密智君 Crypto Plus AI
1.5k Posts
密智君 Crypto Plus AI
分享AI Crypto创新洞见，AI实用工具 & 技巧分享，心得，热门话题探讨#CryptoAGI
89 Following
989 Followers
1.6K Liked
Posts
All
Quotes
Videos
PINNED
Whoa, I just saw this chart in the square, and I'm completely stunned. This isn't trading; it's practically a real-life 'suicidal attack'.
Brothers, did you see clearly? This dude went short on $LAB at 0.68, and now the price has skyrocketed to 4.7. He's sitting on a paper loss of $487,000, with a return rate of negative 85.95%. What's heartbreaking is his message: he's mortgaged his house and car, and has been margin-calling ever since; he really can't borrow any more money now. The liquidation price is at 5.29, just a step away from the current price.
Honestly, looking at this chart really reminds me of my past self. That desperate feeling of watching the price jump toward the liquidation line while being completely powerless is enough to drive anyone insane. This isn't shorting; it's like playing a 'life swap' game with the market makers. You thought 0.68 was a high point, but the market makers are telling you there's always a higher high.
What I admire (and feel sorry for) is his obsession. Going all-in short with 1x leverage, enduring nearly a 7x increase. That takes some serious 'courage' and a thick wallet, huh? But the trading market doesn’t care about tears, and definitely doesn’t believe in 'holding on for dear life'. You try to reason with the market makers, but they just want to drain your last drop of blood. $BTC #LAB
Brothers, did you see clearly? This dude went short on $LAB at 0.68, and now the price has skyrocketed to 4.7. He's sitting on a paper loss of $487,000, with a return rate of negative 85.95%. What's heartbreaking is his message: he's mortgaged his house and car, and has been margin-calling ever since; he really can't borrow any more money now. The liquidation price is at 5.29, just a step away from the current price.
Honestly, looking at this chart really reminds me of my past self. That desperate feeling of watching the price jump toward the liquidation line while being completely powerless is enough to drive anyone insane. This isn't shorting; it's like playing a 'life swap' game with the market makers. You thought 0.68 was a high point, but the market makers are telling you there's always a higher high.
What I admire (and feel sorry for) is his obsession. Going all-in short with 1x leverage, enduring nearly a 7x increase. That takes some serious 'courage' and a thick wallet, huh? But the trading market doesn’t care about tears, and definitely doesn’t believe in 'holding on for dear life'. You try to reason with the market makers, but they just want to drain your last drop of blood. $BTC #LAB
PINNED
Wow, this guy made 140,000 times his investment in 14 years. Who else can be as awesome as him? In 2011, he spent less than $8,000 to buy 10,000 $BTC , when one Bitcoin was only $0.78.
So what happened? He just held on for 14 years! By October 2025, when Bitcoin broke through $109,000, he sold everything and cashed out over $1 billion. A 140,000 times return, this is not just investment, this is simply like cultivating immortality.
To be honest, what I admire most is not that he bought early, but that he was able to hold on. Over these 14 years, he experienced hundreds of crashes and endured four long bear markets lasting several years. How many times did the market halve, how many times did the media shout 'Bitcoin will go to zero', and he never wavered once. This kind of determination is really not something ordinary people can possess.
I used to have quite a few good stocks, but I sold when they rose two or three times, and cut losses when they fell by 20%. Seeing others get a 140,000 times increase, I can only mock myself: people like us who can't hold on deserve to miss out on big money.
Risk Warning: This kind of 'get rich quick myth' is an extreme case of survivor bias. Just because he made a fortune after 14 years, don’t think you can do the same. Investment requires caution; first, ask yourself if you can withstand a 90% drawdown.
What do you think? If you bought 10,000 Bitcoins in 2011, could you still hold on until now? Be honest in the comments, at which point would you get off the ride?
$BTC
So what happened? He just held on for 14 years! By October 2025, when Bitcoin broke through $109,000, he sold everything and cashed out over $1 billion. A 140,000 times return, this is not just investment, this is simply like cultivating immortality.
To be honest, what I admire most is not that he bought early, but that he was able to hold on. Over these 14 years, he experienced hundreds of crashes and endured four long bear markets lasting several years. How many times did the market halve, how many times did the media shout 'Bitcoin will go to zero', and he never wavered once. This kind of determination is really not something ordinary people can possess.
I used to have quite a few good stocks, but I sold when they rose two or three times, and cut losses when they fell by 20%. Seeing others get a 140,000 times increase, I can only mock myself: people like us who can't hold on deserve to miss out on big money.
Risk Warning: This kind of 'get rich quick myth' is an extreme case of survivor bias. Just because he made a fortune after 14 years, don’t think you can do the same. Investment requires caution; first, ask yourself if you can withstand a 90% drawdown.
What do you think? If you bought 10,000 Bitcoins in 2011, could you still hold on until now? Be honest in the comments, at which point would you get off the ride?
$BTC
Unbelievable—Taylor Swift’s once-in-a-century wedding booked out Madison Square Garden for the ceremony. The venue rental fee was $3 million, and on top of that, she donated $26 million to multiple New York organizations for charity. Just these two items alone put the wedding at over $30 million.
Streets were closed for three days, and New York’s mayor personally confirmed it. A guest list of 1,000 people was fully signed with NDAs.
On July 3, at MSG, 500 to 1,000 guests attended a black-tie evening. The streets were closed from July 2 until July 4 at noon. Page Six reported that the two had already privately completed the formal ceremony; they got married in Nashville, while MSG was reserved for the public celebration.
Taylor personally called each friend with a verbal invitation and then mailed out save-the-dates. All vendors, guests, and security personnel signed NDAs—phones and cameras were banned from entry. Even New York Mayor Mamdani accidentally let slip in a press conference: "The World Cup, America’s 250th anniversary celebration, and Taylor Swift’s wedding all happening at the same time—we’re excited."
Confirmed attendees include Ed Sheeran, Selena Gomez, the Haim sisters, Emma Stone, Gigi Hadid, Zoe Kravitz, and the couple Patrick Mahomes and his wife. Tim McGraw might perform on-site—he’s the star of that eponymous song that first put 16-year-old Taylor on the map.
Do you think, after 18 years, finally singing that ‘Love Story’—is this the best time in her life to do it? $AAPL.US #TaylorSwift
Streets were closed for three days, and New York’s mayor personally confirmed it. A guest list of 1,000 people was fully signed with NDAs.
On July 3, at MSG, 500 to 1,000 guests attended a black-tie evening. The streets were closed from July 2 until July 4 at noon. Page Six reported that the two had already privately completed the formal ceremony; they got married in Nashville, while MSG was reserved for the public celebration.
Taylor personally called each friend with a verbal invitation and then mailed out save-the-dates. All vendors, guests, and security personnel signed NDAs—phones and cameras were banned from entry. Even New York Mayor Mamdani accidentally let slip in a press conference: "The World Cup, America’s 250th anniversary celebration, and Taylor Swift’s wedding all happening at the same time—we’re excited."
Confirmed attendees include Ed Sheeran, Selena Gomez, the Haim sisters, Emma Stone, Gigi Hadid, Zoe Kravitz, and the couple Patrick Mahomes and his wife. Tim McGraw might perform on-site—he’s the star of that eponymous song that first put 16-year-old Taylor on the map.
Do you think, after 18 years, finally singing that ‘Love Story’—is this the best time in her life to do it? $AAPL.US #TaylorSwift
Grass, turning from $12 million to $100 million: someone precisely bought put options before the regulatory announcement was released, and the SEC has already launched an investigation!
On May 22, 2026, China announced a crackdown on cross-border broker regulation, and the share prices of Futu Holdings and Tiger Brokers plunged. Before the announcement was published, someone bought about 200,000 short-term put options for the two companies, paying $12 million in option premiums; after the announcement came out, they cashed out for more than $100 million.
Market maker Susquehanna was the counterparty in the trade and lost over $70 million, after which it filed a lawsuit. The SEC received the complaint and has started an investigation.
The options trade itself is not illegal, but the timing was far too precise. Short-term put options mean the position holder needs the price to drop within an extremely short window to profit—this is not hedging, but betting on a specific drop event. They built the position days before the regulatory announcement, then cashed out as soon as the announcement came out. That is the core question of where the information for this operation came from.
$12 million becoming $100 million—more than 8x—from a single trade. As a market maker, Susquehanna was passively on the hook as the counterparty, losing $70 million. That’s why they’re suing—when the loss is big enough, it’s worth going to court to identify who did it.
The core of the SEC’s investigation into insider trading is tracing the flow of funds and communications. Options accounts are实名-registered, transaction timestamps are recorded; if information was leaked, digital evidence is far harder to destroy than evidence from stock trades. $GOOGL.US
On May 22, 2026, China announced a crackdown on cross-border broker regulation, and the share prices of Futu Holdings and Tiger Brokers plunged. Before the announcement was published, someone bought about 200,000 short-term put options for the two companies, paying $12 million in option premiums; after the announcement came out, they cashed out for more than $100 million.
Market maker Susquehanna was the counterparty in the trade and lost over $70 million, after which it filed a lawsuit. The SEC received the complaint and has started an investigation.
The options trade itself is not illegal, but the timing was far too precise. Short-term put options mean the position holder needs the price to drop within an extremely short window to profit—this is not hedging, but betting on a specific drop event. They built the position days before the regulatory announcement, then cashed out as soon as the announcement came out. That is the core question of where the information for this operation came from.
$12 million becoming $100 million—more than 8x—from a single trade. As a market maker, Susquehanna was passively on the hook as the counterparty, losing $70 million. That’s why they’re suing—when the loss is big enough, it’s worth going to court to identify who did it.
The core of the SEC’s investigation into insider trading is tracing the flow of funds and communications. Options accounts are实名-registered, transaction timestamps are recorded; if information was leaked, digital evidence is far harder to destroy than evidence from stock trades. $GOOGL.US
Grass, Trump said "Everyone is profiting." At the same time, the TRUMP coin dropped 98%, and the MELANIA coin dropped 99%!
When a reporter asked him whether he made $2.2 billion last year as president, his answer was "Everyone is profiting."
Then, when asked about cryptocurrency gains, he said, "I don't know anything about it. Businesses are run by kids; I don't get involved."
Put those two statements together, the logic is as follows: if you’re making money, then it’s "everyone"; how it’s made, "I don't know."
People who bought the TRUMP coin are now down 98%, and those who bought the MELANIA coin are down 99%. Among this group of people, is there one single "everyone"? There’s no official explanation.
When the TRUMP coin was issued, people lined up to snap it up because they believed that presidential endorsement equals value endorsement. Now, the current holders’ paper losses are close to zero, and the issuer’s royalty income has entered the annual assets declaration filings—both things are true at the same time.
This isn’t the first time someone has issued a coin using a celebrity IP: take in the money, let the coin crash to nothing, and then say "I don't understand this industry." It’s just that this time, the person issuing the coin is the sitting president of the United States, and the buyers are worldwide.
Did you buy TRUMP or MELANIA back then—and do you still hold them now?
When a reporter asked him whether he made $2.2 billion last year as president, his answer was "Everyone is profiting."
Then, when asked about cryptocurrency gains, he said, "I don't know anything about it. Businesses are run by kids; I don't get involved."
Put those two statements together, the logic is as follows: if you’re making money, then it’s "everyone"; how it’s made, "I don't know."
People who bought the TRUMP coin are now down 98%, and those who bought the MELANIA coin are down 99%. Among this group of people, is there one single "everyone"? There’s no official explanation.
When the TRUMP coin was issued, people lined up to snap it up because they believed that presidential endorsement equals value endorsement. Now, the current holders’ paper losses are close to zero, and the issuer’s royalty income has entered the annual assets declaration filings—both things are true at the same time.
This isn’t the first time someone has issued a coin using a celebrity IP: take in the money, let the coin crash to nothing, and then say "I don't understand this industry." It’s just that this time, the person issuing the coin is the sitting president of the United States, and the buyers are worldwide.
Did you buy TRUMP or MELANIA back then—and do you still hold them now?
Unbelievable—when BTC breaks below the 200-week moving average, there have been two prior instances at this level. In both cases, were they the last bottom-buying windows?
In March 2020, during the COVID crash, the price broke below the 200-week moving average—around $3,000. In the bottom of the 2022 bear market, it broke again—around $15,000. Now it’s the third time: the price is $59,052, with the red line pressing down.
The 200-week moving average is the thickest support line in BTC history. It represents the average cost range of holders over nearly four years. When the price falls to this level, it means that most holders who have held for more than two years begin to be in losses. That’s when the pressure from panic selling is at its highest—and it’s also when the chips are the cheapest.
When the market broke below this line the first two times, the sentiment was exactly the same as it is now: confidence is low, most people are afraid to buy, and the media is discussing the possibility of it going to zero. Then both times, this level marked the start of the biggest sustained rally.
There are only two historical samples, so the statistical significance is limited. The third time may not necessarily repeat the pattern; the 200-week moving average could also be broken through and then continue to fall. After the 2022 breakdown, it still took nearly half a year to stabilize for real.
The buyers now and the sellers now have reached completely opposite conclusions.
Do you think this 200-week moving average will hold, or will it fall to 38,000 as some people predict?$BTC #比特币6月下跌20.5%至58526美元
In March 2020, during the COVID crash, the price broke below the 200-week moving average—around $3,000. In the bottom of the 2022 bear market, it broke again—around $15,000. Now it’s the third time: the price is $59,052, with the red line pressing down.
The 200-week moving average is the thickest support line in BTC history. It represents the average cost range of holders over nearly four years. When the price falls to this level, it means that most holders who have held for more than two years begin to be in losses. That’s when the pressure from panic selling is at its highest—and it’s also when the chips are the cheapest.
When the market broke below this line the first two times, the sentiment was exactly the same as it is now: confidence is low, most people are afraid to buy, and the media is discussing the possibility of it going to zero. Then both times, this level marked the start of the biggest sustained rally.
There are only two historical samples, so the statistical significance is limited. The third time may not necessarily repeat the pattern; the 200-week moving average could also be broken through and then continue to fall. After the 2022 breakdown, it still took nearly half a year to stabilize for real.
The buyers now and the sellers now have reached completely opposite conclusions.
Do you think this 200-week moving average will hold, or will it fall to 38,000 as some people predict?$BTC #比特币6月下跌20.5%至58526美元
Too ruthless: A Byte employee traded stocks and made 30 million RMB, then quit—on his last day he said many truths that office workers don’t dare to admit!
"Working can only sustain your current life; only investing can lead to a better life. The probability of achieving financial freedom through investing is far greater than struggling to reach 4-1 at Byte."
The impact of these two lines when spoken on Byte’s internal network is doubled—Byte is the pay ceiling of China’s internet industry, and even people here are saying that working for a paycheck isn’t enough. That’s a huge signal.
He was the head of an early Byte US stock investment group. The 30 million isn’t the result of a single bet—it’s the outcome of systematically studying for long enough.
And then you plug in Leto Bao’s logic to make it even more complete: putting a 20% down payment on a house is a 5x leverage—compressing the next 30 years of cash flow into a concrete box with extremely low liquidity; the 2x leverage on stocks bets on the world’s greatest companies, and you can also exit with one click.
What’s the ratio of your assets in terms of real estate versus financial assets right now—are you satisfied?
"Working can only sustain your current life; only investing can lead to a better life. The probability of achieving financial freedom through investing is far greater than struggling to reach 4-1 at Byte."
The impact of these two lines when spoken on Byte’s internal network is doubled—Byte is the pay ceiling of China’s internet industry, and even people here are saying that working for a paycheck isn’t enough. That’s a huge signal.
He was the head of an early Byte US stock investment group. The 30 million isn’t the result of a single bet—it’s the outcome of systematically studying for long enough.
And then you plug in Leto Bao’s logic to make it even more complete: putting a 20% down payment on a house is a 5x leverage—compressing the next 30 years of cash flow into a concrete box with extremely low liquidity; the 2x leverage on stocks bets on the world’s greatest companies, and you can also exit with one click.
What’s the ratio of your assets in terms of real estate versus financial assets right now—are you satisfied?
Boomed—America’s first time in history: the President and Vice President both simultaneously declared in official documents that they hold Bitcoin.
Trump has more than $50 million; he has a cold wallet. Vance has more than $250,000. This is not a tweet, not a speech—it is a formal, legally binding federal government requirement for property disclosure, written in black and white with legal effect.
Read these two numbers together: Trump’s position is 200 times Vance’s. The two people’s holdings and political stances are aligned in the same direction.
Bitcoin’s journey—from a “fringe asset” to being listed in the White House property inventory—took less than a decade. In 2017, mainstream media was still debating whether it was a scam; by 2026, it appears in the legally required disclosure documents of the highest power institution in the United States.
During the same period, Trump earned $635 million from TRUMP meme coins, and he’s still sitting on BTC and ETH. Now, government documents add another line: a record of a cold wallet. As for how interest and policy relate—everyone can decide for themselves.
How much impact do you think it will have on the direction of upcoming regulation if two people in power hold Bitcoin at the same time? $BTC #比特币ETF6月净流出45亿美元
Trump has more than $50 million; he has a cold wallet. Vance has more than $250,000. This is not a tweet, not a speech—it is a formal, legally binding federal government requirement for property disclosure, written in black and white with legal effect.
Read these two numbers together: Trump’s position is 200 times Vance’s. The two people’s holdings and political stances are aligned in the same direction.
Bitcoin’s journey—from a “fringe asset” to being listed in the White House property inventory—took less than a decade. In 2017, mainstream media was still debating whether it was a scam; by 2026, it appears in the legally required disclosure documents of the highest power institution in the United States.
During the same period, Trump earned $635 million from TRUMP meme coins, and he’s still sitting on BTC and ETH. Now, government documents add another line: a record of a cold wallet. As for how interest and policy relate—everyone can decide for themselves.
How much impact do you think it will have on the direction of upcoming regulation if two people in power hold Bitcoin at the same time? $BTC #比特币ETF6月净流出45亿美元
Laughing is unbearable; no wonder the men’s national football team is one of the worst football teams in the world—I've gotten tired of the World Cup. Today I watched the Chinese national team and I can't stop laughing—two inverted bicycle kicks in three seconds; tell me, can you take that? Their level isn’t even as good as people who trade crypto, right? $GOOGL.US
So strong—CZ goes from an iron cell to freedom, summed up in 14 words for this life: “I did my best this life—I just want to be remembered as the guy who works in crypto.”
He invested $500 million to have Musk buy Twitter. The two of them chatted about a dozen messages in total and never met. CZ said people with aligned philosophies don’t need to arrange a meeting—this logic also makes sense in ordinary relationships.
The prison part is the most real. His lawyer warned him he would become “the richest person ever to be imprisoned,” and he would most likely be extorted. After he went in, he was assigned to the Pacific Islander group. In a unit of 200 people, the only Asians were him and another person with mixed heritage; the remaining 80% were Mexican drug lords. One prison guard privately asked him whether he should buy Bitcoin now.
The hardest part isn’t the days inside—it’s the uncertainty. No one tells you when you’ll get out, whether new charges will be added, and in a prison system with 53 sets of rules, every rule is different. This kind of unknown is more tormenting than being physically locked up.
After he got out, he donated $2 million to prison education institutions. The reason was that he encountered a drug dealer who was sentenced to 45 years, served 26 years, and after release founded an organization that sends books and teaches skills to fellow inmates. CZ said that even if someone has truly made mistakes, after serving their sentence they should be helped to reintegrate into society—otherwise, once they’re out, they still endanger society.
About the news that Saylor sold 32 BTC and the market dropped, CZ said Saylor had nearly a million BTC in hand, so selling 32 BTC to pay dividends was completely normal— the market is just too sensitive. Regarding STRC, he said frankly he tried several times but couldn’t figure it out, so he wouldn’t comment. These two answers are the most human parts of the entire interview.
His attitude toward Hyperliquid is the most subtle: regulatory risk is much bigger than it was back when Binance existed. As a Binance shareholder, he absolutely opposes this approach, but deep down he hopes it can succeed—if the model “users’ assets are stored in smart contracts” is deemed to be decentralized, it’s good news for the whole industry.
Now he divides his time into four parts, each taking one quarter: free education at Giggle Academy, investment via YZi Labs, regulatory consulting for governments in various countries, and helping crypto entrepreneurs. He went from working 20 hours a day to this schedule, and he says he’s very satisfied.
“The guy who does crypto”—more plain, more self-consistent than “the founder of Binance,” more restrained than “the world’s richest man,” and a bit more self-consistent than “someone who went to prison.”
Do you think CZ made it all the way in this lifetime, or is there still one thing he hasn’t finished doing? @CZ $BNB
He invested $500 million to have Musk buy Twitter. The two of them chatted about a dozen messages in total and never met. CZ said people with aligned philosophies don’t need to arrange a meeting—this logic also makes sense in ordinary relationships.
The prison part is the most real. His lawyer warned him he would become “the richest person ever to be imprisoned,” and he would most likely be extorted. After he went in, he was assigned to the Pacific Islander group. In a unit of 200 people, the only Asians were him and another person with mixed heritage; the remaining 80% were Mexican drug lords. One prison guard privately asked him whether he should buy Bitcoin now.
The hardest part isn’t the days inside—it’s the uncertainty. No one tells you when you’ll get out, whether new charges will be added, and in a prison system with 53 sets of rules, every rule is different. This kind of unknown is more tormenting than being physically locked up.
After he got out, he donated $2 million to prison education institutions. The reason was that he encountered a drug dealer who was sentenced to 45 years, served 26 years, and after release founded an organization that sends books and teaches skills to fellow inmates. CZ said that even if someone has truly made mistakes, after serving their sentence they should be helped to reintegrate into society—otherwise, once they’re out, they still endanger society.
About the news that Saylor sold 32 BTC and the market dropped, CZ said Saylor had nearly a million BTC in hand, so selling 32 BTC to pay dividends was completely normal— the market is just too sensitive. Regarding STRC, he said frankly he tried several times but couldn’t figure it out, so he wouldn’t comment. These two answers are the most human parts of the entire interview.
His attitude toward Hyperliquid is the most subtle: regulatory risk is much bigger than it was back when Binance existed. As a Binance shareholder, he absolutely opposes this approach, but deep down he hopes it can succeed—if the model “users’ assets are stored in smart contracts” is deemed to be decentralized, it’s good news for the whole industry.
Now he divides his time into four parts, each taking one quarter: free education at Giggle Academy, investment via YZi Labs, regulatory consulting for governments in various countries, and helping crypto entrepreneurs. He went from working 20 hours a day to this schedule, and he says he’s very satisfied.
“The guy who does crypto”—more plain, more self-consistent than “the founder of Binance,” more restrained than “the world’s richest man,” and a bit more self-consistent than “someone who went to prison.”
Do you think CZ made it all the way in this lifetime, or is there still one thing he hasn’t finished doing? @CZ $BNB
Incredible—three rounds of historical data point to the same conclusion: BTC may still be about 20 points away from the bottom.
In 2015 it fell 87% to bottom, in 2018 it fell 84% to bottom, and in 2022 it fell 77% to bottom. In each cycle, the drawdown from the bear market low is narrowing. This isn’t random—it’s a natural result of a larger market cap and a more stable holder structure.
Now, BTC is down 53% from its ATH. Following this narrowing pattern, the next bottom should be around -70%, corresponding to a price of about $38,000.
Then it would fall another 35% from today’s level.
When you lay out these numbers, many people’s first reaction is, “Impossible.” But in 2022, when BTC dropped from 69,000 to 15,500, at every intermediate price level, people said, “It can’t possibly drop any further.”
This framework has one key assumption: the pattern of bear-market bottom drawdown continuing to narrow will still hold in the next cycle. ETF inflows and increased institutional allocation do change the distribution of holdings and provide logic support for a higher bottom. But “a higher bottom” and “the bottom has already arrived” are two different things—the former is about trend, while the latter is betting on a specific timing.
A 53% retracement has already hurt most people. If it truly needs to reach $38,000, then those who think it’s “pretty much there” by then will most likely make their move at the most uncomfortable point. Every bear-market bottom forms this way.
Where do you think the BTC bottom is—$38,000, or has it already happened?$BTC #比特币跌至59250美元
In 2015 it fell 87% to bottom, in 2018 it fell 84% to bottom, and in 2022 it fell 77% to bottom. In each cycle, the drawdown from the bear market low is narrowing. This isn’t random—it’s a natural result of a larger market cap and a more stable holder structure.
Now, BTC is down 53% from its ATH. Following this narrowing pattern, the next bottom should be around -70%, corresponding to a price of about $38,000.
Then it would fall another 35% from today’s level.
When you lay out these numbers, many people’s first reaction is, “Impossible.” But in 2022, when BTC dropped from 69,000 to 15,500, at every intermediate price level, people said, “It can’t possibly drop any further.”
This framework has one key assumption: the pattern of bear-market bottom drawdown continuing to narrow will still hold in the next cycle. ETF inflows and increased institutional allocation do change the distribution of holdings and provide logic support for a higher bottom. But “a higher bottom” and “the bottom has already arrived” are two different things—the former is about trend, while the latter is betting on a specific timing.
A 53% retracement has already hurt most people. If it truly needs to reach $38,000, then those who think it’s “pretty much there” by then will most likely make their move at the most uncomfortable point. Every bear-market bottom forms this way.
Where do you think the BTC bottom is—$38,000, or has it already happened?$BTC #比特币跌至59250美元
Ridiculous—how can the average price difference between a strategy and a non-strategy DCA be more than 10x, even when doing the same investment plan?
The core logic is simple: use the distance between the price and the long moving average, plus the RSI value, to calculate the daily DCA amount. The minimum is 500U per day. The more the price deviates from the moving average and the lower the RSI is, the more you buy. When the price is high and the RSI is overheated, you buy less—or even pause.
“Small dips buy small, big dips buy big” sounds like everyone understands it, but most people do the opposite in practice—when the market really drops, they’re afraid and hold back or stop altogether; when the market rises, they get FOMO and actually increase their buying. The purpose of a quant system isn’t to find a better strategy—it’s to force you to execute the plan when your emotions are at their worst.
The problem with fixed-amount, fixed-time DCA isn’t that the direction is wrong; it’s that it treats every day’s market conditions as if they were the same. On the day of -30% and the day of +5%, buying the same amount leads to a huge difference in capital efficiency. Backtest data suggests the average price gap can be significant. That “significant” could translate into dozens of basis points of cost advantage over a full cycle.
One more thing to think through: backtests run on historical data. The periods in history where RSI and moving-average deviations were effective don’t guarantee the same will hold true in the next cycle. The more complex the strategy, the higher the risk of overfitting. Starting at 500U, using simple parameters, and enforcing strict execution—this combination is more reliable than stacking flashy indicator layers.
Is your current DCA fixed-amount and fixed-time, or do you have your own set of rules for adding and reducing the position?$BTC
The core logic is simple: use the distance between the price and the long moving average, plus the RSI value, to calculate the daily DCA amount. The minimum is 500U per day. The more the price deviates from the moving average and the lower the RSI is, the more you buy. When the price is high and the RSI is overheated, you buy less—or even pause.
“Small dips buy small, big dips buy big” sounds like everyone understands it, but most people do the opposite in practice—when the market really drops, they’re afraid and hold back or stop altogether; when the market rises, they get FOMO and actually increase their buying. The purpose of a quant system isn’t to find a better strategy—it’s to force you to execute the plan when your emotions are at their worst.
The problem with fixed-amount, fixed-time DCA isn’t that the direction is wrong; it’s that it treats every day’s market conditions as if they were the same. On the day of -30% and the day of +5%, buying the same amount leads to a huge difference in capital efficiency. Backtest data suggests the average price gap can be significant. That “significant” could translate into dozens of basis points of cost advantage over a full cycle.
One more thing to think through: backtests run on historical data. The periods in history where RSI and moving-average deviations were effective don’t guarantee the same will hold true in the next cycle. The more complex the strategy, the higher the risk of overfitting. Starting at 500U, using simple parameters, and enforcing strict execution—this combination is more reliable than stacking flashy indicator layers.
Is your current DCA fixed-amount and fixed-time, or do you have your own set of rules for adding and reducing the position?$BTC
Wow! Cyberpunk is becoming real. Chinese robotics company UBTECH today released more than 50 bionic robots, featuring different appearances and physiques for men and women, with heights ranging from 1.6 to 1.85 meters.
Preorder starts at 119,800 yuan, and it's for adult purchases only. Would you buy one to use as a wife?
Preorder starts at 119,800 yuan, and it's for adult purchases only. Would you buy one to use as a wife?
Wow—CZ’s prediction: AI Agents will create 1000x more trading volume than humans. Crypto is that future payment layer.
Not 10x, not 100x—1000x. If this number materializes even at 10%, then all the current concerns about “on-chain trading volume shrinking” will look ridiculous.
The logic chain is very clear: an AI Agent needs to autonomously complete tasks, and those tasks include payments. Payments require a system with no approval needed, no KYC required, and code that can be called directly. Bank accounts can’t do it. PayPal can’t do it. Crypto can.
An Agent doesn’t sleep, doesn’t have to wait for banks to open, and doesn’t have to fill out forms. It can execute thousands of trades per second. Human trading is constrained by emotions and time; machines don’t have those constraints.
CZ is the founder of Binance. He holds a large amount of crypto assets, and he is always bullish on this direction—that context should be included. For direction judgment, you can reference it; the timeline you should calibrate yourself. Between the moment AI Agents “start to appear” and “achieve 1000x trading volume,” there are three walls to overcome: regulation, security, and infrastructure—each one is not something you can cross in just a year or two.
But one thing is true: if the narrative of the next bull cycle shifts from “institutions entering” to “AI Agents using on-chain payments to power the global economy,” then this ceiling is much higher than the last cycle—and the participants will be completely different.
In the positions you hold right now, which one is specifically betting on the AI Agent line? $BNB
Not 10x, not 100x—1000x. If this number materializes even at 10%, then all the current concerns about “on-chain trading volume shrinking” will look ridiculous.
The logic chain is very clear: an AI Agent needs to autonomously complete tasks, and those tasks include payments. Payments require a system with no approval needed, no KYC required, and code that can be called directly. Bank accounts can’t do it. PayPal can’t do it. Crypto can.
An Agent doesn’t sleep, doesn’t have to wait for banks to open, and doesn’t have to fill out forms. It can execute thousands of trades per second. Human trading is constrained by emotions and time; machines don’t have those constraints.
CZ is the founder of Binance. He holds a large amount of crypto assets, and he is always bullish on this direction—that context should be included. For direction judgment, you can reference it; the timeline you should calibrate yourself. Between the moment AI Agents “start to appear” and “achieve 1000x trading volume,” there are three walls to overcome: regulation, security, and infrastructure—each one is not something you can cross in just a year or two.
But one thing is true: if the narrative of the next bull cycle shifts from “institutions entering” to “AI Agents using on-chain payments to power the global economy,” then this ceiling is much higher than the last cycle—and the participants will be completely different.
In the positions you hold right now, which one is specifically betting on the AI Agent line? $BNB
Wow, the company only had 30 days of cash left. Huang Renxun went straight to the biggest customer and said, "I'm about to go under—give me 5 million, or I'll shut the doors."
The customer really paid.
This move is something 99% of entrepreneurs can’t pull off—not because they don’t know, but because it’s too hard to say out loud. "I'm about to go bankrupt"—for a founder, saying that is tantamount to admitting failure, handing over all your chips, and letting the other side immediately use that information to negotiate a lower price, find a backup supplier, or simply ignore you.
What Huang Renxun bet on was that this customer needed Nvidia more than he did—or that this person had enough integrity. If either condition was missing, that phone call would be an accelerator toward shutting down.
People often tell this story from the angle of: "Honesty saved Nvidia." More accurately, under extreme pressure, he made an exceptionally high-risk judgment—and won. In the version where he lost, this isn’t called honesty. It’s called showing your hand to the opponent.
Today, Nvidia’s market cap is close to $5 trillion. And when that life-saving call happened, shutting down was only 30 days away.
When you're about to go broke, do you dare to tell the truth to your most important customer? $NVDA.US
The customer really paid.
This move is something 99% of entrepreneurs can’t pull off—not because they don’t know, but because it’s too hard to say out loud. "I'm about to go bankrupt"—for a founder, saying that is tantamount to admitting failure, handing over all your chips, and letting the other side immediately use that information to negotiate a lower price, find a backup supplier, or simply ignore you.
What Huang Renxun bet on was that this customer needed Nvidia more than he did—or that this person had enough integrity. If either condition was missing, that phone call would be an accelerator toward shutting down.
People often tell this story from the angle of: "Honesty saved Nvidia." More accurately, under extreme pressure, he made an exceptionally high-risk judgment—and won. In the version where he lost, this isn’t called honesty. It’s called showing your hand to the opponent.
Today, Nvidia’s market cap is close to $5 trillion. And when that life-saving call happened, shutting down was only 30 days away.
When you're about to go broke, do you dare to tell the truth to your most important customer? $NVDA.US
Unreal—turning $225 million into $20 billion in 1 year. Leopold has just disclosed his large AI + Bitcoin infrastructure positions.
CLSK, RIOT, IREN, TE, APLD—all are names in the same theme: energy, computing power, BTC mining, and AI data centers. Once the 13F filing came out, the SEC requires disclosure—any holdings above 5% must be made public. You can’t hide it.
Who is Leopold: a former OpenAI security researcher, the person who wrote <t-2/> “Situational Awareness.” 14 months ago he managed $225 million; now it’s $20 billion. When you annualize the returns, it’s the kind of figure that makes most fund managers want to shut the door. He isn’t betting on the AI concept itself—he’s betting on who sells shovels after AI runs: compute, power, cooling, and mining infrastructure.
The logic here is straightforward: as AI models keep getting bigger, data centers’ electricity consumption explodes. Bitcoin mining and AI computing are competing for the same batch of energy infrastructure. Whoever controls energy and compute sits at the upstream of this chain.
But one thing you need to see clearly: what he discloses now is positions that are already built—not real-time signals. The 13F is delayed by 45 days; by the time you see it, he may already be cutting the stake. If you buy based on 13F, you’re always half a step behind “smart money.”
The $20 billion result is real—but there’s information he has that you don’t, and his risk tolerance is different from yours.
Do you think this AI infrastructure theme is still early, or has it already been priced in? $NVDA.US
CLSK, RIOT, IREN, TE, APLD—all are names in the same theme: energy, computing power, BTC mining, and AI data centers. Once the 13F filing came out, the SEC requires disclosure—any holdings above 5% must be made public. You can’t hide it.
Who is Leopold: a former OpenAI security researcher, the person who wrote <t-2/> “Situational Awareness.” 14 months ago he managed $225 million; now it’s $20 billion. When you annualize the returns, it’s the kind of figure that makes most fund managers want to shut the door. He isn’t betting on the AI concept itself—he’s betting on who sells shovels after AI runs: compute, power, cooling, and mining infrastructure.
The logic here is straightforward: as AI models keep getting bigger, data centers’ electricity consumption explodes. Bitcoin mining and AI computing are competing for the same batch of energy infrastructure. Whoever controls energy and compute sits at the upstream of this chain.
But one thing you need to see clearly: what he discloses now is positions that are already built—not real-time signals. The 13F is delayed by 45 days; by the time you see it, he may already be cutting the stake. If you buy based on 13F, you’re always half a step behind “smart money.”
The $20 billion result is real—but there’s information he has that you don’t, and his risk tolerance is different from yours.
Do you think this AI infrastructure theme is still early, or has it already been priced in? $NVDA.US
Incredible—Coca-Cola is up 500,000x, with an annualized return of only 15%. Holding on is the hardest question.
The leaderboard is laid out: Coca-Cola 500,000x at 15% annualized; Altria 170,000x at 12%; Pepsi 80,000x at 14%; Buffett’s Berkshire 60,000x but at 20% annualized, which is the highest on the list. Below that: IBM 40,000x, Walmart 20,000x, Disney 13,000x, Johnson & Johnson 10,000x, McDonald’s 9,000x, Procter & Gamble 7,000x.
All are things your mom uses every day. None are “high-tech” from back then.
What really makes you unable to sit still with this chart is the annualized numbers. 15%, 12%, 14%—they sound so ordinary you want to skip. With compounding over long time periods, 500,000x is how it comes about. The issue isn’t that these companies are hard to find—it’s that no one is willing to hold for 100 years.
Buffett’s entry is the one most worth watching: 60,000x, annualized 20%. The return multiple isn’t the highest, but that 20% annualized is the strongest active-management achievement on the entire list. Coca-Cola relies on time; Berkshire relies on beating the market by 5 points every year. Two paths, same outcome: numbers ordinary people can’t reach in a lifetime.
If it were BTC, the average annual growth rate is over 20%; holding it still for 50 years would likely make you worry-free for a lifetime—or even several.
Of the things you’re holding right now, how many are you willing to leave untouched for 100 years? $BTC
The leaderboard is laid out: Coca-Cola 500,000x at 15% annualized; Altria 170,000x at 12%; Pepsi 80,000x at 14%; Buffett’s Berkshire 60,000x but at 20% annualized, which is the highest on the list. Below that: IBM 40,000x, Walmart 20,000x, Disney 13,000x, Johnson & Johnson 10,000x, McDonald’s 9,000x, Procter & Gamble 7,000x.
All are things your mom uses every day. None are “high-tech” from back then.
What really makes you unable to sit still with this chart is the annualized numbers. 15%, 12%, 14%—they sound so ordinary you want to skip. With compounding over long time periods, 500,000x is how it comes about. The issue isn’t that these companies are hard to find—it’s that no one is willing to hold for 100 years.
Buffett’s entry is the one most worth watching: 60,000x, annualized 20%. The return multiple isn’t the highest, but that 20% annualized is the strongest active-management achievement on the entire list. Coca-Cola relies on time; Berkshire relies on beating the market by 5 points every year. Two paths, same outcome: numbers ordinary people can’t reach in a lifetime.
If it were BTC, the average annual growth rate is over 20%; holding it still for 50 years would likely make you worry-free for a lifetime—or even several.
Of the things you’re holding right now, how many are you willing to leave untouched for 100 years? $BTC
Grass, according to Trump’s annual report, last year he made over $1.4 billion in the crypto market—how much did you contribute?
TRUMP meme coin copyright revenue was 635 million, WLFI token sales were 515 million, and he still holds over $100 million worth of BTC and ETH. Add the three figures together and it totals $1.4 billion—that’s a side-income from the sitting U.S. president.
Where did this money come from? Don’t overthink it—retail investors buying TRUMP coins, and participants in WLFI; the counterparty to every transaction is the number in this report. He said to the camera on the NYSE, “Don’t rush in—pullbacks can come anytime,” while at the same time this disclosure report quietly got recorded.
Legally, these are all compliant disclosures—there’s no problem. But for someone who controls tariff policies, the direction of regulation, and geopolitical information, while also running their own crypto asset portfolio, the question of conflicts of interest isn’t answered in this report.
$1.4 billion in a year—no need to go to work, no need to pick stocks, just issue a coin, sell a token, and collect royalty fees while sitting.
Were your crypto gains last year enough to buy a single TRUMP coin he issued? $TRUMP
TRUMP meme coin copyright revenue was 635 million, WLFI token sales were 515 million, and he still holds over $100 million worth of BTC and ETH. Add the three figures together and it totals $1.4 billion—that’s a side-income from the sitting U.S. president.
Where did this money come from? Don’t overthink it—retail investors buying TRUMP coins, and participants in WLFI; the counterparty to every transaction is the number in this report. He said to the camera on the NYSE, “Don’t rush in—pullbacks can come anytime,” while at the same time this disclosure report quietly got recorded.
Legally, these are all compliant disclosures—there’s no problem. But for someone who controls tariff policies, the direction of regulation, and geopolitical information, while also running their own crypto asset portfolio, the question of conflicts of interest isn’t answered in this report.
$1.4 billion in a year—no need to go to work, no need to pick stocks, just issue a coin, sell a token, and collect royalty fees while sitting.
Were your crypto gains last year enough to buy a single TRUMP coin he issued? $TRUMP
This is too hard. Former Golden Horse Best Actress nominee Li Xiaolu complained last night that it has been a long time since she’s had any roles to play. Even now, there aren’t even any video spots for her to do read-outs. She regrets that she’s fallen into the “love-brain” mentality and gave up her career. Do you think the crypto industry is suitable for her? Just like Ning Jing, she entered the crypto world as an ambassador to harvest a wave of fan and traffic. $BNBHolder
Unbelievable—CZ sold a $1 million home in Shanghai, quit his job, and went all-in on Bitcoin in 2014.
With today’s perspective, you don’t even need me to say what the price of a Shanghai apartment back then would amount to. He sold it, swapped into BTC, and then went on to build Binance.
When many people hear this story, their first reaction is, “He’s really something.” But there’s a detail even more worth thinking about: selling a house and going all-in on BTC in 2014 wasn’t because he knew BTC would rise to $120,000—it was because he truly believed it would happen, with enough conviction to support that decision.
The difference between faith and a bet is often just the outcome.
There’s also a more realistic factor: after CZ sold his house and went all-in, he started a business and created Binance—this is the real lever behind his wealth explosion. The gains from simply holding BTC, versus the gains from holding BTC while also creating the world’s largest exchange, are not on the same scale. What ordinary people can replicate is the “sell the house, buy BTC” move; what they can’t replicate is the exchange that came afterward.
If you were CZ in 2014, could you really sell that apartment? $BNB
With today’s perspective, you don’t even need me to say what the price of a Shanghai apartment back then would amount to. He sold it, swapped into BTC, and then went on to build Binance.
When many people hear this story, their first reaction is, “He’s really something.” But there’s a detail even more worth thinking about: selling a house and going all-in on BTC in 2014 wasn’t because he knew BTC would rise to $120,000—it was because he truly believed it would happen, with enough conviction to support that decision.
The difference between faith and a bet is often just the outcome.
There’s also a more realistic factor: after CZ sold his house and went all-in, he started a business and created Binance—this is the real lever behind his wealth explosion. The gains from simply holding BTC, versus the gains from holding BTC while also creating the world’s largest exchange, are not on the same scale. What ordinary people can replicate is the “sell the house, buy BTC” move; what they can’t replicate is the exchange that came afterward.
If you were CZ in 2014, could you really sell that apartment? $BNB
Log in to explore more content