hello 向厚赚
31 Following
4.1K+ Followers
268 Liked
2 Shared
All
Live
See original
Recently, more and more people have realized one thing:
After the tightening of capital inflow and outflow, it has instead given altcoins a chance for a "big cycle level" explosion.
Why do I say this? It’s not an emotional judgment, but rather structural factors are stacking up.
First of all, the decline that altcoins have experienced over the past two years is unprecedented.
Withdrawals of twenty times, thirty times, fifty times are common; many retail investors doing spot trading have long been washed numb, with funds nearly exhausted, leaving them with almost no interest in the market.
This state implies a key point:
Insufficient incremental funds, but extremely light existing chips.
Under the premise that off-site funds cannot come in, if the big players want to push the price up, the resistance is much smaller than before.
Secondly, if the entire altcoin sector undergoes a collective recovery of 50 times or 100 times, it would mean a lot for market confidence.
Many old players who are deeply stuck will become active again due to this wave of increase, which will also make those "remaining at the table" believe — the crypto circle is not a dead end.
This is precisely the way to stabilize the market during a period of tightening regulation.
Looking deeper, there is another logic that is easily overlooked:
If regulation is stricter and the market is falling, public opinion can easily form a narrative of "policies protect retail investors," which is not beneficial for the market.
But if in a high-pressure environment the market instead surges, social sentiment will shift in another direction —
People will question: "Why do ordinary people's opportunities always get blocked?"
The discussion will quickly shift from "risk prevention" to "blocking development."
In other words, a strong surge is not only a market choice but also an emotional battle.
As for whether the big players will do this? It depends on two words:
Pattern.
For old coins that have already halved by thirty or fifty times, continuing to dump is not very meaningful;
But if they choose to lift the market with full force, they can ignite a new narrative cycle with minimal cost.
Ultimately, whether it strengthens or not still depends on whether the main force is willing to give the market a chance to breathe again.
But from the current environment, it seems:
High-pressure capital environment + deeply undervalued chips + existing game structure
Indeed possesses all the conditions for altcoins to suddenly start.
$BTC
After the tightening of capital inflow and outflow, it has instead given altcoins a chance for a "big cycle level" explosion.
Why do I say this? It’s not an emotional judgment, but rather structural factors are stacking up.
First of all, the decline that altcoins have experienced over the past two years is unprecedented.
Withdrawals of twenty times, thirty times, fifty times are common; many retail investors doing spot trading have long been washed numb, with funds nearly exhausted, leaving them with almost no interest in the market.
This state implies a key point:
Insufficient incremental funds, but extremely light existing chips.
Under the premise that off-site funds cannot come in, if the big players want to push the price up, the resistance is much smaller than before.
Secondly, if the entire altcoin sector undergoes a collective recovery of 50 times or 100 times, it would mean a lot for market confidence.
Many old players who are deeply stuck will become active again due to this wave of increase, which will also make those "remaining at the table" believe — the crypto circle is not a dead end.
This is precisely the way to stabilize the market during a period of tightening regulation.
Looking deeper, there is another logic that is easily overlooked:
If regulation is stricter and the market is falling, public opinion can easily form a narrative of "policies protect retail investors," which is not beneficial for the market.
But if in a high-pressure environment the market instead surges, social sentiment will shift in another direction —
People will question: "Why do ordinary people's opportunities always get blocked?"
The discussion will quickly shift from "risk prevention" to "blocking development."
In other words, a strong surge is not only a market choice but also an emotional battle.
As for whether the big players will do this? It depends on two words:
Pattern.
For old coins that have already halved by thirty or fifty times, continuing to dump is not very meaningful;
But if they choose to lift the market with full force, they can ignite a new narrative cycle with minimal cost.
Ultimately, whether it strengthens or not still depends on whether the main force is willing to give the market a chance to breathe again.
But from the current environment, it seems:
High-pressure capital environment + deeply undervalued chips + existing game structure
Indeed possesses all the conditions for altcoins to suddenly start.
$BTC
See original
Yield Guild Games: When the 'Player Network' Becomes a New Asset, What Long-Term Moat is YGG Building
In the past few weeks, I have been piecing together the historical data, ecological timeline, and organizational structure of YGG. The clearer I get, the more apparent it becomes that the truly discussable aspect of YGG has never been its price cycles, but rather the 'player network moat' it is trying to build. The ups and downs the industry has experienced over the past three years have finally made everyone realize a simple yet brutal reality — money is the most unstable asset, while networks and identities are the most resilient against cycles.
As one of the earliest projects to attempt to organize player communities on-chain, YGG's value today should not merely be seen as a token, but rather understood as a gradually forming Web3 player traffic network.
As one of the earliest projects to attempt to organize player communities on-chain, YGG's value today should not merely be seen as a token, but rather understood as a gradually forming Web3 player traffic network.
See original
Injective's 'Structural Watershed': When the Narrative Exits, the Real Competition Just Begins
I have always believed that to judge whether a project can truly withstand cycles, one should not look at its most brilliant phase but rather at its performance after the 'narrative retreat, capital shift, and emotional cooling.' Injective happened to provide me with a very typical sample: it was once pushed to the core of the application chain narrative and experienced a phase of rapid growth; however, as the entire industry began to shift its attention to AI, modularization, and the Bitcoin ecosystem, its voice gradually diminished, on-chain activity entered a stable range, and ecological expansion was not considered aggressive.
See original
Kite's Verification Period: When the Narrative Retreats, Infrastructure Must Speak with Data
If we break down the market situation of Kite during this time, I have been repeatedly pondering a question: When a chain slides from the peak of emotions into a structural pressure zone, what does it really need to make up for? Is it market enthusiasm? Is it exchange activity? Or something deeper—it must prove itself to be an 'infrastructure that can truly be used by Agents', rather than a conceptual project pushed to a high position by narrative.
In the previous article, I reviewed the path from excitement to pressure. In this article, I want to focus on the three words 'verification period.' Because Kite is currently at a critical crossroads: it has the opportunity to run out a new type of Agent economy's underlying network, but it may also be re-priced by the market, simply because its real data is still insufficient to support the high expectations it was once given.
In the previous article, I reviewed the path from excitement to pressure. In this article, I want to focus on the three words 'verification period.' Because Kite is currently at a critical crossroads: it has the opportunity to run out a new type of Agent economy's underlying network, but it may also be re-priced by the market, simply because its real data is still insufficient to support the high expectations it was once given.
See original
Yield Guild Games: Where is YGG's value focus quietly shifting as the industry enters deep waters?
During this period, I have been repeatedly looking at the data and historical events of YGG. The further I go back, the more I can feel a fact: YGG's problem has never been 'the story can't be told', but rather that it early on stood on an industry structure that was not stable. The GameFi craze gave it nominal success, but what truly determines whether it can exist long-term are the structural adjustments it made during the silent period.
I want to write this article as restrained as possible, avoiding emotions and prices, and only discussing those variables that truly impact its future direction, and string them into a coherent trajectory of reality.
I want to write this article as restrained as possible, avoiding emotions and prices, and only discussing those variables that truly impact its future direction, and string them into a coherent trajectory of reality.
See original
Revisiting Lorenzo amidst the market noise of the past three months, I discovered a reality that few are willing to admit: its challenge does not come from the outside, but from the position it stands on.
Family, if you ask me which project in the past two months is worth a deep reflection again, I would say Lorenzo without hesitation.
It's not because it has a sensational market, nor because it has fallen into some controversy, but because its 'quiet period' has started to become particularly meaningful——
Like an athlete who was originally chased by the spotlight, suddenly walking into a dim corridor, everyone thought it had stopped, but in reality, it began to do those things that truly determine the future.
I spent a few days pulling data from the chain, going through several key time windows, and making my own notes on the inflow and outflow of funds, the more I wrote, the more I felt:
It's not because it has a sensational market, nor because it has fallen into some controversy, but because its 'quiet period' has started to become particularly meaningful——
Like an athlete who was originally chased by the spotlight, suddenly walking into a dim corridor, everyone thought it had stopped, but in reality, it began to do those things that truly determine the future.
I spent a few days pulling data from the chain, going through several key time windows, and making my own notes on the inflow and outflow of funds, the more I wrote, the more I felt:
See original
APRO Enters the Verification Period: A Key Turning Point from Narrative Exit to Fundamental Facing Line
After the external emotions gradually receded, I revisited the on-chain data, ecological actions, and technical documents of APRO. The further I looked down, the more I could confirm one thing: APRO is no longer in the stage of 'being pushed by resources', but has officially entered the verification period of 'having to stand firm on its own'. This position is not easy, but it is crucial - it determines whether the project can truly transition from short-cycle narratives to long-term infrastructure.
The reason I say this is a turning point is that APRO is facing not a price drop, but a more fundamental issue: after the narrative dividend ends, does the project have value that the market needs in the long term? Can it support its positioning with real usage, revenue models, and ecological irreplaceability? Short-term fluctuations are merely superficial; the core contradiction is 'value has been narrated, but has not yet been verified'.
The reason I say this is a turning point is that APRO is facing not a price drop, but a more fundamental issue: after the narrative dividend ends, does the project have value that the market needs in the long term? Can it support its positioning with real usage, revenue models, and ecological irreplaceability? Short-term fluctuations are merely superficial; the core contradiction is 'value has been narrated, but has not yet been verified'.
See original
Falcon Finance: When the chain officially enters the 'capital efficiency era', the winner is no longer the fastest, but the one who makes the funds run more steadily
Over the past month, the more I observe @falcon_finance, the more certain I am of one thing:
Its periodic pressures are not signs of project weakness, but rather an 'inevitable phenomenon' following the entire chain entering a new stage.
Because the competitive logic on the chain has undergone a qualitative change—
Previously, the comparison was about TVL, yield, popularity, and task activity;
But starting in 2025, the chain has entered a brand new era:
The era of capital efficiency.
In this era, projects are no longer about who can attract funds,
but rather than comparing—
Who can keep the funds stable, transfer them quickly, lower risks, and ensure smoother pathways.
Its periodic pressures are not signs of project weakness, but rather an 'inevitable phenomenon' following the entire chain entering a new stage.
Because the competitive logic on the chain has undergone a qualitative change—
Previously, the comparison was about TVL, yield, popularity, and task activity;
But starting in 2025, the chain has entered a brand new era:
The era of capital efficiency.
In this era, projects are no longer about who can attract funds,
but rather than comparing—
Who can keep the funds stable, transfer them quickly, lower risks, and ensure smoother pathways.
See original
When Injective enters the 'slow variable cycle', I begin to redefine its source of value
Sometimes, the real key point of a project is not where it rises to, but the moment it begins to 'slow down'. Injective is experiencing this phase - the enthusiasm fades from its peak, on-chain data stabilizes, and the narrative volume is no longer loud. Most people would classify this period as 'entering fatigue' or 'an old project that has lost attention', but I see this time as the most important window to understand its underlying logic.
Because without emotional amplification, the true nature of a chain becomes clearer.
I first paid attention to Injective because it is not like those story-driven projects in the industry, nor does it rely on packaging concepts to create attraction. Its foundation is quite hardcore engineering logic: a chain-level order book system, cross-chain interoperability within the Cosmos ecosystem, and an execution framework optimized for trading. These aspects made me realize from the beginning that it did not emerge for 'narrative' purposes, but rather to solve the high-frequency trading pressures that traditional EVM could not handle.
Because without emotional amplification, the true nature of a chain becomes clearer.
I first paid attention to Injective because it is not like those story-driven projects in the industry, nor does it rely on packaging concepts to create attraction. Its foundation is quite hardcore engineering logic: a chain-level order book system, cross-chain interoperability within the Cosmos ecosystem, and an execution framework optimized for trading. These aspects made me realize from the beginning that it did not emerge for 'narrative' purposes, but rather to solve the high-frequency trading pressures that traditional EVM could not handle.
See original
Yield Guild Games: Where to Go After the 'Real Fundamentals' in the Cooling Cycle
During this period, I have shifted my focus on YGG from the price charts back to the structure itself. The more I look, the more I feel that it is no longer the guild token driven by emotions and stories like in the early years. After the noise of the market fades, what remains are only the parts of the business that truly happen, the changes in the underlying organizational structure, and the user network that supports the ecological operation. This article aims to calmly dismantle the process of YGG moving from highlights to skepticism, and then to structural reconstruction over the past three years, to see what position it truly stands in today.
If we push the timeline forward to 2021, YGG at that time was a typical 'cycle protagonist.' Financing was backed by leading institutions, the guild model was seen as the traffic entrance for GameFi, and the token stood above $10, with a fully diluted valuation breaking the billion level. YGG at that time was the center of industry consensus, and its asset pool, scholarship system, and on-chain governance were all seen as the prototype for 'Web3 games that would be massively replicated in the future.'
If we push the timeline forward to 2021, YGG at that time was a typical 'cycle protagonist.' Financing was backed by leading institutions, the guild model was seen as the traffic entrance for GameFi, and the token stood above $10, with a fully diluted valuation breaking the billion level. YGG at that time was the center of industry consensus, and its asset pool, scholarship system, and on-chain governance were all seen as the prototype for 'Web3 games that would be massively replicated in the future.'
See original
Recently, have you also noticed —
Why is U getting cheaper and cheaper?
Several friends have been asking me in private messages: "Is it going to crash?"
First, let me state the most critical point:
It's not that USDT has issues, but that the off-market premium is decreasing.
Why is it dropping? The reason is actually very simple, but many people overthink it.
① The market has cooled down, and there are very few people buying U.
The market isn't in a major uptrend, new players aren't entering, and old players are on the sidelines.
There are many selling U, but few willing to buy, so prices naturally drop.
This isn't a problem with the currency; it's a problem with people's sentiment.
② The cash-out wave has arrived, and everyone is converting U.
Recently, there are particularly many people exiting the circle, liquidating, running away, and settling:
Projects are being cut, malls are shrinking, arbitrage parties are withdrawing, all selling U.
Once selling pressure accumulates, off-market prices will definitely drop.
③ OTC merchants are struggling to survive and can only drastically lower prices.
Regulation is getting tighter, merchant risks are rising,
collecting U has become cautious → prices drop → fees increase → buying interest weakens.
This is a vicious cycle, but it has nothing to do with the essence of USDT.
④ Exchange rates are stable, and arbitrage parties have stopped playing.
In the past, some people relied on "the difference in the dollar exchange rate" to trade U,
now the RMB is stable, the space has shrunk, and arbitrage opportunities have completely disappeared.
With insufficient demand, prices will naturally drop.
In summary:
U is dropping, not a crash, but the market is not hot.
The true indicator of sentiment isn't the K-line; it's U's price behavior:
U rising = new players flooding in
U stable = market hesitation
U falling = retail investors are withdrawing
Currently, it's the third scenario: retail investors are exiting, and the market is catching its breath.
Don't be scared; this drop belongs to "changes in off-market structure,"
the external market is functioning normally, and on-chain data is also normal,
it's just that sentiment has cooled down, and the premium has retreated.
As for what to do?
For those looking to buy at the bottom or enter the circle:
Now buying U is actually more cost-effective because the cost is lower.
For those hoping to profit from U's price difference:
Stop dreaming; currently, the arbitrage space is close to zero.
Always remember the simplest rule:
U is not an investment product; it’s just a bridge.
When a bull market comes, everyone rushes to buy bricks, and prices naturally rise.
When the market is sluggish, no one is rushing for bricks, so they are cheap.
The market hasn't worsened; it's just cooled down.
Once the heat returns, U will naturally rise again.
#隐私币生态普涨
Why is U getting cheaper and cheaper?
Several friends have been asking me in private messages: "Is it going to crash?"
First, let me state the most critical point:
It's not that USDT has issues, but that the off-market premium is decreasing.
Why is it dropping? The reason is actually very simple, but many people overthink it.
① The market has cooled down, and there are very few people buying U.
The market isn't in a major uptrend, new players aren't entering, and old players are on the sidelines.
There are many selling U, but few willing to buy, so prices naturally drop.
This isn't a problem with the currency; it's a problem with people's sentiment.
② The cash-out wave has arrived, and everyone is converting U.
Recently, there are particularly many people exiting the circle, liquidating, running away, and settling:
Projects are being cut, malls are shrinking, arbitrage parties are withdrawing, all selling U.
Once selling pressure accumulates, off-market prices will definitely drop.
③ OTC merchants are struggling to survive and can only drastically lower prices.
Regulation is getting tighter, merchant risks are rising,
collecting U has become cautious → prices drop → fees increase → buying interest weakens.
This is a vicious cycle, but it has nothing to do with the essence of USDT.
④ Exchange rates are stable, and arbitrage parties have stopped playing.
In the past, some people relied on "the difference in the dollar exchange rate" to trade U,
now the RMB is stable, the space has shrunk, and arbitrage opportunities have completely disappeared.
With insufficient demand, prices will naturally drop.
In summary:
U is dropping, not a crash, but the market is not hot.
The true indicator of sentiment isn't the K-line; it's U's price behavior:
U rising = new players flooding in
U stable = market hesitation
U falling = retail investors are withdrawing
Currently, it's the third scenario: retail investors are exiting, and the market is catching its breath.
Don't be scared; this drop belongs to "changes in off-market structure,"
the external market is functioning normally, and on-chain data is also normal,
it's just that sentiment has cooled down, and the premium has retreated.
As for what to do?
For those looking to buy at the bottom or enter the circle:
Now buying U is actually more cost-effective because the cost is lower.
For those hoping to profit from U's price difference:
Stop dreaming; currently, the arbitrage space is close to zero.
Always remember the simplest rule:
U is not an investment product; it’s just a bridge.
When a bull market comes, everyone rushes to buy bricks, and prices naturally rise.
When the market is sluggish, no one is rushing for bricks, so they are cheap.
The market hasn't worsened; it's just cooled down.
Once the heat returns, U will naturally rise again.
#隐私币生态普涨
See original
Revisiting Injective from the Ground Up: The Real Structural Changes I Saw After the Hype Subsided
I have always had a habit: whenever a project goes through a wave of rising emotions and then suddenly quiets down amidst market noise, I revisit it from the ground up. Injective has been a typical case over the past year: from the narrative of being the 'strongest application chain' to gradually being submerged by new tracks, then to on-chain data stabilizing but lacking a significant breakout point. Many people interpret this change as 'project weakness', but I prefer to see it as an opportunity to recalibrate my perspective, stripping away the hype to see what the underlying logic really retains.
See original
Kite from Hype to Pressure: A Real Review of Agent Payment Infrastructure
If we take this round of Kite's market and review it separately, what concerns me more is not how high it peaked on the K-line, but rather: during a collective climax of AI narratives, how much has this 'AI payment public chain' actually delivered, and what structural issues have been exposed in the current pullback phase?
First, clarify the project itself. The positioning of Kite AI is actually very straightforward—creating a dedicated settlement and identity chain for AI Agents, which integrates identity, payments, governance, and micropayments into a protocol that can be automatically invoked by Agents on a PoS, EVM-compatible L1, allowing real-time settlement on the chain. It is not just another 'AI tool,' but rather attempts to standardize the process of 'how machines settle, account, and share profits with each other.'
First, clarify the project itself. The positioning of Kite AI is actually very straightforward—creating a dedicated settlement and identity chain for AI Agents, which integrates identity, payments, governance, and micropayments into a protocol that can be automatically invoked by Agents on a PoS, EVM-compatible L1, allowing real-time settlement on the chain. It is not just another 'AI tool,' but rather attempts to standardize the process of 'how machines settle, account, and share profits with each other.'
See original
I want to completely review Lorenzo's recent process of moving from "fervor" to "pressure"—not to judge the price, but to recalibrate its long-term structural logic.
Family, during this time I have been observing Lorenzo's emotional changes.
During the launch window period, liquidity expansion period, and narrative fermentation period, the project will naturally enter a phase of being "watched by too many people at the same time."
However, when the market enters a cooling period or a pullback period, or when hotspots shift, Lorenzo, like other projects, begins to experience a period of external pressure.
But the more I repeatedly look at its data, on-chain structure, and user behavior, the more I feel that this matter deserves a calm review, because it contains a fact that very few people are willing to admit:
During the launch window period, liquidity expansion period, and narrative fermentation period, the project will naturally enter a phase of being "watched by too many people at the same time."
However, when the market enters a cooling period or a pullback period, or when hotspots shift, Lorenzo, like other projects, begins to experience a period of external pressure.
But the more I repeatedly look at its data, on-chain structure, and user behavior, the more I feel that this matter deserves a calm review, because it contains a fact that very few people are willing to admit:
See original
Re-examining APRO After the Tide of Emotional Noise Recedes: A Shift from 'Being Pushed Along' to 'Needing to Stand Firm on Its Own'
Recently, I've become more willing to take a moment to look at APRO. It's not because the price has dropped to rock bottom, nor because the narrative has cooled, but because the emotional noise has finally dissipated, allowing the project's true structure and issues to be seen clearly. Many people see a pullback, disappointment, and declining liquidity; I see a project that has finally reached the stage where it must 'stand firm on its internal logic.'
If the initial excitement stemmed from platform traffic, narrative of the track, and chip structure, then the current situation resembles a mid-term exam—resource push has stopped, emotional bubbles have exited, and only two questions remain:
If the initial excitement stemmed from platform traffic, narrative of the track, and chip structure, then the current situation resembles a mid-term exam—resource push has stopped, emotional bubbles have exited, and only two questions remain:
See original
Yield Guild Games: From Cyclical Illusions to Long-term Review of User Infrastructure
Since I started reviewing the materials for YGG this year, one thing has become very clear to me: if we continue to use the mythological narrative from 2021 to understand this guild chain, we will fundamentally fail to grasp the current situation. In the past few years, Yield Guild Games has transitioned from being synonymous with the 'Play-to-Earn' trend to a position where price, unlocking, and narrative pressures coexist. What exactly happened in between, what are the cyclical noises, and what are the long-term logics that have settled down? I will calmly review this in chronological order in this article.
The timeline should begin with the peak in 2021. At that time, YGG was a combination of Axie Scholarship, Southeast Asian employment issues, and Web3 idealism. YGG secured over 30 million USD in multiple funding rounds, including a 4.6 million USD equity round led by a16z, and the narrative was almost perfectly shaped into 'Web3 gaming infrastructure.' The total supply of tokens is 1 billion, with 45% allocated to the community, unlocking linearly over four years, while the remainder is designated for the treasury, team, and early investors, laying the groundwork for the entire supply pressure that would follow.
The timeline should begin with the peak in 2021. At that time, YGG was a combination of Axie Scholarship, Southeast Asian employment issues, and Web3 idealism. YGG secured over 30 million USD in multiple funding rounds, including a 4.6 million USD equity round led by a16z, and the narrative was almost perfectly shaped into 'Web3 gaming infrastructure.' The total supply of tokens is 1 billion, with 45% allocated to the community, unlocking linearly over four years, while the remainder is designated for the treasury, team, and early investors, laying the groundwork for the entire supply pressure that would follow.
See original
When the heat dissipates, I reassess the underlying stable operation of Injective
I still prefer to break down a matter repeatedly, especially for projects like Injective, which were pushed to the narrative peak in the first half of the bull market, only to be反噬 by market sentiment later on. The more such projects we have, the more we need to extend the timeline and review the entire process from the peak to the pressure as a structural event, rather than focusing on the price fluctuations at a few specific points in time. In this article, I will calmly and rationally revisit the operational logic of Injective over the past year in the way I usually conduct my research, to see if it really has any supporting points that can withstand the cycle.
See original
Falcon Finance: When the chain starts to require 'capital sensitivity,' only protocols with stable structures can continue to scale up.
To be honest, the more I look at @falcon_finance, the more I realize a fact that many people overlook—
Falcon is being forced into a higher threshold competitive environment.
Not because of market fluctuations, not because FF is under pressure, not because of a retreat in tasks.
But because the behavior of capital across the entire chain has evolved into a new form by 2025:
Capital has become more sensitive.
Sensitive to what extent?
Sensitive to no longer look at currency price sentiment, but to look at the integrity of the structure.
Sensitive to no longer chase random returns, but to pursue certainty.
Sensitive to not just where it is hot, but where it can stay long-term.
Falcon is being forced into a higher threshold competitive environment.
Not because of market fluctuations, not because FF is under pressure, not because of a retreat in tasks.
But because the behavior of capital across the entire chain has evolved into a new form by 2025:
Capital has become more sensitive.
Sensitive to what extent?
Sensitive to no longer look at currency price sentiment, but to look at the integrity of the structure.
Sensitive to no longer chase random returns, but to pursue certainty.
Sensitive to not just where it is hot, but where it can stay long-term.
See original
During this time, I've been overwhelmed by various 'official hints' and 'big sister metaphors' until He Yi directly named it. I realized that it wasn't the market that was too crazy, but that some people really treat screenshots and interpretations as a business. Binance's statement this time is not just a declaration, but more like pressing the 'calibration key' for the entire industry.
Let me clarify the key points: Binance has tightened regulations internally—employees are not allowed to issue tokens, promote, or get involved in any token projects. What the official Twitter account posts is operational content, not signals, nor endorsements.
The reason for emphasizing this so straightforwardly is that some people have recently taken 'misinterpretation' to an absurd level: from a single sentence, a screenshot, or even an unrelated emoji, they can forcefully twist it into 'internal hints' or 'official endorsements'. Then, they take advantage of this to issue tokens, pump prices, and sell off, wildly harvesting profits.
He Yi's statement that 'the fate of expression is to be misinterpreted' sounds helpless, but the attitude behind it is very clear: Binance will not keep quiet out of fear of being misunderstood, but will also never give anyone an excuse. Those who want to take advantage should not try to package daily operations as 'policy decoding'. In short, these behaviors of 'picking words to issue tokens' have nothing to do with Binance.
However, what is more worth discussing is: what kind of Meme can be considered vibrant?
In the Chinese community, some Memes come with marketing packaging, roughly fitting Web2 hot topics into Web3, like slapping on labels, with community consensus so weak that it pops with a poke.
The truly viable Memes, like the vulgar penguin, are not 'supported' by any project party but instead spontaneously explode in Web2 first, and then are naturally brought into Web3 by the community due to their content's charm and viral potential. The force comes from users, not from the right to interpret.
The community is always the soul of the Meme.
Those driven by consensus and culture can weather bull and bear markets; those supported by a few screenshots and a few 'official interpretations' mostly just evaporate quickly.
How to avoid falling into traps?
It's still the old saying—DYOR.
Official signals should only refer to formal announcements, not taken out of context.
Projects should be deeply researched, rather than just seeing who retweets.
Community activity, content creativity, and contract security are the real indicators.
Speculators rely on emotional games, while we stand firm with our judgment.
#比特币VS代币化黄金
Let me clarify the key points: Binance has tightened regulations internally—employees are not allowed to issue tokens, promote, or get involved in any token projects. What the official Twitter account posts is operational content, not signals, nor endorsements.
The reason for emphasizing this so straightforwardly is that some people have recently taken 'misinterpretation' to an absurd level: from a single sentence, a screenshot, or even an unrelated emoji, they can forcefully twist it into 'internal hints' or 'official endorsements'. Then, they take advantage of this to issue tokens, pump prices, and sell off, wildly harvesting profits.
He Yi's statement that 'the fate of expression is to be misinterpreted' sounds helpless, but the attitude behind it is very clear: Binance will not keep quiet out of fear of being misunderstood, but will also never give anyone an excuse. Those who want to take advantage should not try to package daily operations as 'policy decoding'. In short, these behaviors of 'picking words to issue tokens' have nothing to do with Binance.
However, what is more worth discussing is: what kind of Meme can be considered vibrant?
In the Chinese community, some Memes come with marketing packaging, roughly fitting Web2 hot topics into Web3, like slapping on labels, with community consensus so weak that it pops with a poke.
The truly viable Memes, like the vulgar penguin, are not 'supported' by any project party but instead spontaneously explode in Web2 first, and then are naturally brought into Web3 by the community due to their content's charm and viral potential. The force comes from users, not from the right to interpret.
The community is always the soul of the Meme.
Those driven by consensus and culture can weather bull and bear markets; those supported by a few screenshots and a few 'official interpretations' mostly just evaporate quickly.
How to avoid falling into traps?
It's still the old saying—DYOR.
Official signals should only refer to formal announcements, not taken out of context.
Projects should be deeply researched, rather than just seeing who retweets.
Community activity, content creativity, and contract security are the real indicators.
Speculators rely on emotional games, while we stand firm with our judgment.
#比特币VS代币化黄金
See original
From Full Heat to Chip Pressure: My Review of APRO Oracle in This Period
To be honest, I really started to pay attention to APRO, not because of any long article, but because of the few days it launched on Binance Alpha. During that time, it was everywhere in the community, on social media, and in friends' posts, with the typical bull market narrative coming together: new track, new resources, new story. The oracle itself is a 'infrastructure-type narrative', and when you add AI, RWA, and BTCFi, it's hard not to be attractive.
But when you strip away the emotions, you can see a more realistic outline of the market. APRO has pulled back from a high of $0.579 to around $0.13, a decline of nearly 78%, with a circulating market cap of about $30 million, and FDV stabilizing around $130 million. In just two months, it has transformed from a 'new favorite' to a 'pressure plate', which is the core I want to review today: how the hype is formed, where the pressure comes from, and what long-term logic remains.
But when you strip away the emotions, you can see a more realistic outline of the market. APRO has pulled back from a high of $0.579 to around $0.13, a decline of nearly 78%, with a circulating market cap of about $30 million, and FDV stabilizing around $130 million. In just two months, it has transformed from a 'new favorite' to a 'pressure plate', which is the core I want to review today: how the hype is formed, where the pressure comes from, and what long-term logic remains.
Login to explore more contents
Explore the latest crypto news
⚡️ Be a part of the latests discussions in crypto
💬 Interact with your favorite creators
👍 Enjoy content that interests you
Email / Phone number
Trending Topics
BTCVSGOLD
8.8M views
63,244 Discussing
#BTCVSGOLD
$BTC Bitcoin — as of this writing — is trading around ≈ $90,300.
Gold(XAU) — per ounce — has surged in 2025, hitting record high prices.
In 2025 year-to-date, gold’s return significantly outperforms Bitcoin’s: gold has gained strongly, while Bitcoin has experienced a rough patch.
🔎 Reasons for Diverging Trends
Gold’s strength:
Gold benefits from its longtime reputation as a “safe-haven” asset — especially amid global economic uncertainty, rate volatility, and inflation fears.
Central bank purchases and demand for traditional value stores have boosted gold’s appeal recently.
Its historical supply and market size remain massive compared to crypto — gold’s market cap still far exceeds Bitcoin’s, giving it structural stability.
Bitcoin’s appeal and volatility:
Bitcoin offers a capped supply (max 21 million coins), making it “digital gold” — scarce, portable, divisible. That scarcity remains a core advantage over traditional assets.
However, Bitcoin remains highly volatile: while it delivered massive long-term gains over years, its short-term swings are steep and unpredictable.
Some financial institutions argue there’s still upside: with volatility-adjusted gold comparison, Bitcoin might be undervalued, suggesting room to rise if confidence returns.
#TrumpTariffs #cryptouniverseofficial #CryptoNewss #BTCVSGOLD
Nova 97
2 Likes
472 views
BinanceBlockchainWeek
31M views
101,923 Discussing
BTC86kJPShock
10.4M views
73,478 Discussing
