Crypto KOL Community & Market Trends

0.249 USD ADA, are you buying?

Van Rossum hard fork launches in 4 days, Plutus V3 performance upgrade, Leios consensus aims to increase throughput by 10-65 times, Midnight sidechain is named by banks as "more compliant than ETH and SOL"—but what about the price? It hovered like dead for a whole week between 0.244-0.255.

First look at the surface: a mountain of positive news, yet the price remains as steady as a dog.

In the past 6 hours, ADA has risen 1.62%, climbing from 0.2456 to 0.2495. The 6-hour RSI has already reached 69.43, approaching overbought territory, trading volume dropped from 4.63 million to 2.94 million, buyers are losing momentum. Technical analysis tells you: a short-term correction may be coming.

First thing: the hard fork is imminent, the biggest upgrade in four years.

Van Rossum hard fork, launching in the last few days of April. Plutus V3 smart contract performance is greatly optimized, addressing Cardano’s long-standing complaints of being "slow" and "gas expensive." This time, it’s directly tackling those issues. IOHK has confirmed testing is in the final stage, exchanges are preparing to support.

Second thing: banks are calling it out.

At the Digital Asset Summit, banks publicly stated: ETH and SOL lack native privacy, and prefer Midnight’s compliance + anti-front-running mechanisms. Midnight sidechain isn’t officially launched yet, but institutions are already lining up at the door.

Third thing: whales are accumulating, the team is saving money.

Addresses holding over 10 million ADA hit a 4-month high, whales are quietly collecting chips. IOG cut the 2026 budget in half to $46.8 million, focusing on Leios and BTC DeFi—the team is “doing big things with less money,” not just throwing cash into a rookie trap.

On one side: hard fork landing, institutions calling it out, whales hoarding.

On the other: RSI approaching overbought, trading volume shrinking, the market still waiting for the Federal Reserve.

Key level: 0.244, the last bottom line for bulls and bears.

If you are a short-term trader: buy in small batches at 0.24-0.244, aim to stabilize at 0.27, then look for 0.30-0.32; if it breaks below 0.235 with high volume, cut losses decisively.

If you are a long-term investor: now is the lowest risk-reward zone in the past 5 years. Boldly add below 0.218, add more after breaking 0.27, and a year-end target of 0.5 is not a dream. Hard fork + privacy + BTC DeFi triple buff in place!!

ADA has never been a “quick money coin,” it’s a symbol of “slow bull + hardcore technology.” #加密市场小幅下跌 $ADA

Elon Musk vs. Ultraman: If he loses the lawsuit, the bottom line of American charity will be exposed

On the first day of the trial, the judge said a blunt truth: "Many people indeed dislike Elon Musk"

U.S. Federal Court in Oakland, April 28, 2026.

The world's richest man sits face-to-face with the CEO of the world's most powerful AI company in the courtroom.

Musk clenches his teeth, his tongue pressed against the inside of his cheek, flipping through his notes.

Ultraman crosses his arms, expressionless, whispering to his lawyer.

This is not a business war; this is war.

$130 billion in claims. Demanding Ultraman's removal. Demanding OpenAI restore its nonprofit status.

If Musk wins, the OpenAI empire valued at $730 billion will collapse instantly.

If Musk loses... then all charitable organizations in the U.S. will be sitting ducks from today.

---

Opening statements from both sides' lawyers

Musk's lawyer's version:

This is a play of "Knight of Light defeating greedy villains."

OpenAI's 2015 charter states—"For the benefit of all humanity."

Not "a tool to make people rich."

Ultraman and Brockman "stole from a charity."

Microsoft's $13 billion investment shattered the promise.

Musk says, he doesn't want a single cent of the money won in the lawsuit, all goes to OpenAI's nonprofit department.

Ultraman's lawyer's version:

This is a revenge after a failed power grab.

"We're here because Musk didn't get his way."

What did he want back then? Absolute control. To directly merge OpenAI into Tesla.

Guess what? Ultraman and Brockman said "no."

Musk walked away in 2018. Even sent an email saying OpenAI's success probability was zero.

It wasn't until 2023, when he launched xAI himself, and ChatGPT exploded in popularity, that he returned to sue.

Sour grapes? You decide.

---

Musk spoke for half an hour about lumberjacks, then suddenly threw out "speciesist"

On the witness stand, Musk didn't start by talking about AI.

He spent half an hour recounting leaving South Africa at 17, working as a lumberjack and doing farm work in Canada.

Working 80 to 100 hours a week, no vacation homes, no yachts.

— "I like working."

Then he shifted tone.

He predicted: next year, AI will be smarter than any human.

Developing AI is like raising an "extremely intelligent child." You can't control it at all. Only pray that the values you teach are useful.

"We don't want a Terminator ending."

Then he dropped a bombshell.

He once had a good relationship with Google co-founder Larry Page.

In a chat, Page was indifferent to AI losing control. Musk said no, human survival must come first.

Page immediately cursed him: "You're a speciesist."

What does that mean?

In Page's eyes, silicon-based AI life and carbon-based human life are equal. Even—AI is a more advanced direction of evolution.

Musk thought Page was crazy on the spot.

It was precisely because he feared Google's monopoly on AI that he funded OpenAI, as a "counterforce to Google."

Sounds quite heroic, right?

---

But then, the mutual digging begins

Musk's camp's killer move:

OpenAI President Brockman's private diary from 2017.

Written in black and white:

"Our plan: it would be great if we could make money. We've always thought, maybe we should go directly for profit."

And a more naked statement:

"In financial terms, what can make me a billion dollars?"

Five years ago, when ChatGPT was not even on the horizon, they were already planning how to become billionaires.

Counterattack from Ultraman’s camp:

An email from Musk in 2017 demanding full control.

He was more than just a "donor who gives money without asking questions."

When Ultraman and Brockman refused to relinquish control—

In 2018, Musk sent an email: OpenAI's success probability was zero.

Then, withdrew funding and left.

---

A terrifying detail: Is the mother of three children an insider?

The court also revealed a name: Shivon Zilis.

She is a former OpenAI board member.

And an executive at Musk's neural interface company Neuralink.

And the mother of Musk's three children.

Text messages show she once proactively asked Musk: Do you want me to stay on the OpenAI board and keep you informed?

OpenAI's lawyer accused her of being an insider planted by Musk during her time on the board.

An idealistic shell, peeled layer by layer, revealing money, power, and control desires inside.

---

Whoever wins this lawsuit, there are no winners

If Musk wins:

OpenAI is forced to revert to pure nonprofit.

The $730 billion valuation vanishes into thin air.

IPO plans are directly canceled.

But capital won't stop AI development? Impossible.

Musk's own xAI will lose its strongest competitor.

If Ultraman wins:

That loophole will be completely torn open—

From now on, all tech entrepreneurs can play the same game:

Pretend to be "nonprofit," enjoy tax exemptions, public trust, top talent.

Once the technology breaks through, switch to profit, privatize, cash out and walk away.

"Charities looted," becomes legal from then on.

Judge Rogers caused a small scene in court: the microphone and display screen broke.

She jokingly said: "What can I say? We’re funded by the federal government."

The court burst into laughter.

On one side, trillions of dollars, human survival, Terminator crises.

On the other, a federal court that can't even fix a microphone.

Is this surreal?

But more surreal is—

Despite the fierce courtroom brawl, GPU clusters around the world continue to roar day and night, devouring electricity and data.

The wheels of AI won't wait for anyone's verdict.

Do you think Musk is truly afraid AI will destroy humanity, or is he just not tasting the grapes?

Actually, it's not necessary. There's no need to pretend that your content isn't written by AI. AI-assisted writing is like how today we replace walking with cars or mental math with calculators—it's a natural evolution of productivity tools. No one would question the authenticity of your destination just because you drive instead of walk. What you really need to be cautious about are the mass-produced, thoughtless spam content that gets published—you have to be responsible for your own content. I am also exploring AI myself.

No one is talking about this…
I noticed something interesting.
In 2020, when gold topped, Bitcoin dropped about -21% then went on a massive +559% run.
Now in 2026:
~ Gold looks like it just topped
~ $BTC is already down -33%
Feels very similar to me.
I’m not saying history will repeat exactly…
but it definitely rhymes.
Are we about to see the same playbook again?

No one is talking about this…
I noticed something interesting.
In 2020, when gold topped, Bitcoin dropped about -21% then went on a massive +559% run.
Now in 2026:
~ Gold looks like it just topped
~ $BTC is already down -33%
Feels very similar to me.
I’m not saying history will repeat exactly…
but it definitely rhymes.
Are we about to see the same playbook again?

This round of product updates is clearly not a small-scale effort🔥 Hyper Trade launched in just 24 hours: 👉 The number of participants directly exceeded 10,000 👉 The total number of orders surpassed 200k This set of data actually indicates one thing👇 Users are not unwilling to trade, but in the past "the threshold was too high + operations were too cumbersome" and what has been done this time is a complete overhaul of the trading experience👇 ✔️

It is said that many US stock market making teams have entered the crypto space this year. In the past, market-making for altcoins in the crypto world was basically just a quick pump and dump. Now, because these institutional teams have entered, this year we have already seen coins that have increased by dozens or even hundreds of times. Such opportunities will definitely continue to appear in the future.
Coins like these can all be collectively called "monster coins." The early stage of dealing with monster coins is to learn how to identify "abnormalities."
For example, unusually high contract open interest (which can be high compared to spot trading, or compared to trading volume), such as abnormal amplification of trading volume within a small range, or an abnormal increase in the rate of change of contract open interest.
Wherever there are traces, there are signs. Monster coins are bound to show abnormalities from the very beginning.

America and Iran are completely at odds, oil prices have broken the hundred-dollar mark, and Bitcoin has fallen to 76k! Where is the promised "digital gold"?*

Stop paying attention to any "negotiation progress." The diplomatic window has been welded shut.*

Trump's actions are not temporary sanctions but long-term economic blockades—Iran loses $435 million in oil revenue every day, and the U.S. has even blocked the escape route of cryptocurrencies for you.*

And what’s the result? Oil prices surged past $102, and the fear index is only 31? Bitcoin dropped to 76k.*

Every time there’s war, blockade, or supply cut, someone always shouts:

"Buy Bitcoin! Digital gold!"

But reality hits hard:

- Oil prices break 100

- Fear and greed index drops to 31 (fear)

- Bitcoin slides from its high to 76,000

- Longs bleed out in rivers

Why?

Because the current market isn’t about "full risk aversion," it’s a divided market.*

The Strait of Hormuz is only partially blocked, insurance hasn’t recovered, ships can pass in small quantities but it’s not normal.*

The stock market is still holding, VIX is only 17.8, and the NASDAQ remains steady.*

Only the crypto world is taking a hit.

What really happened? (Plain language breakdown)

1. America and Iran aren’t fighting; they’re separated but not divorced

Trump aims for long-term blockade, Iran wants to delay nuclear talks.

The UN? The U.S. directly rejects Iran’s "peace signals."

Even Iran’s attempt to bypass sanctions with cryptocurrency has been cut off by the Treasury Department.

One sentence: There’s no room for negotiation anymore.

2. Strait of Hormuz: ships can pass, but at a huge cost

A small number of ships still pass daily, but insurance is sky-high, and freight rates are soaring.

Saudi Arabia’s alternative pipelines only handle 6-7 million barrels a day, with a shortfall of 13 million barrels.

Oil prices can’t go down; $98 is the bottom line, $105-$111 is the escalation zone.

3. Why is Bitcoin falling?

Three words: no new money.

Institutions are moving into oil, energy, military, and insurance sectors.

Retail investors? They’re scared off by the panic index.

Crypto now is a "liquidity drain," not a safe haven.

76k is the first line of defense; only when takers return above 1.05 will it recover. Otherwise, it will continue to slide downward.

What will happen in the next 72 hours?

- Oil will fluctuate between 98-105, leaning strong, not crashing

- The U.S. stock market won’t collapse; as long as VIX stays below 20, don’t expect massive liquidity injections

- Bitcoin: if it can’t hold 75k-76k, who knows what the next support level is

- Key raw materials (rare earths, graphite, cobalt) will face supply chain premiums in 1-4 weeks, not a reason to buy the dip today

Summary in one sentence:

Oil is expensive, shipping is chaotic, stocks are holding firm, and the crypto world is suffering alone.

You can still believe "Bitcoin is digital gold."

But the reality is: in chaotic times, money flows first into crude oil, military industry, and insurance.

Crypto? Wait until panic subsides, taker volume returns, then talk.

Thinking of buying the dip now?

Ask yourself: if oil prices continue to hit 110 and BTC drops to 70k, can you hold on?#伊朗提出霍尔木兹海峡重开协议条件 $BTC $ETH

Regarding Elon Musk, I want to hear your opinion -- Everyone said electric vehicles could not replace gasoline cars, and he made Tesla -- Everyone said private companies could not build rockets, and he made SpaceX -- Everyone said satellite internet was a money-losing joke, and he made Starlink You may not like Musk's personality, but it's hard to find a second person simultaneously pushing so many initiatives, and each one has reached the top tier of the industry.

Doubao: Just say whether I'm stubborn or not, okay?

Let's talk about today's big news
LayerZero Labs finally came out and admitted: the rsETH incident was caused by a vulnerability in our bridge to DVN.
How to compensate? They are directly paying 10k ETH (about $23 million)—5,000 ETH donated to DeFi United, and 5,000 ETH directly injected into the Aave market to boost liquidity.
Including previous contributions, DeFi United has now raised over 140k ETH (about $330 million).
Consensys, Arbitrum DAO, Aave DAO, Compound, Mantle, LayerZero... all the notable names are here.
This is the largest industry-led rescue effort in DeFi history. A systemic crisis triggered by a single vulnerability, ultimately covered by the entire industry pooling funds.
LayerZero admits fault and pays up, while the Arbitrum Security Committee’s frozen $71 million worth of ETH still hasn't been unfrozen.
The absurdity of this situation is like your house catching fire, neighbors bringing buckets to help, but your security guard locking your water faucet—saying, “We are exercising emergency powers.”
Where exactly are the boundaries of DAO’s “emergency powers”?
Who appointed the Arbitrum Security Committee? The DAO did.
Do they have the authority to freeze assets in “emergency” situations? Yes, as written in the code.
But the question is—who defines “emergency”? When to freeze? When to unfreeze? Who supervises? Who is held accountable?
Many think: it’s just a freeze, for safety’s sake, just endure it.
Let me tell you why that’s not acceptable:
First, this is selective decentralization.
In emergencies, they freeze assets using authority. When it’s time for accountability, they shift blame with decentralization. All the benefits are theirs, all the responsibility is avoided.
Second, setting a bad precedent.
Today Arbitrum can freeze $71 million, but tomorrow could it be Optimism? The day after zkSync? Or some other L2’s security committee could directly “protectively freeze” your wallet’s funds?
Third, the more successful the industry’s self-rescue, the easier it becomes to hide governance issues.
Everyone is busy raising funds to patch the holes—who’s paying attention to “who approved the freeze”? Once the spotlight passes, no one will bring it up again.
I’m not saying security committees shouldn’t exist. In extreme cases, emergency response capabilities are indeed necessary.
But power must come with transparency and accountability.
A clear set of rules is needed:
- What constitutes an “emergency”?
- What is the maximum duration?
- What happens if it exceeds the limit?
- How to compensate for wrongful freezing?

Today’s Web4 information gap:
1. Hong Kong stock IPOs are crazy! Xizhi Technology's first day on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange surged 400%, becoming the world's leading optical computing company, betting that AI bottlenecks are photonics.
2. Canada has completely banned cryptocurrency ATMs! Too many scammers, tricking the elderly into depositing money at ATMs to buy Bitcoin, then getting scammed.
3. Musk and Ultraman can no longer argue on X, warned by a judge in court, $Scam plummeted 95% from 20 million to 1 million.
4. Robinhood’s earnings report is out, crypto trading down 48% year-over-year, relying on predicted market revenue soaring 320% to hold on, $HOOD stock price plunged 8%, even crypto enthusiasts are not playing.
5. $ETH Chain unicorn NFT meme coin $uPEG hit a new high of 12.5 million, up to 80x, top holder floating profit of $260k, CZ’s intelligent currency $Agentic Money reached 650k, 21x.

Let's talk about today's big news

LayerZero Labs finally came out and admitted: the issue with rsETH was caused by a vulnerability in our bridge to DVN.

How to compensate? Directly pay 10k ETH (about $23 million)—5,000 ETH donated to DeFi United, and 5,000 ETH directly injected into the Aave market to boost liquidity.

Including previous contributions, DeFi United has now raised over 140k ETH (about $330 million).

Consensys, Arbitrum DAO, Aave DAO, Compound, Mantle, LayerZero... all the big names are involved.

This is the largest industry-led rescue effort in DeFi history. A systemic crisis triggered by a single vulnerability, ultimately covered by the entire industry pooling funds.

LayerZero admits fault and pays up, while the Arbitrum Security Committee has yet to unfreeze the $71 million worth of ETH—still frozen to this day.

The absurdity of this situation is akin to your house catching fire, neighbors bringing buckets to help, but your security guard locking your water faucet—saying, "We are exercising emergency powers."

Where exactly are the boundaries of DAO's "emergency powers"?

Who appointed the Arbitrum Security Committee? The DAO.

Do they have the authority to freeze assets in an "emergency"? Yes, as written in the code.

But the question is—who defines what is "urgent"? When to freeze? When to unfreeze? Who supervises? Who is held accountable?

Many think: it’s just a freeze, for safety’s sake, just endure it.

Let me tell you why that’s not acceptable:

First, this is selective decentralization

In emergencies, use authority to freeze assets. When it comes to accountability, shift blame to decentralization. All the benefits are taken, all responsibility is avoided.

Second, setting a bad precedent

Today Arbitrum can freeze $71 million, tomorrow could it be Optimism? The day after zkSync? Later, could a security committee of some other L2 directly "protectively freeze" your wallet’s funds?

Third, the more successful the industry’s self-rescue, the easier it becomes to hide governance issues

Everyone is busy raising funds to patch holes; who’s left to ask, "Who approved the freeze"? Once the hype dies down, no one will bring it up anymore.

I’m not saying security committees shouldn’t exist. Emergency response capabilities in extreme situations are indeed necessary.

But power must come with transparency and accountability.

A clear set of rules is needed:

- What qualifies as "urgent"?

- What is the maximum duration?

- What happens if it exceeds the limit?

- How to compensate for wrongful freezes? #Aave联合多方启动rsETH全额资产修复计划 $ETH

On-chain signals diverge from mainstream odds: Why funds on Polymarket are secretly flowing to France instead of Argentina
Cracks in market consensus: the defection of on-chain capital flows
While mainstream bookmakers still list Argentina as the top favorite to win the 2026 World Cup, smart money on Polymarket is quietly shifting toward France. Behind this "defection" of capital flow, it reflects an increasing information gap between on-chain prediction markets and traditional odds.
Currently, traditional bookmakers' odds for Argentina's victory are about 3.5 (implying a probability of approximately 28.6%), and for France, 5.0 (implying a probability of about 20%). However, actual trading data on Polymarket shows a completely different picture: the open interest in contracts related to France has increased by nearly 40% over the past two weeks, while Argentina's has only grown by 12%.
Data from the on-chain analysis platform Nansen shows that among the new positions in France-related contracts on Polymarket, over 55% come from "smart money" addresses (marked as experienced traders or institutions), while for Argentina, this proportion is only 31%. This data discrepancy indicates that professional capital is tilting toward France.
The triple logic behind smart money shifting
Why would on-chain professional funds abandon Argentina and turn to France? Here are three core reasons:
First, re-pricing of injury risks. Although Argentina's key player Messi has retired, several crucial midfielders in the team have shown injury concerns late in the season. In contrast, France's squad depth is better, especially with multiple world-class players in midfield. Professional traders are more sensitive and proactive in pricing injury risks than mainstream bookmakers.
Second, in-depth analysis of the tournament structure. Through deep interpretation of the World Cup group draw results, professional funds have found that France's knockout path is relatively "gentler"—if France advances as the top team in the group, its Round of 16 opponent is likely to be an Asian or African team, and they may only face traditional powerhouses in the quarterfinals. Argentina's path is full of thorns, with potential encounters against Brazil or Germany in the quarterfinals.
Third, liquidity premium in institutional holdings. Large positions on Polymarket incur much higher costs than retail traders, meaning institutions require more rigorous fundamental support when making decisions. When multiple institutions choose France simultaneously, their research capabilities and risk management systems lend higher credibility to this judgment.
Lagging odds: the structural issues of traditional pricing mechanisms

JUST IN: Robinhood $HOOD crashes 7% after-hours following earnings report.

【A rise in U.S. stocks is the norm】 Recently, I noticed that many people around me, upon seeing the Nasdaq and S&P reaching new all-time highs again, their first reaction is: Why did it go up again? The S&P 500 has had positive returns in 73% of the years from 1928 to now. The 100-year annualized return is nearly 10%, plus dividends bringing it close to 11%. It's not that some specific years were particularly good, but that most years have been rising, and it has been nearly a century of growth.

Look at this chart and tell me you don’t feel a little sick for the people who bought the top.
$RAVE ‌ has had one of the most brutal retracements I’ve seen lately. We went from a vertical moon mission hitting $28.30 all the way back down to $0.8761. That red candle is basically a straight line down.
Right now, I’m trying to find some sort of floor. We are hovering just above the $0.8495 low of the day. The volume is still high at $70M, which means there is a lot of hand-changing happening here, but the momentum is clearly struggling.
If we can’t hold $0.85, there is almost no historical support until we get back to that $0.22 range where this whole thing started. On the flip side, any bounce from here has to clear $1.50 just to look even slightly healthy again.
It’s an early-stage project with "extreme fluctuations" as the warning says, so don't be a hero. I’m just watching for a double bottom or some actual consolidation before even thinking about a move.
Did anyone actually bank on that $28 spike or are we all just watching the wreckage?

#WCTCTradingKingPK

Honestly, I didn’t think $APE ‌ Coin still had this much fight left in it.
The daily chart is looking wild right now. After that massive spike to $0.2780, we saw a pretty sharp correction, but look at how it’s reacting now at $0.1663. It just bounced off a local support level and is trying to print a green candle to reclaim some of that lost ground.
Volume is still decent at $32M for the pair, so people are definitely trading this volatility. If we can hold this $0.16 area, we might see another attempt at the $0.20 mark. But if it slips, it could get ugly fast and drop back toward the $0.13 range where it started the move.
The order book is showing a bit more buying pressure at the moment, but these NFT coins move fast and break hearts even faster.
Are you guys chasing this bounce or waiting for a deeper retest? I’m playing it very carefully here.

#TopCopyTradingScout