wesley教授
wesley教授
Founder of Block Infinity, Poker player, Trader, Chinese whale, @drhashclub
860Following
4.3Kfollowers
Feed
Feed
Don't just focus on $BTC's price changes tonight; look up at energy. The spot price of Asian liquefied natural gas has surged to just over $30 per million British thermal units, the highest since the end of 2022 — one-fifth of Qatar's global supply is stuck in the Strait of Hormuz and can't get out, forcing buyers to scramble for high prices in the spot market.
Oil is up, diesel is up, and now it's natural gas's turn. Many people overlook this underlying trend: energy costs keep pushing higher layer by layer, causing inflation to stick and not come down, forcing central banks to pull back on rate cuts.
Many think war is a safe haven and bullish for Bitcoin, but it's actually the opposite — this time the market is pricing war as "rate hikes," and when risk-off comes, $BTC and gold might both get hit.
Do you think this wave of energy price increases will completely kill the expectations for rate cuts?
The two Korean storage giants have dropped so much that just the pension funds are floating a loss of $137 billion. Almost at the same time, Bank of America came out saying: storage stocks' valuations have already shown signs of a cyclical bottom, and the market's worries are overblown.
Think about this rhythm. The more it bleeds, the more big banks come out to call the bottom. I'm not saying Bank of America is necessarily wrong, but—the ones calling the bottom don't have to be responsible for your positions; the ones losing money are you.
The biggest taboo in trend trading is listening to big banks' stories to catch the bottom. The bottom isn't called out; it's ground out when prices fall to the point that no one dares to buy, and both funding costs and trading volume drop together. So what about now? Institutions are still dumping.
The more you accept bottoms calculated by others, the harder you fall. For this round of storage stocks, do you believe Bank of America's "cyclical bottom"?
The Korean Composite Index plunged again today, dropping nearly 5% intraday and falling below 5500. The key point is that foreign capital and pension funds are both selling off heavily. Analysts said, "Indiscriminate selling, almost all stocks are falling."
What are retail investors doing? Individual investors net bought over 800 billion KRW, desperately trying to support the index.
This scene is very familiar to me. Real declines are never caused by any single news scare; it's institutions quietly withdrawing while retail investors buy in. A few days ago, some were still calling a semiconductor bottom rebound, but today a big bearish candle wiped all that out.
When trading, don't follow emotions, follow the money. Who is selling, and how decisively, is more honest than any shout.
Among the stocks you watch, recently, is it institutions buying or retail investors buying?
Societe Generale just cut CoreWeave's target price from $169 to $117, a 30% slash. No explosive news, just a revaluation of the AI computing power leasing business.
The whole screen is still shouting that AI is the only certainty for the next decade, but the equity side has already started quietly repricing. This wave of AI deleveraging shorts, I'm betting not on sentiment, but on the financing chain—whoever is carrying high-interest debt, whoever relies on continuous financing to survive, will be squeezed out first.
I haven't moved a single short position I hold; the position is set here, no hiding it. The more the market rebounds, the more you need to watch who is quietly lowering target prices.
Do you think AI leasing plays like CoreWeave are being unfairly punished, or is this just the beginning?
This morning, Pan Gongsheng announced a series of policy tools in one go, among which many people overlooked one: the establishment of a "liquidity support tool to cope with large-scale redemptions by non-bank financial institutions."
It sounds like a stabilizing benefit, but I tend to think the other way around: the regulator specifically preparing liquidity backup for "large-scale redemptions by non-bank institutions" indicates that this risk has already been brought to the forefront. The tool is prepared for a vulnerability that has already been anticipated, not created out of thin air.
GDP for the first three quarters grew 4.6% year-on-year, which is not a bad figure, but the central bank's intensive deployment of liquidity tools and the study of shifting open market operations to overnight itself signals that the underlying liquidity is not as comfortable as it appears on the surface.
Those watching the market should not only focus on price fluctuations but also pay attention to these "preparations for contingencies" signals. A truly confident market does not need so many backup parachutes. $SOL
Tonight, when watching the coins, don't just focus on Netanyahu's slogan "overthrow the Iranian regime"—anyone can shout slogans. What you really need to watch is this: U.S. Defense Secretary Hagerty made a secret visit to Israel eight days before the Israeli election, and the two sides were discussing—resuming large-scale military operations against Iran.
Verbal slogans are emotional expressions, but the Defense Secretary's secret visit plus "resuming military operations" are actions; these two are not on the same level.
Many people still cling to the old script of "war benefits risk aversion, and incidentally benefits BTC." I've been reminding: this round of Middle East transmission is not risk aversion; it's oil prices surging → inflation sticking → rate hike expectations returning → risk-off hitting risky assets together. The Strait of Hormuz is still blocked, oil remains high, BTC will not automatically become a safe haven just because of Middle East tensions.
I interpret the geopolitical line as suppressing risky assets, not as a positive factor. $BTC
A news item tonight that few people are paying attention to: Elon Musk's astronomical $158.3 billion compensation package from last year ended up being—zero—because the performance targets were not met.
I think this is a perfect reminder for those focused on AI and tech stocks. No matter how big the promised pie looks, until it's realized, it's zero. The market's pricing of the AI narrative over the past two years essentially buys into a series of "pies that will be fulfilled in the future": unlimited computing power demand, ever-increasing capital expenditures, the only certainty in a decade.
The biggest taboo in trading is being results-oriented, but even worse is treating others' expectations as if they have already happened. Just as compensation can be wiped out overnight, valuations can too.
I'm not saying AI has no value; I'm saying that when everyone treats the painted pie as already realized, the time for prices to start recalculating is not far off. $ETH