money market fund shares as collateral
Binance announces its first product in collaboration with Franklin Templeton, marking a step forward in connecting traditional financial infrastructure with the crypto market.
Accordingly, institutional clients can now use tokenized money market fund shares issued through Franklin Templeton's Benji Technology Platform as off-exchange collateral for trading activities on Binance.
This mechanism helps improve capital efficiency, reduces the need to move assets directly onto exchanges, and expands collateral options for institutional investors. At the same time, this move reflects the growing trend of integration between the traditional financial system (TradFi) and digital asset infrastructure.
Binance announces its first product in collaboration with Franklin Templeton, marking a step forward in connecting traditional financial infrastructure with the crypto market.
Accordingly, institutional clients can now use tokenized money market fund shares issued through Franklin Templeton's Benji Technology Platform as off-exchange collateral for trading activities on Binance.
This mechanism helps improve capital efficiency, reduces the need to move assets directly onto exchanges, and expands collateral options for institutional investors. At the same time, this move reflects the growing trend of integration between the traditional financial system (TradFi) and digital asset infrastructure.
Sometimes I wonder, if crypto quiets down and most activity is just stablecoins coming and going, who will benefit the most?
If stablecoins truly become the 'backbone', then the standards will be completely different. No one will accept a financial underpinning that is cheap today, congested tomorrow, and has fluctuating fees because of some trend. It must be consistent. It must be predictable.
In this regard, @Plasma has a rather special position. It does not try to do everything. It is not NFTs, not games, and not a new narrative every week. Plasma $XPL is designed around a single behavior: stablecoin movement.
When it doesn’t have to share space with too many use cases, conflicts decrease. Less influenced by speculative frenzy. Less need to prioritize something else over money.
Major chains can definitely still handle stablecoins well. But they always have to balance multiple demands at the same time. Plasma accepts a narrow focus in exchange for stability.
If stablecoins are truly the foundation of crypto, I think the advantage does not lie in who is bigger, but in who is more focused.
As for whether the market values that 'less ambition', I’m still observing.
@Plasma #Plasma $XPL
If stablecoins truly become the 'backbone', then the standards will be completely different. No one will accept a financial underpinning that is cheap today, congested tomorrow, and has fluctuating fees because of some trend. It must be consistent. It must be predictable.
In this regard, @Plasma has a rather special position. It does not try to do everything. It is not NFTs, not games, and not a new narrative every week. Plasma $XPL is designed around a single behavior: stablecoin movement.
When it doesn’t have to share space with too many use cases, conflicts decrease. Less influenced by speculative frenzy. Less need to prioritize something else over money.
Major chains can definitely still handle stablecoins well. But they always have to balance multiple demands at the same time. Plasma accepts a narrow focus in exchange for stability.
If stablecoins are truly the foundation of crypto, I think the advantage does not lie in who is bigger, but in who is more focused.
As for whether the market values that 'less ambition', I’m still observing.
@Plasma #Plasma $XPL
Does Plasma have enough strength to survive if the bull market doesn't return?
There was a time I sat down to review my wallet's transaction history and realized that most of my stablecoin movements occurred when the market was... very calm. No FOMO. No big waves. Just withdrawing funds, transferring between platforms, or waiting.
Stablecoins are very 'on point' in times like this. No one talks about it. No one expects it to generate profits. It simply holds value, serving as a foundation for the next decision.
When thinking about @Plasma , I don't think of the bull market first. I think of those quiet periods. And the question arises quite realistically: if the bull market doesn't return for a long time, does Plasma have enough strength to survive?
Stablecoins are very 'on point' in times like this. No one talks about it. No one expects it to generate profits. It simply holds value, serving as a foundation for the next decision.
When thinking about @Plasma , I don't think of the bull market first. I think of those quiet periods. And the question arises quite realistically: if the bull market doesn't return for a long time, does Plasma have enough strength to survive?
Every time I withdraw USDT, I look at a long list of networks like this and wonder: why do I have to choose so many when transferring "digital dollars"?
TRON, BSC, ERC20, SOL, TON… and now there's even Plasma (USDTO). Each network has a different fee, a number of confirmations, and different wait times. Stablecoins were born to simplify, but in reality, they force me to make technical decisions before hitting send.
Looking at the withdrawal fees, Plasma is almost 0 USDT. Tron is 1 USDT. ERC20 goes up to 3 USDT. Not significant for large transfers, but with smaller amounts, it’s a different story.
What I find interesting is not the fee numbers, but the feeling. Choosing Tron is choosing familiarity. Choosing Plasma is choosing a different direction — where stablecoins are placed at the center, not just a token running alongside everything else.
For many people, a cheap and popular network is enough. But as the list of networks gets longer, I start to think: is the future of stablecoins "multiple choices", or is it a specialized infrastructure where I don’t have to think so much?
@Plasma $XPL #Plasma
TRON, BSC, ERC20, SOL, TON… and now there's even Plasma (USDTO). Each network has a different fee, a number of confirmations, and different wait times. Stablecoins were born to simplify, but in reality, they force me to make technical decisions before hitting send.
Looking at the withdrawal fees, Plasma is almost 0 USDT. Tron is 1 USDT. ERC20 goes up to 3 USDT. Not significant for large transfers, but with smaller amounts, it’s a different story.
What I find interesting is not the fee numbers, but the feeling. Choosing Tron is choosing familiarity. Choosing Plasma is choosing a different direction — where stablecoins are placed at the center, not just a token running alongside everything else.
For many people, a cheap and popular network is enough. But as the list of networks gets longer, I start to think: is the future of stablecoins "multiple choices", or is it a specialized infrastructure where I don’t have to think so much?
@Plasma $XPL #Plasma
Does Plasma compete directly with Cosmos app-chain?
The last time I thought about Cosmos was when transferring stablecoins between two different systems. There was no mistake at all. But I still had to pause a few beats. Check the route. Check the destination chain. Look back at the address. It feels familiar, but not light.
Stablecoins should be boring. They shouldn't make me think so much. But once they involve multiple chains, many layers, and many bridges, I have to pay attention more than necessary.
Stablecoins should be boring. They shouldn't make me think so much. But once they involve multiple chains, many layers, and many bridges, I have to pay attention more than necessary.
Scenario $8,000 for Bitcoin: Low probability but cannot be ignored
The price level of $8,000 for $BTC is a theoretically existing scenario, although the probability of it occurring is currently assessed to be very low.
Such a deep drop would require conditions far beyond those of a typical bear market. This scenario could only form in the context of severe systemic stress, such as frozen liquidity, a sharp decline in confidence in ETFs, or a widespread forced sell-off by large institutions.
Compared to previous cycles, the current market structure has a higher level of resilience, with better infrastructure and clearer institutional participation. However, the market is also becoming more tightly linked to global macroeconomic factors, making systemic shocks potentially spread more quickly if they occur.
Extreme scenarios do not need to be expected to be considered. In risk management, planning for scenarios at the "tail end of the distribution" is just as important as analyzing the base case scenario. The figure of $8,000 should be viewed in that context: a tail risk, not a central scenario.
Despite the low probability, extreme events still affect market behavior. Just discussing them can impact positioning and sentiment, as the market often reacts to potential risks before they actually occur.
The price level of $8,000 for $BTC is a theoretically existing scenario, although the probability of it occurring is currently assessed to be very low.
Such a deep drop would require conditions far beyond those of a typical bear market. This scenario could only form in the context of severe systemic stress, such as frozen liquidity, a sharp decline in confidence in ETFs, or a widespread forced sell-off by large institutions.
Compared to previous cycles, the current market structure has a higher level of resilience, with better infrastructure and clearer institutional participation. However, the market is also becoming more tightly linked to global macroeconomic factors, making systemic shocks potentially spread more quickly if they occur.
Extreme scenarios do not need to be expected to be considered. In risk management, planning for scenarios at the "tail end of the distribution" is just as important as analyzing the base case scenario. The figure of $8,000 should be viewed in that context: a tail risk, not a central scenario.
Despite the low probability, extreme events still affect market behavior. Just discussing them can impact positioning and sentiment, as the market often reacts to potential risks before they actually occur.
Why does Plasma need its own chain instead of just being an L2 on Ethereum?
At first, I also wondered like many others: why did @Plasma choose to create its own chain. A stablecoin running on L2 Ethereum seems to be cheap enough, familiar enough, and the ecosystem is unquestionable.
But every time I use stablecoin on L2, there's always a little concern. How are the fees today? Is the network congested? Is there an app that just launched causing everything to slow down? It's not a big issue, but enough for me to think about.
The problem doesn't necessarily lie with Ethereum or L2. It's that stablecoin is never the sole priority. When the market is hot, other things always jump ahead. Transferring money gradually becomes a secondary activity, influenced by unrelated matters.
Plasma $XPL chose to create its own chain to avoid that situation. Not to be stronger, but to be more predictable. When the system revolves solely around stablecoin, its behavior is less dependent on external fluctuations.
In return, it's a trade-off. Less flexibility. Fewer ecosystems. Harder adoption. But with money, there are times when I'm willing to accept fewer choices, as long as I don't have to think too much every time I hit send.
The question is whether users are willing to trade familiarity for this sense of security. I am still observing.
@Plasma $XPL #Plasma
At first, I also wondered like many others: why did @Plasma choose to create its own chain. A stablecoin running on L2 Ethereum seems to be cheap enough, familiar enough, and the ecosystem is unquestionable.
But every time I use stablecoin on L2, there's always a little concern. How are the fees today? Is the network congested? Is there an app that just launched causing everything to slow down? It's not a big issue, but enough for me to think about.
The problem doesn't necessarily lie with Ethereum or L2. It's that stablecoin is never the sole priority. When the market is hot, other things always jump ahead. Transferring money gradually becomes a secondary activity, influenced by unrelated matters.
Plasma $XPL chose to create its own chain to avoid that situation. Not to be stronger, but to be more predictable. When the system revolves solely around stablecoin, its behavior is less dependent on external fluctuations.
In return, it's a trade-off. Less flexibility. Fewer ecosystems. Harder adoption. But with money, there are times when I'm willing to accept fewer choices, as long as I don't have to think too much every time I hit send.
The question is whether users are willing to trade familiarity for this sense of security. I am still observing.
@Plasma $XPL #Plasma
Bitcoin, MA 200W and why the $38,000 area is a level that cannot be overlooked
$BTC in macro pressure phases always shows a consistent characteristic: the long-term structure is more important than any short-term narrative.
On the weekly chart, BTC is still trading within a long-term upward channel that has guided prices through many cycles. Major expansions in the past have respected this structure, while deep corrections often return to test the lower boundary of the channel.
On the weekly chart, BTC is still trading within a long-term upward channel that has guided prices through many cycles. Major expansions in the past have respected this structure, while deep corrections often return to test the lower boundary of the channel.
What problem does Plasma solve that Ethereum is still struggling with?
I think to talk about what @Plasma is addressing that Ethereum is still struggling with, we must start from a somewhat difficult truth: Ethereum is not failing to scale. It is simply being pulled too far away from what it was created to do.
Ethereum is designed as a 'general-purpose computer.' Everything can run on it, anyone can build, and no use case is favored. This is what makes Ethereum powerful, but it also makes it clumsy when handling very monotonous, repetitive value streams that are extremely sensitive to costs.
Ethereum is designed as a 'general-purpose computer.' Everything can run on it, anyone can build, and no use case is favored. This is what makes Ethereum powerful, but it also makes it clumsy when handling very monotonous, repetitive value streams that are extremely sensitive to costs.
Stop Loss and Take Profit: What distinguishes long-term traders from 'knowledgeable gamblers'
In trading, many people like to talk about beautiful entry points, price patterns, or complex indicators. But the truth is: the entry point only determines where you start, while Stop Loss and Take Profit determine how you end. Most accounts do not burn out due to incorrect analysis, but because of the inability to control risk and profit.
Stop Loss is not a sign of weakness
Many traders, especially newcomers, see Stop Loss as an acknowledgment of failure. They move the SL, delete the SL, or 'let the price breathe a little more.' But the market does not care about your beliefs or hopes. Stop Loss is simply a cost of business – just like the rent of a store. Without it, you may win a few trades, but sooner or later, you will lose everything in a strong reversal.
Stop Loss is not a sign of weakness
Many traders, especially newcomers, see Stop Loss as an acknowledgment of failure. They move the SL, delete the SL, or 'let the price breathe a little more.' But the market does not care about your beliefs or hopes. Stop Loss is simply a cost of business – just like the rent of a store. Without it, you may win a few trades, but sooner or later, you will lose everything in a strong reversal.
Core conditions for large capital flows to operate in the Bitcoin market
Most discussions about cryptocurrency often revolve around topics such as bullish or bearish trends, new cycles or old bubbles. However, at a more practical level — especially from the perspective of organizations — the central question lies in a simpler point: what enables large capital flows to move safely and be scalable in the market $BTC .
Recent observations from an organizational perspective indicate two foundational factors.
Recent observations from an organizational perspective indicate two foundational factors.
Macroeconomic cycle of $BTC : Expansion phase of 1.064 days – 364 days of adjustment
When observing Bitcoin on a long-term time frame, one can notice a relatively clear repeating cycle structure. In the last three major cycles, BTC has moved according to a quite consistent time rhythm:
Approximately 1.064 days in the expansion phase
Followed by about 364 days of adjustment and price compression
This model indicates that the market does not move randomly. In expansion phases, prices often rise sharply when liquidity, acceptance levels, and market expectations converge simultaneously. This is followed by a rebalancing adjustment phase, which is relatively concise, instead of a prolonged recession cycle.
Notably, the symmetry of the cycle structure is significant. The current developments continue to closely follow this historical rhythm. Since the most recent bottom, prices have remained within the overall expansion zone, while recent adjustment rhythms have many similarities to accumulation phases between previous cycles, rather than signaling a macro peak formation.
Historically, the strongest surges usually occur in the later stages of the expansion cycle, rather than during early or mid-cycle adjustments.
In this context, the time factor continues to play a more dominant role in shaping the market structure than short-term news factors. Historical data shows that cycles tend to repeat, while external information is always changing.
If the 1.064-day rhythm continues to be maintained, the current developments are likely still within the natural expansion process of the cycle, rather than marking an endpoint.
When observing Bitcoin on a long-term time frame, one can notice a relatively clear repeating cycle structure. In the last three major cycles, BTC has moved according to a quite consistent time rhythm:
Approximately 1.064 days in the expansion phase
Followed by about 364 days of adjustment and price compression
This model indicates that the market does not move randomly. In expansion phases, prices often rise sharply when liquidity, acceptance levels, and market expectations converge simultaneously. This is followed by a rebalancing adjustment phase, which is relatively concise, instead of a prolonged recession cycle.
Notably, the symmetry of the cycle structure is significant. The current developments continue to closely follow this historical rhythm. Since the most recent bottom, prices have remained within the overall expansion zone, while recent adjustment rhythms have many similarities to accumulation phases between previous cycles, rather than signaling a macro peak formation.
Historically, the strongest surges usually occur in the later stages of the expansion cycle, rather than during early or mid-cycle adjustments.
In this context, the time factor continues to play a more dominant role in shaping the market structure than short-term news factors. Historical data shows that cycles tend to repeat, while external information is always changing.
If the 1.064-day rhythm continues to be maintained, the current developments are likely still within the natural expansion process of the cycle, rather than marking an endpoint.
How does Plasma XPL support smart contracts?
At this point, after several strong ups and downs, I see @Plasma quite realistically. Especially in the way they approach smart contracts, not too flashy, but they seem to know what they are avoiding.
Plasma $XPL does not try to cram everything into the base layer and hope it can hold up. They separate the execution logic so that the chain doesn't get congested under real load. It sounds technical, but the consequences are very practical: more stable fees, lower latency, and fewer warnings like "it works great in testing, but fails on mainnet."
For me, controlling costs and latency is much more important than promises of TPS. Many DeFi projects or on-chain games fail not because of poor ideas, but because users can't stand the chaotic fee fluctuations and transactions that take forever to complete.
The longer I stay in the market, the more I see that Plasma XPL doesn't try to paint too far into the future. They choose to build a smart contract platform that is durable enough, predictable enough in behavior, so that developers dare to deploy for the long term.
This design style usually comes from teams that have been "hit" enough times to understand where the pain points of Web3 developers lie.
@Plasma #Plasma $XPL
At this point, after several strong ups and downs, I see @Plasma quite realistically. Especially in the way they approach smart contracts, not too flashy, but they seem to know what they are avoiding.
Plasma $XPL does not try to cram everything into the base layer and hope it can hold up. They separate the execution logic so that the chain doesn't get congested under real load. It sounds technical, but the consequences are very practical: more stable fees, lower latency, and fewer warnings like "it works great in testing, but fails on mainnet."
For me, controlling costs and latency is much more important than promises of TPS. Many DeFi projects or on-chain games fail not because of poor ideas, but because users can't stand the chaotic fee fluctuations and transactions that take forever to complete.
The longer I stay in the market, the more I see that Plasma XPL doesn't try to paint too far into the future. They choose to build a smart contract platform that is durable enough, predictable enough in behavior, so that developers dare to deploy for the long term.
This design style usually comes from teams that have been "hit" enough times to understand where the pain points of Web3 developers lie.
@Plasma #Plasma $XPL
2.56 $BTC was sent to Satoshi's Genesis Address: An irreversible transaction
A few hours ago, an anonymous address sent 2.56 BTC (equivalent to about $180,000) to Satoshi Nakamoto's Genesis Address — the address linked to the first block of the Bitcoin network.
The Genesis Address is considered unspendable, therefore the amount of BTC sent to this address has technically been removed from the circulating supply. This transaction is not a transfer of value or redistribution, but rather a one-way, irreversible action.
This event shows that the Genesis Address continues to be used as a symbolic destination in the Bitcoin ecosystem. However, in terms of market structure, the transaction does not have a direct impact on liquidity or short-term supply and demand, but mainly reflects individual on-chain behavior.
#BitcoinGoogleSearchesSurge
A few hours ago, an anonymous address sent 2.56 BTC (equivalent to about $180,000) to Satoshi Nakamoto's Genesis Address — the address linked to the first block of the Bitcoin network.
The Genesis Address is considered unspendable, therefore the amount of BTC sent to this address has technically been removed from the circulating supply. This transaction is not a transfer of value or redistribution, but rather a one-way, irreversible action.
This event shows that the Genesis Address continues to be used as a symbolic destination in the Bitcoin ecosystem. However, in terms of market structure, the transaction does not have a direct impact on liquidity or short-term supply and demand, but mainly reflects individual on-chain behavior.
#BitcoinGoogleSearchesSurge
How is the security of the Plasma XPL network ensured?
If you have been in this market long enough, you probably understand one thing: network security has never been a matter of 'is it safe or not', but rather 'when something happens, how much can the network withstand'.
I have seen quite a few chains that look very stable from the outside. The documentation is complete, the audit is prominently displayed on the homepage, and the roadmap sounds very confident. But just one wrong assumption can make everything go very quickly, so fast that you can't react in time.
I have seen quite a few chains that look very stable from the outside. The documentation is complete, the audit is prominently displayed on the homepage, and the roadmap sounds very confident. But just one wrong assumption can make everything go very quickly, so fast that you can't react in time.
3 bearish reversal candlestick patterns, what should you do when you see these 3 candlestick patterns
#trading
#trading
BTC enters liquidity compression phase: Large volatility is being accumulated
The liquidity bands of $BTC are narrowing, indicating that the market is entering a compression phase, which often occurs before a significant price movement. Currently, the price is oscillating within Bear Bands, while spot trading is just above a dense liquidity zone around $69,000–$74,000.
This area has repeatedly acted as a liquidity magnet, continuously absorbing buying pressure and triggering strong price reactions thereafter. This indicates a significant concentration of positions at the current price level.
This area has repeatedly acted as a liquidity magnet, continuously absorbing buying pressure and triggering strong price reactions thereafter. This indicates a significant concentration of positions at the current price level.
Wedge model reduced!
$BTC : Pressure at the trendline decreases, the risk of adjustment still exists
Bitcoin is currently under pressure from the resistance line of the descending broadening wedge pattern, with the price being rejected right at the upper trendline. At the same time, the 50-period moving average (50MA) is acting as a resistance area, located above the current price movement.
In this context, the possibility of further adjustment from the current area is still being maintained. The price structure has not yet shown clear breakout confirmation signals.
However, if BTC can decisively break above both the 50MA and the resistance line of the wedge pattern, this will confirm a change in the technical structure and open up the possibility of a clearer recovery phase.
Bitcoin is currently under pressure from the resistance line of the descending broadening wedge pattern, with the price being rejected right at the upper trendline. At the same time, the 50-period moving average (50MA) is acting as a resistance area, located above the current price movement.
In this context, the possibility of further adjustment from the current area is still being maintained. The price structure has not yet shown clear breakout confirmation signals.
However, if BTC can decisively break above both the 50MA and the resistance line of the wedge pattern, this will confirm a change in the technical structure and open up the possibility of a clearer recovery phase.
Login to explore more contents