HNIW30

Today is a truly special day for me. When I just woke up, as usual, I picked up my phone to check notifications, I saw a lot of notifications and messages mentioning me. I was very anxious and worried (because of Long

and Short

) I tried to reassure myself that it would be fine, then saw my name on the list of those selected to receive rewards from the 200

Creator Rewards program of Binance Square, and I couldn't hold back my tears. Not because of the value of the reward (even 1 BNB is already very precious!), but because of the feeling of being recognized, of the community accepting what I have tried to share.

Important information: The price drop to 1011 is not due to a system failure at Binance; the platform has done everything possible to compensate for the losses.

Early in the morning on January 31, the founder of Binance,
, held an English-language online Q&A on Binance Square to address recent rumors (FUD - Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) from the community about Binance. Below is a record of the main statements made by CZ from BlockBeats:

One thing I’ve noticed while watching @Plasma over time is that the project doesn’t try to define itself through loud promises. Instead, Plasma seems to focus on how blockchain infrastructure should actually behave when it’s pushed beyond early experimentation.
A lot of networks look impressive during low usage, but the real test comes when activity increases and systems are forced to operate under pressure. Plasma appears to be designed with that reality in mind. The emphasis is not only on speed, but also on stability and predictable behavior, which are often overlooked until problems start to appear elsewhere.
From a user and observer standpoint, this approach makes sense. Sustainable ecosystems are usually built by solving practical issues first, not by chasing every trending narrative. Plasma’s development direction feels more aligned with long-term usability than with short-term attention.
The utility of $XPL fits naturally into this picture. Rather than being treated as a separate speculative layer, the token is part of how the network functions and aligns incentives across participants. Over time, that kind of structure tends to support healthier growth, especially as more real use cases emerge.
Plasma may not dominate headlines every day, but steady progress is often what matters most in this space. For those paying attention to fundamentals, Plasma is a project worth continuing to watch closely.
#Plasma

For developers and studios building consumer-facing applications, choosing the right blockchain has become less about buzzwords and more about reliability. Vanar Chain is increasingly interesting from this angle. Instead of marketing itself as a universal solution, @Vanarchain focuses on being a stable and performant environment for applications that demand consistency, especially in gaming and interactive digital experiences.
From a builder’s perspective, predictability matters. Networks that suffer from congestion, unstable fees, or constant architectural changes make long-term planning difficult. Vanar’s positioning suggests an emphasis on providing a dependable base layer where teams can focus on product development rather than constantly adjusting to infrastructure limitations.
As more developers look for chains that support real production workloads, the relevance of $VANRY becomes more closely linked to ecosystem usage and participation. Vanar Chain’s approach aligns with a broader industry trend: developers gravitating toward blockchains that prioritize execution quality over short-term attention. #vanar

If Kevin Warsh is appointed as Chairman of the Fed (with a high likelihood based on the latest news as of January 30, 2026), the impact on the crypto market will be complex, but mainly negative in the short term due to his hawkish stance. Below is a detailed analysis based on policy perspective and historical market reactions:1. Warsh's monetary policy perspective – The main factor affecting cryptoWarsh is a typical hawkish candidate: He strongly opposes QE (quantitative easing), supports a rapid reduction of the Fed's balance sheet, and prioritizes stricter inflation control to support short-term growth.

Currently (30/01/2026), Jerome Powell's term as Fed Chair will end in May 2026. President Donald Trump has narrowed the list of candidates down to 4 and is expected to make an official announcement tomorrow morning (31/01/2026). According to the latest sources from Reuters, WSJ, Bloomberg, and prediction markets, the 4 potential candidates include:

Below is a detailed analysis of each individual, based on their background, monetary policy perspectives, strengths and weaknesses, and likelihood of being selected (based on publicly available information and market assessments to date):

The SEC Chair and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) made positive statements about the cryptocurrency market!
A new step is being taken in the legal approach to cryptocurrency under U.S. President Donald Trump. After the Clarity Act was unexpectedly suspended in the Senate, U.S. regulators are preparing to issue regulations within their existing authority to support the development of the cryptocurrency sector.

As the crypto market matures, attention is slowly shifting away from purely speculative chains toward blockchains that can support real consumer-facing applications. Vanar Chain fits well into this transition. Instead of competing loudly on short-term metrics, @Vanarchain is positioning itself around performance, stability, and practical usability for digital products that require smooth user experiences.
What makes this approach relevant is the growing demand for blockchains that can operate in the background without forcing users to interact directly with complex Web3 mechanics. Gaming, immersive digital environments, and interactive platforms all require infrastructure that feels reliable and seamless. Vanar Chain’s focus reflects an understanding that mainstream adoption depends on hiding complexity rather than amplifying it.
In this context, $VANRY becomes more than just a speculative asset. Its role is increasingly tied to network participation and ecosystem activity as usage expands. Rather than chasing hype cycles, Vanar Chain appears to be aligning itself with long-term consumer trends, which is often where sustainable blockchain value is ultimately created. #vanar

Imagine this scenario: It's October 2028, and Vance and Mark Cuban are neck and neck in the presidential election. Vance's support in the prediction market suddenly surges. CNN, having partnered with Kalshi, provides 24/7 coverage of the prediction market's prices.
Meanwhile, no one knows why prices initially surged. Democrats insist the market was "manipulated." They point to a large number of suspicious trades that drove the market in favor of Vance without any new polls or other apparent reason.
The New York Times also published a report claiming that traders backed by Saudi Arabia's sovereign wealth fund placed large bets in the election market to get CNN to report favorably on Vance. Republicans, however, argued that the price was justified, pointing out no evidence that the price spike would affect the election results, and accused Democrats of trying to suppress free speech and censor information about the election. The truth remains unclear.
This article will explain why such a scenario is highly likely to occur in the coming years—although successful manipulation of prediction markets is rare, and there is little evidence that it influences voter behavior.
Attempts to manipulate these markets are inevitable, and when manipulation occurs, the political implications can far outweigh any direct impact on election results. In an environment where any anomaly is readily interpreted as a conspiracy, even a brief distortion can trigger accusations of foreign interference, corruption, or elite collusion. Panic, blame, and a loss of trust can overshadow the actual impact of the initial action.
However, abandoning prediction markets would be a mistake. As traditional polling becomes increasingly vulnerable in an AI-saturated environment—with extremely low response rates and pollsters struggling to distinguish AI responses from real human respondents—prediction markets offer a useful complementary signal, aggregating fragmented information with genuine financial incentives.
The challenge lies in governance: building a system that both preserves the value of prediction market information and reduces its misuse. This may mean ensuring broadcasters focus on reporting on more volatile and less manipulable markets, encouraging platforms to monitor for signs of coordinated manipulation, and shifting the way market fluctuations are interpreted with humility rather than panic. If this can be achieved, prediction markets can evolve into a more robust and transparent component of the political information ecosystem: one that helps the public understand elections, rather than a vehicle for distrust.
Learn from history: Be wary of attempts to manipulate the market.
"Now everyone is watching the betting market. Its fluctuations are being watched with fervent interest by the general electorate, who, unable to understand the direction of public sentiment themselves, can only blindly rely on the opinions of those who wager hundreds of thousands of dollars in every election." — The Washington Post, November 5, 1905.
In the 1916 presidential election, Charles Evans Hughes led Woodrow Wilson in the New York betting market. It's noteworthy that the betting market was frequently covered by the news media in American politics at that time. Because of this coverage, the shadow of market manipulation lingered. In 1916, Democrats, not wanting to be seen as lagging behind, claimed the betting market was "rigged," and the media reported on this

.

The potential threat of election manipulation has never disappeared. On the morning of October 23, 2012, during the Barack Obama-Mitt Romney campaign, a trader placed a large order to buy Romney shares on InTrade, causing the price to surge by about 8 points, from just under 41 cents to nearly 49 cents—a price that, if believed, suggested a near tie. However, the price quickly retreated, and the media paid little attention. The identity of the alleged manipulator was never confirmed.

However, sometimes you'll see people openly explaining their logic for attempting to manipulate the market. A 2004 study documented a case of deliberate market manipulation during the 1999 Berlin state election. The author cited a real email from the local party headquarters urging members to bet on market predictions:
"The Daily Mirror (one of Germany's largest newspapers) publishes a daily political stock market (PSM), and the Free Democratic Party (FDP) is currently trading at 4.23%. You can view the PSM online at http://berlin.wahlstreet.de. Many citizens don't see the PSM as a game, but rather as the result of opinion polls. Therefore, it's important that the FDP's price rises in the final days. Like any exchange, price levels depend on demand. Participate in the PSM and buy FDP contracts. Ultimately, we all firmly believe in our party's success."
These concerns also emerged in 2024. On the eve of the election, The Wall Street Journal published an article questioning whether Trump's lead on Polymarket (which seemed to far exceed his poll numbers) was the result of improper influence: "Large bets on Trump are not necessarily malicious. Some observers believe it may simply be the work of a big gambler who firmly believes Trump will win and wants to make a fortune. However, others believe these bets are an influence campaign designed to generate buzz for the former president on social media."
The 2024 review was particularly intriguing because it raised concerns about foreign influence. The results indicated that the bets driving up Polymarket prices originated from a French investor—though there was little reason to believe it was manipulation, despite some speculation. In fact, this investor commissioned private polls and appeared focused on making money rather than manipulating the market.
This history reveals two themes. First, cyberattacks are common and their future occurrence is foreseeable. Second, even if an attack fails, some people can still use it to incite fear.
How significant are the impacts of these attacks?
Whether these measures will influence voter behavior depends on two factors: whether the manipulation can actually affect market prices, and whether changes in market prices will affect voter behavior.
Let’s first explore why manipulating the market (if you can) could help you achieve your political goals: because it’s not as obvious as people think.
Here are two ways to predict how the market might influence election results.

herd mentality
The herd mentality refers to the tendency of voters to support candidates who appear likely to win, whether out of herd mentality, the satisfaction of supporting the winner, or the belief that market odds reflect the candidate's quality.
If popularity helps a candidate gain more support, then broadcasting market prediction prices in the news creates an incentive to inflate those prices. Manipulators might try to boost the odds of their preferred candidate, hoping to trigger a feedback loop: market prices rise → voters perceive the momentum → voters shift their support → prices rise again.
In Vance Cuban's case, the manipulator's bet was that making Vance appear stronger would actually help him win.
complacency effect
On the other hand, if voters' preferred candidate is far ahead, they may choose not to vote. But if the election is close, or their preferred candidate seems to be losing, they may be more motivated to vote. In this situation, widely circulated market predictions create market pressure, keeping the odds close to 50/50. Once the market begins to favor a particular candidate, traders know that supporters of that candidate are losing enthusiasm, thus driving down prices.
This also facilitates market manipulation. A leading candidate, fearing overly optimistic supporters, might quietly buy shares of their opponent to tighten the market and suggest a more intense competition. Conversely, supporters of a lagging candidate might further depress their stock price to induce supporters in the opposing camp to believe victory is assured and abstain from voting. In this scenario, the market becomes a paradoxical prophecy: signals intended to reflect expectations instead serve to overturn them.
Despite the considerable controversy, some argue that Brexit is an example of this phenomenon. As a report from the London School of Economics points out: "It is well known that polls influence voter turnout and voting behavior, especially when one side seems to have a clear advantage. It appears that more people who support remaining in the EU chose the easier option of not voting, possibly because they believed that remaining would prevail."
Voters don't care too much about how intense the election is.
The problem is that even if herd mentality or complacency exists, existing evidence suggests its impact is usually small. US elections are relatively stable—driven primarily by partisan positions and fundamental factors such as the economy—so if voters react strongly to claims about who is leading, the election results will appear more chaotic. Moreover, when researchers attempt to directly alter people's perceptions of the intensity or crucial nature of an election, the behavioral effects are consistently limited.
An example of the theory that "the closer the election, the higher the voter turnout" is Enos and Fowler's study of a Massachusetts state legislature election that actually ended in a tie. In the re-election, they randomly informed some voters that the previous election in their district had ended in a narrow defeat by only one vote. Even with this extreme approach, the impact on voter turnout was negligible.
Similarly, Gerber et al. presented voters with different polling results in large-scale field experiments. People updated their perceptions of the intensity of the electoral competition, but voter turnout remained almost unchanged. A study on the Swiss referendum found that the effect was slightly larger, but still very limited: in this case, widely followed close polls appeared to slightly increase voter turnout, but only by a few percentage points.
It's possible that at times, signals of a close election might indeed prompt some voters to change their minds, but this effect is likely to be minimal. This doesn't mean we shouldn't worry about election fraud, but rather that we should focus on the subtle influences in a close election, rather than the distorting factors that could turn a close contest into a one-sided affair.
Market manipulation is both difficult and expensive.
This leads to the second question: Just how difficult is it to manipulate and predict market prices?
Rhode and Strumpf's study of the Iowa electronic market during the 2000 election found that manipulation attempts are costly and unsustainable. In a typical case, a trader repeatedly placed huge buy orders in the market, attempting to push prices up in favor of his preferred candidate. Each push briefly altered the odds, but other traders quickly used arbitrage to eliminate the distortion, pulling prices back to normal levels. The manipulator invested heavily but suffered heavy losses, while the market demonstrated strong mean reversion and resilience.

This is crucial in the hypothetical case of Vance and Cuban. Manipulating the presidential election market in October requires a large amount of capital, and there are many traders waiting to sell after the price surge. This small fluctuation might last until it's broadcast on CNN, but by the time CNN anchor Anderson Cooper starts talking about it, the price may have already fallen back to its initial level.
But the situation is different when market liquidity is insufficient. Researchers have demonstrated that long-term prices can be manipulated in a low-liquidity environment: no one can prevent such manipulation.
Response suggestions
There may be evidence that manipulating major election markets is unlikely to have a significant impact, but that doesn't mean we can do nothing. In a new world where prediction markets are converging with social media and cable news, the impact of price manipulation may be greater than ever before. Even if the impact of price manipulation is small, such concerns could affect shared perceptions of the fairness of the political system. How should we address this issue?
For broadcasting organizations:
Implement a liquidity floor. CNN and other news organizations should focus on actively traded markets when reporting on market price predictions for elections and other political events, as these markets are more likely to reflect accurate expectations and are more costly to manipulate; they should not report on prices in illiquid markets, as these markets are less accurate and less costly to manipulate.
Incorporate other election prediction signals. News organizations should also closely monitor opinion polls and other election prediction indicators. While these indicators may have other flaws, they are less likely to be manipulated strategically. If a significant discrepancy is found between market prices and other signals, news organizations should look for evidence of manipulation.
For predicting markets:
Establish monitoring capabilities. Build systems and personnel capable of detecting deceptive trading, fraudulent transactions, sudden spikes in one-sided trading volume, and coordinated account activity. Companies like Kalshi and Polymarket may already possess some of these capabilities, but they could invest more resources if they wish to be perceived as responsible platforms.
When sharp price fluctuations occur without a clear cause, consider intervention measures. This includes setting up simple circuit breakers in illiquid markets to deal with sudden price changes, and suspending trading and then conducting a call auction to reset prices when price movements appear abnormal.
When reporting price indicators, consideration should be given to how to improve their resistance to manipulation. For prices displayed on television, time-weighted or volume-weighted prices should be used.
Continuously improve trading transparency. Transparency is crucial: publish indicators of liquidity, concentration, and unusual trading patterns (without revealing personal identities) so that journalists and the public can understand whether price fluctuations reflect genuine information or order book noise. Large markets like Kalshi and Polymarket already display order books, but more detailed indicators and dashboards that are easy for the public to understand would be extremely valuable.
For policymakers:
Combating market manipulation. The first step is to clearly define that any attempt to manipulate election prediction market prices (to influence public opinion or media reports) falls under the jurisdiction of existing anti-manipulation regulations. This allows regulators to act quickly when unexplained large price fluctuations occur on the eve of an election.
Regulating interference in the market by domestic and foreign political forces. Because the election market is highly susceptible to foreign influence and campaign finance issues, policymakers should consider two safeguards:
(1) Monitoring foreign manipulation by tracking the nationality of traders is made possible by the existing “KYC” law in the United States, which is crucial to the operation of prediction markets.
(2) Establish disclosure rules or prohibitions for campaign activities, political action committees (PACs), and senior political staff. If the expenditures for price manipulation are undeclared political expenditures, the regulatory body should treat them as political expenditures.
in conclusion
Prediction markets can make elections clearer, not more chaotic, but only if they are established responsibly. CNN's collaboration with Kalshi foreshadows a future where market signals, along with polls, models, and reporting, will become part of the political information landscape. This presents a genuine opportunity: in a world saturated with AI, there is a need for tools capable of uncovering fragmented information without distortion. However, this prospect hinges on good governance, including liquidity standards, regulation, transparency, and a more prudent interpretation of market dynamics. If these aspects are handled properly, prediction markets can improve public understanding of elections and support a healthier democratic ecosystem in the age of algorithms.

I’ve been following @Plasma for a while now, not because it’s loud on social media, but because it keeps showing up in conversations around execution and infrastructure. In a market where most projects are busy selling narratives, Plasma feels more like a system that’s being built piece by piece.

What I find interesting is that Plasma doesn’t seem to chase attention. Instead, it focuses on how value actually moves on-chain and how networks behave when activity starts to scale. That’s not something you notice immediately, but over time it becomes obvious when you compare it with chains that struggle under real usage.

From my perspective, Plasma is approaching blockchain design with a more practical mindset. Things like performance consistency, reliability, and long-term usability matter a lot more than short-term hype. Those choices usually don’t look exciting at first, but they’re often what keeps an ecosystem alive when market conditions change.

The token side is also worth mentioning. $XPL isn’t positioned as just another speculative asset. It plays a functional role within the network, connecting usage with incentives. That kind of structure tends to reward real participation instead of empty volume.

Plasma may not be the noisiest project right now, but that’s often how serious infrastructure grows. Quiet progress, steady development, and a clear focus on fundamentals usually speak louder over time.
#plasma #Plasma