Kuka-cryption
亏钱大王来了
230 Following
13.0K+ Followers
2.5K+ Liked
561 Shared
All
Quotes
Live
PINNED
See original
🎯Wow! The Semantic Layer project is quite something!
Not only is the financing lineup dazzling (Figment Capital
Robot Ventures
Hack VC
Bankless Ventures
Fenbushi Capital
Anagram
Led by Perridon Ventures, these big names like Hank VC are also investing; more importantly, they are building something big - an economic system for AI agents!
In simple terms: Your AI will not only help you work in the future, but it will also be able to earn money on-chain by itself! The token is the "fuel" for this ecosystem, just launched on Binance Alpha today!
Simple summary highlights: 🌟Top-tier institution platform 🌟AI agency economic first protocol 🌟Token just launched and gaining momentum 🌟Testnet data is quite impressive
Robot Ventures
Hack VC
Bankless Ventures
Fenbushi Capital
Anagram
Led by Perridon Ventures, these big names like Hank VC are also investing; more importantly, they are building something big - an economic system for AI agents!
In simple terms: Your AI will not only help you work in the future, but it will also be able to earn money on-chain by itself! The token is the "fuel" for this ecosystem, just launched on Binance Alpha today!
Simple summary highlights: 🌟Top-tier institution platform 🌟AI agency economic first protocol 🌟Token just launched and gaining momentum 🌟Testnet data is quite impressive
PINNED
See original
The project @ULTILAND that has been in the spotlight recently has new updates. The official release features a minimalist poster with a black background, flowing metallic lines, three symbols representing 'expression, creation, and prosperity,' and a short tagline – Art is no longer static. Value begins to flow.
It feels like this is not just a simple art marketing slogan but an announcement of a shift in an era.
For a long time, when we talked about RWA (Real World Assets on-chain), we always focused on bonds, real estate, and gold – those 'hard assets' with clear valuations. But Ultiland wants to try another path: to make art and cultural assets into 'inspiration assets' that can be split, traded, and even repurchased. In this context, art has gained liquidity for the first time, and liquidity has, for the first time, possessed a soul.
From 10.14 to 10.21, this time is marked as 'an experiment on assets and freedom.' Its symbolic significance far exceeds the test itself – it means that art is released from museums and collections, becoming part of the on-chain world. Whether it’s an object, a memory, or a form of aesthetic, the future can achieve rights, pricing, and regeneration on the blockchain.
Ultiland's 'test issuance' may just be the starting point, but the narrative behind it is worth paying attention to: when creators no longer need to rely on traditional institutions, when the value of art can flow automatically in smart contracts, what we see is not just the tokenization of assets, but the 'financialization of inspiration.' This is a transition from collection to co-creation, from appreciation to participation – it allows the ownership of culture to be distributed to everyone for the first time.
Sometimes, the start of a new track does not begin with a white paper or financing news, but with a seemingly quiet poster. Friends interested in the RWA track can start paying attention!
#ULTILAND #RWA
It feels like this is not just a simple art marketing slogan but an announcement of a shift in an era.
For a long time, when we talked about RWA (Real World Assets on-chain), we always focused on bonds, real estate, and gold – those 'hard assets' with clear valuations. But Ultiland wants to try another path: to make art and cultural assets into 'inspiration assets' that can be split, traded, and even repurchased. In this context, art has gained liquidity for the first time, and liquidity has, for the first time, possessed a soul.
From 10.14 to 10.21, this time is marked as 'an experiment on assets and freedom.' Its symbolic significance far exceeds the test itself – it means that art is released from museums and collections, becoming part of the on-chain world. Whether it’s an object, a memory, or a form of aesthetic, the future can achieve rights, pricing, and regeneration on the blockchain.
Ultiland's 'test issuance' may just be the starting point, but the narrative behind it is worth paying attention to: when creators no longer need to rely on traditional institutions, when the value of art can flow automatically in smart contracts, what we see is not just the tokenization of assets, but the 'financialization of inspiration.' This is a transition from collection to co-creation, from appreciation to participation – it allows the ownership of culture to be distributed to everyone for the first time.
Sometimes, the start of a new track does not begin with a white paper or financing news, but with a seemingly quiet poster. Friends interested in the RWA track can start paying attention!
#ULTILAND #RWA
ULTILAND
--
⚠️Ultiland | A New Chapter is Loading 🌪️
📅Oct 14–21 🚀RWA Test Launch · Airdrop Incoming
Art is no longer just collected — it's issued
We are redefining how real assets express value on-chain, turning inspiration into liquidity.
#ULTILAND #RWA #Web3
📅Oct 14–21 🚀RWA Test Launch · Airdrop Incoming
Art is no longer just collected — it's issued
We are redefining how real assets express value on-chain, turning inspiration into liquidity.
#ULTILAND #RWA #Web3
See original
The Value Loop Deduction of Apro: Why the Future of Oracles Is No Longer About Who Is More Accurate, But About Who Can Bear 'Price Responsibility'
I am increasingly convinced that the significance of projects like Apro cannot be viewed through the lens of traditional oracles. In the past few years, the oracle space has been trapped in a very stubborn misconception: people think the competitive points are 'accuracy, speed, and the number of sources'. But as long as you have observed the clearing market, derivatives trading, cross-chain arbitrage, and automated strategy execution, you will know—accuracy is just the minimum threshold; what truly determines life and death is the 'price responsibility mechanism'.
The route taken by Apro is to institutionalize, quantify, and price the concept of 'responsibility', rather than relying solely on reputation or self-awareness at key points to maintain it. This is, in my opinion, the most unconventional aspect and the closest to the future oracle form.
The route taken by Apro is to institutionalize, quantify, and price the concept of 'responsibility', rather than relying solely on reputation or self-awareness at key points to maintain it. This is, in my opinion, the most unconventional aspect and the closest to the future oracle form.
See original
Falcon Finance: In an industry filled with "structural illusions", it chooses to be the least accommodating yet most trustworthy type of protocol
In this industry for a long time, you will increasingly be able to distinguish between two types of projects:
One survives by looking "very strong", and the other survives by having a "really strong structure".
The former relies on emotions, trends, and user impulses;
The latter relies on mechanisms, constraints, and a respect for the worst-case scenario.
Falcon Finance belongs to the latter, and is even a very pure type within the latter category.
It does not regard itself as a "product", but rather as a "financial guideline".
@Falcon Finance $FF #FalconFinance
1. Falcon's system design philosophy is very simple: anything that is uncertain cannot be the foundation.
One survives by looking "very strong", and the other survives by having a "really strong structure".
The former relies on emotions, trends, and user impulses;
The latter relies on mechanisms, constraints, and a respect for the worst-case scenario.
Falcon Finance belongs to the latter, and is even a very pure type within the latter category.
It does not regard itself as a "product", but rather as a "financial guideline".
@Falcon Finance $FF #FalconFinance
1. Falcon's system design philosophy is very simple: anything that is uncertain cannot be the foundation.
See original
AI Agents are moving towards the 'era of task collaboration', and Kite is one of the few that can prevent multiple tasks from dragging each other down.
Recently, while reviewing the development of on-chain automation, I noticed a particularly obvious change—
AI is no longer satisfied with being the 'executor of a single task'; it is evolving into the 'coordinator of multiple tasks'.
This means that on-chain tasks are transitioning from 'single-threaded' to 'multi-threaded'.
You are no longer allowing the Agent to do one thing, but rather letting it manage several interrelated actions that affect each other's states at the same time.
Once this collaborative complexity rises, traditional execution methods become completely insufficient.
The on-chain status is changing in real-time, the dependencies between multiple tasks are not fixed, and the speed of failure propagation is very fast; if one step goes out of control, it may directly drag down the entire execution tree.
AI is no longer satisfied with being the 'executor of a single task'; it is evolving into the 'coordinator of multiple tasks'.
This means that on-chain tasks are transitioning from 'single-threaded' to 'multi-threaded'.
You are no longer allowing the Agent to do one thing, but rather letting it manage several interrelated actions that affect each other's states at the same time.
Once this collaborative complexity rises, traditional execution methods become completely insufficient.
The on-chain status is changing in real-time, the dependencies between multiple tasks are not fixed, and the speed of failure propagation is very fast; if one step goes out of control, it may directly drag down the entire execution tree.
See original
Lorenzo Protocol: The 'predictability' of risk parameters determines whether a stablecoin can survive for ten years
@Lorenzo Protocol $BANK #LorenzoProtocol
If you ask me:
What makes most stablecoin projects not die on the day of the crash, but rather die at the moment users “no longer trust its risk model”?
My answer is simple:
The uncertainty of risk parameters.
The stablecoin system is not like a DEX, not like a lending protocol; it is a 'currency system'.
The first principle of a currency system is always:
Every parameter must be predictable.
Every boundary must be reasoned.
Every change must have a logical basis.
Every risk must be known in advance.
If you ask me:
What makes most stablecoin projects not die on the day of the crash, but rather die at the moment users “no longer trust its risk model”?
My answer is simple:
The uncertainty of risk parameters.
The stablecoin system is not like a DEX, not like a lending protocol; it is a 'currency system'.
The first principle of a currency system is always:
Every parameter must be predictable.
Every boundary must be reasoned.
Every change must have a logical basis.
Every risk must be known in advance.
See original
YGG: In the blockchain gaming world where all motivations begin to collapse, it has become the only structure that can redistribute player energy.
@Yield Guild Games #YGGPlay $YGG
I have always believed that the biggest misunderstanding in the blockchain gaming industry is that project teams think what players lack is 'revenue'.
What players lack is 'motivation'.
What is lacking is a reason that makes them willing to keep moving forward, rather than shallow short-term stimulation.
In the early stages of blockchain gaming, it is driven by incentives, while in the later stages, it is driven by inertia. However, once the incentives fade and the inertia disappears, the entire system collapses as if it has been hollowed out. You will see a decline in player interest, a sharp drop in participation, and a rapid decline in activity, while project teams often mistakenly believe they are not offering enough, promoting hard enough, or setting tough enough tasks. But these methods will only make the entire motivational system more fragile. Because the more you compress motivation into rewards, the more players will compress their behavior into a cost-benefit ratio.
I have always believed that the biggest misunderstanding in the blockchain gaming industry is that project teams think what players lack is 'revenue'.
What players lack is 'motivation'.
What is lacking is a reason that makes them willing to keep moving forward, rather than shallow short-term stimulation.
In the early stages of blockchain gaming, it is driven by incentives, while in the later stages, it is driven by inertia. However, once the incentives fade and the inertia disappears, the entire system collapses as if it has been hollowed out. You will see a decline in player interest, a sharp drop in participation, and a rapid decline in activity, while project teams often mistakenly believe they are not offering enough, promoting hard enough, or setting tough enough tasks. But these methods will only make the entire motivational system more fragile. Because the more you compress motivation into rewards, the more players will compress their behavior into a cost-benefit ratio.
See original
Injective: While other chains are busy 'doing addition,' it took a few years to complete the most difficult 'subtraction' in the entire financial system.
The evolutionary paths of most chains in the industry are stacked from 'few' to 'many':
The functions are increasing more and more
The projects are increasing more and more
The narratives are increasing more and more
The modules are increasing more and more
It seems to be getting more and more complex, more and more advanced, but actually more and more fragile.
Because financial infrastructure is not 'addition logic,' but 'subtraction logic':
The lower the layer, the less it should be;
The more critical, the more stable it must be;
The more core, the more unified it must be;
The more it affects the system, the less it can be left to the application layer to play freely.
The biggest shock Injective gave me is:
It took a long enough time to 'subtract back' one by one from the application layer to the chain level the most critical, error-prone parts of the DeFi world, where the most projects die.
The functions are increasing more and more
The projects are increasing more and more
The narratives are increasing more and more
The modules are increasing more and more
It seems to be getting more and more complex, more and more advanced, but actually more and more fragile.
Because financial infrastructure is not 'addition logic,' but 'subtraction logic':
The lower the layer, the less it should be;
The more critical, the more stable it must be;
The more core, the more unified it must be;
The more it affects the system, the less it can be left to the application layer to play freely.
The biggest shock Injective gave me is:
It took a long enough time to 'subtract back' one by one from the application layer to the chain level the most critical, error-prone parts of the DeFi world, where the most projects die.
See original
The Hidden Economics Behind Apro: When Oracles Start Pricing 'Price Credibility'
My interest in Apro started from a very detailed market phenomenon: the current on-chain clearing systems are increasingly reliant on the 'credibility' of prices, but most oracle networks still position themselves as 'technical services that bring data on-chain.' This positioning worked in the early days, but once you've seen enough long-tail assets being liquidated due to price deviation feeding at night, arbitrage triggered by cross-chain delays, and the distortion of contract target prices leading to risk pool liquidation, you will understand - the problem has never been about 'whether prices can be provided,' but about 'whether prices can bear responsibility.'
See original
When on-chain moves from 'operation' to 'delegation', Kite addresses the layer of risk that users fundamentally cannot see but is most fatal.
I've been observing an increasingly obvious trend during this period:
The participation of ordinary users in on-chain operations is declining, but the demand for on-chain delegation is rising.
In the past, users would click, transfer, and interact by themselves;
Now users directly hand over tasks to Bots, Agents, and automation tools, allowing them to run on their own.
However, if you think carefully, there is actually a huge risk gap hidden behind this—
Users can delegate tasks, but they do not know what will happen during the execution process.
In other words, on-chain operations have shifted from 'I operate personally' to 'I delegate the authority to operate',
The participation of ordinary users in on-chain operations is declining, but the demand for on-chain delegation is rising.
In the past, users would click, transfer, and interact by themselves;
Now users directly hand over tasks to Bots, Agents, and automation tools, allowing them to run on their own.
However, if you think carefully, there is actually a huge risk gap hidden behind this—
Users can delegate tasks, but they do not know what will happen during the execution process.
In other words, on-chain operations have shifted from 'I operate personally' to 'I delegate the authority to operate',
See original
Falcon Finance: The deeper you dissect it, the more you can feel that it is not about 'stacking mechanisms,' but about 'rebuilding a trustworthy financial order.'
To be honest, many DeFi projects look very smart, aggressive, and imaginative, but once you start to dismantle the underlying structure, you will find their security boundaries are surprisingly large:
Collateral risks are underestimated, the liquidation process overly relies on external factors, stablecoin expansion is opaque, and interest rate mechanisms can easily spiral out of control.
Their problem is not a 'lack of innovation,' but a 'lack of constraints.'
And the lack of constraints is the landmine that all financial systems will ultimately step on.
The uniqueness of Falcon Finance lies in:
It is not about 'stacking mechanisms,' but about 'establishing rules.'
Collateral risks are underestimated, the liquidation process overly relies on external factors, stablecoin expansion is opaque, and interest rate mechanisms can easily spiral out of control.
Their problem is not a 'lack of innovation,' but a 'lack of constraints.'
And the lack of constraints is the landmine that all financial systems will ultimately step on.
The uniqueness of Falcon Finance lies in:
It is not about 'stacking mechanisms,' but about 'establishing rules.'
See original
When the chain enters the 'automation intensive zone', Kite addresses the dirty and tiring work that no one wants to face.
Recently, I've watched many demos of automation tools, and I have an increasingly clear feeling:
The on-chain world does not lack execution tools, but rather lacks 'execution tools that can survive in the real environment.'
If you give these projects an ideal environment, they perform well;
But as soon as it's put on the actual chain, problems arise immediately:
Status unconfirmed, permission overflow, message delay, Gas fluctuation, oracle jitter, liquidity fragmentation...
A host of real-world factors can turn task execution from 'seemingly feasible' directly into 'completely uncontrollable.'
I often say a phrase:
The on-chain world does not lack execution tools, but rather lacks 'execution tools that can survive in the real environment.'
If you give these projects an ideal environment, they perform well;
But as soon as it's put on the actual chain, problems arise immediately:
Status unconfirmed, permission overflow, message delay, Gas fluctuation, oracle jitter, liquidity fragmentation...
A host of real-world factors can turn task execution from 'seemingly feasible' directly into 'completely uncontrollable.'
I often say a phrase:
See original
Lorenzo Protocol: While all stablecoins are busy talking about scale, it has made 'value cycle' a clean financial foundation.
@Lorenzo Protocol $BANK #LorenzoProtocol
If you look at the stablecoin sector from 2019 to now, you will find an increasingly obvious pattern:
Scale is not the difficulty of stablecoins; the value cycle is.
Expansion is not the difficulty; self-sustainability is.
Why do many stablecoins grow rapidly at first, but ultimately their value systems collapse?
The reason is not that users have left, nor that competition is too fierce, but that:
Their value capture link has not been clean from the very beginning.
Either rely on incentives to sustain, or rely on interest rate reflexivity to surge, or rely on structural arbitrage to overlap, or rely on short-cycle revenue models.
If you look at the stablecoin sector from 2019 to now, you will find an increasingly obvious pattern:
Scale is not the difficulty of stablecoins; the value cycle is.
Expansion is not the difficulty; self-sustainability is.
Why do many stablecoins grow rapidly at first, but ultimately their value systems collapse?
The reason is not that users have left, nor that competition is too fierce, but that:
Their value capture link has not been clean from the very beginning.
Either rely on incentives to sustain, or rely on interest rate reflexivity to surge, or rely on structural arbitrage to overlap, or rely on short-cycle revenue models.
See original
Lorenzo Protocol: In the black swan cycle of stablecoins, the collateral system determines everything
@Lorenzo Protocol $BANK #LorenzoProtocol
To say the most realistic but least acknowledged thing in the industry:
No stablecoin has died in a bull market, but rather in moments of black swan events.
No one saw a problem with UST when it was rising.
MIM looks like a miracle of DeFi during its expansion.
USDC also briefly lost its peg overnight due to bank risks.
FRAX has been repeatedly questioned about its sustainability due to its complex on-chain structure.
USDe's rapid growth now is accompanied by significant systemic pressure.
The biggest enemy of the stablecoin system has never been competitors.
To say the most realistic but least acknowledged thing in the industry:
No stablecoin has died in a bull market, but rather in moments of black swan events.
No one saw a problem with UST when it was rising.
MIM looks like a miracle of DeFi during its expansion.
USDC also briefly lost its peg overnight due to bank risks.
FRAX has been repeatedly questioned about its sustainability due to its complex on-chain structure.
USDe's rapid growth now is accompanied by significant systemic pressure.
The biggest enemy of the stablecoin system has never been competitors.
See original
YGG: When blockchain gaming organizations begin to upgrade to a 'collaborative network', they have turned players into a governable resource structure
@Yield Guild Games #YGGPlay $YGG
In the traditional gaming era, player organizations were one of the most chaotic parts.
You might join a guild and find:
Management is chaotic
Tasks lack allocation logic
Activity relies on shouting
No one is mentoring new players
Veteran players are exhausted
Team efficiency is extremely low
There are often conflicts within the guild
The structure completely depends on the manager's patience and experience, with no standardized, procedural, or structured mechanisms.
After entering Web3, this problem becomes even more serious:
Players from different time zones
Tasks from different projects
Gameplay from different games
Teams from different countries
In the traditional gaming era, player organizations were one of the most chaotic parts.
You might join a guild and find:
Management is chaotic
Tasks lack allocation logic
Activity relies on shouting
No one is mentoring new players
Veteran players are exhausted
Team efficiency is extremely low
There are often conflicts within the guild
The structure completely depends on the manager's patience and experience, with no standardized, procedural, or structured mechanisms.
After entering Web3, this problem becomes even more serious:
Players from different time zones
Tasks from different projects
Gameplay from different games
Teams from different countries
See original
Injective: Its real trump card is making the 'three impossible triangles of financial infrastructure' a reality at the same time.
Many chains like to talk about speed, capacity, and ecological prosperity, but if you have truly worked on trading infrastructure, you will know a stark reality:
Financial public chains actually have an 'impossible triangle'.
You can't achieve both at the same time:
1. High-performance trading execution
2. Strong collateral and stable value
3. Sustainable value capture and return
Almost all chains in the industry can only achieve one of the three, and a few can achieve two.
But achieving all three?
Almost none.
Injective is the one that resembles a successful template the most among the 'almost none'.
Financial public chains actually have an 'impossible triangle'.
You can't achieve both at the same time:
1. High-performance trading execution
2. Strong collateral and stable value
3. Sustainable value capture and return
Almost all chains in the industry can only achieve one of the three, and a few can achieve two.
But achieving all three?
Almost none.
Injective is the one that resembles a successful template the most among the 'almost none'.
See original
Apro's Price System Reconstruction: Establishing Verifiable Collateral and Risk Pricing Models in a Competitive Field
Apro this project, I noticed something unusual from the way it handles 'on-chain price credibility'. Most oracles are still stuck in the engineering paradigm of 'putting prices on-chain', while Apro seems to be dealing with a deeper chain: how data is used, how it is collateralized, how it is quantified into risk factors, and how it in turn affects the funding structure of the entire DeFi system. Only those who have long observed enough liquidation events, price feeding deviations, and liquidation accidents caused by cross-chain delays on-chain will realize that the underlying pain point is not whether 'the price is accurate', but rather whether 'the pricing system can be used with confidence'. Apro has been addressing the latter from the very beginning.
See original
Falcon Finance: Those who truly understand finance always ask first when making systems—'Where will it break?'
If you have dismantled enough DeFi protocols, you will find a very heartbreaking but true rule:
Most protocols do not lose to competition, but rather to themselves.
It is not defeated by opponents, but rather by 'structural vulnerabilities'.
It is not because of a lack of innovation, but because the 'pressure points' have been overlooked.
The logic of Falcon Finance is very much like an old risk control expert who has 'seen too many dead bodies'—
Its first reaction in designing each layer of structure is not 'what can be done',
But rather 'will this place break in extreme situations?'.
@Falcon Finance $FF #FalconFinance
Most protocols do not lose to competition, but rather to themselves.
It is not defeated by opponents, but rather by 'structural vulnerabilities'.
It is not because of a lack of innovation, but because the 'pressure points' have been overlooked.
The logic of Falcon Finance is very much like an old risk control expert who has 'seen too many dead bodies'—
Its first reaction in designing each layer of structure is not 'what can be done',
But rather 'will this place break in extreme situations?'.
@Falcon Finance $FF #FalconFinance
See original
When on-chain tasks begin to exhibit 'contextual complexity', Kite has become one of the few execution frameworks that can untangle chaos back into order
I have been thinking about a trend recently:
The next phase of AI on-chain will not be more models, nor will it be faster reasoning, but rather—task contexts are becoming increasingly complex.
In the past, on-chain automation resembled elementary arithmetic, with single steps, fixed structures, and clear logic;
The future is more like a comprehensive exam, with multiple variables interwoven, changing states, and intertwined dependencies. The correctness of each step depends on whether the previous step has aligned with the real status on-chain.
This 'contextual complexity' is clearly on the rise.
The on-chain status is not static; it is dynamically flowing:
The next phase of AI on-chain will not be more models, nor will it be faster reasoning, but rather—task contexts are becoming increasingly complex.
In the past, on-chain automation resembled elementary arithmetic, with single steps, fixed structures, and clear logic;
The future is more like a comprehensive exam, with multiple variables interwoven, changing states, and intertwined dependencies. The correctness of each step depends on whether the previous step has aligned with the real status on-chain.
This 'contextual complexity' is clearly on the rise.
The on-chain status is not static; it is dynamically flowing:
See original
Lorenzo Protocol: When the market enters a counter-cyclical period, structure becomes competitiveness.
@Lorenzo Protocol $BANK #LorenzoProtocol
If you observe the past few crypto cycles, you will discover a cruel but repeatedly validated fact:
In a bull market, it's about storytelling; in a bear market, it's about structure.
In a bull market, speed matters; in a bear market, activity matters.
In a bull market, it's about who can run fast; in a bear market, it's about who won't die.
especially apply to the stablecoin sector.
During the uptrend, everyone believes in profits, scale, expansion, and multi-chain layouts;
When the counter-cyclical period arrives, those stablecoins that rely solely on emotion and incentives without structural support,
Often collapses faster than tokens.
Conversely, those protocols that seem 'not urgent',
If you observe the past few crypto cycles, you will discover a cruel but repeatedly validated fact:
In a bull market, it's about storytelling; in a bear market, it's about structure.
In a bull market, speed matters; in a bear market, activity matters.
In a bull market, it's about who can run fast; in a bear market, it's about who won't die.
especially apply to the stablecoin sector.
During the uptrend, everyone believes in profits, scale, expansion, and multi-chain layouts;
When the counter-cyclical period arrives, those stablecoins that rely solely on emotion and incentives without structural support,
Often collapses faster than tokens.
Conversely, those protocols that seem 'not urgent',
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
9M views
64,901 Discussing
Bitcoin has lost 50% of its value against GOLD, down from 40 Gold ounces traded for 1BTC in January 2025, to 21 Gold ounces for 1BTC
The last time BTC traded at 21 Gold ounces, the price of Gold was between $2000-2500
The market agreed that BTC is over-valued against Gold! And is down 50% since then!
#BTCVSGOLD
KaiZXBT
13 Likes
9.1k views
BinanceBlockchainWeek
31.2M views
103,799 Discussing
BTC86kJPShock
10.5M views
74,365 Discussing
