ShizukaKazu

#GT30日涨超40% GT Up 40%+ in 30 Days: The “Value Re-Rating” of Platform Tokens Has Begun
GT is currently around $11.20, up more than 40% over 30 days—the rally is driven by three forces working together:
①Burn mechanism (190 million tokens burned cumulatively, accounting for 62% of total supply; quarterly profit-based buybacks and burns remain unwavering);
②Ecosystem expansion (use cases such as Gate Layer, Perp DEX, and Gate Fun are turning GT from a “trading fee discount coupon” into “ecosystem fuel”);
③At TOKEN2049 Singapore on October 7, the Gate founder will deliver a keynote speech titled “One Gate, Everything Money,” previewing “one of the biggest upgrades in history.”
Assessment: The logic behind a “structural re-rating” is real—platform tokens are being revalued from “trading fee discounts” to “ecosystem value capture mechanisms”; however, the October 7 upgrade will most likely be a “buy-the-rumor, sell-the-news” event.

Three pillars supporting the “structural re-rating”
The burn mechanism is genuinely robust: GT is bought back and burned each quarter at market prices using exchange profits—2.55 million tokens ($20.68 million) were burned in 2026 Q1 and 2.57 million ($17.75 million) in Q2. Nearly 190 million tokens have been burned cumulatively, reducing the initial 300 million token supply by 62%. Moreover, there is a **dual-track model of “profit buybacks + use-case consumption”**—GT is also required for Gas on GateChain and is used in DeFi/NFTs, meaning it is both burned and used.
Zero-Gas transactions = a shift in demand-side logic: If “zero-Gas transactions” are implemented (using GT to waive transaction fees/on-chain Gas fees), GT will shift from “a card you buy to reduce fee rates” to a “network pass”—expanding its use cases and shifting demand from “holding it and waiting for it to rise” to “needing to have it in order to use it.” This is the core of the re-rating.
​Capital is voting with its feet: Gate saw $118 million in net inflows over the past 7 days, ranking third globally; GT’s 24H trading volume rose 27%; and its market cap surpassed $1.2 billion—the platform’s capital is flowing in, GT trading is heating up, and there is hard evidence of value being transmitted from the “platform” to the “platform token.”
But the October 7 upgrade is both a “catalyst” and a “realization point.” Of the 40%+ gain over 30 days, how much is “upgrade expectations” being priced in ahead of time?
After the speech is delivered on October 7: An upgrade that exceeds expectations → another surge; an upgrade that meets or falls short of expectations → a “buy-the-rumor, sell-the-news” pullback!
GT’s “structural re-rating” is real—the combination of burns + zero Gas + ecosystem expansion + upgrade expectations is shifting the valuation logic of platform tokens from “trading fee discounts” to “ecosystem value capture.” But a re-rating will not move in a straight line: the October 7 upgrade rollout is the first “litmus test.”$GT ‌

#BTC突破86000美元关口 Is Bitcoin at $86,000 today a rebound or confirmation of a bull market?
As of October 5, 2026, Bitcoin is trading at approximately $86,000, down from the yearly high of $87,000 reached on September 21.
The current price is below a key technical resistance level, with the market showing a neutral consolidation pattern and no clear bull-market breakout signal yet.
Reviewing recent price action, on September 21, 2026, Bitcoin surged to $87,000, its highest level since January 2026, gaining 6.7% within 24 hours. This rebound was mainly driven by four factors: expectations of a shift in Federal Reserve policy, continued inflows into spot Bitcoin ETFs, escalating global geopolitical risks, and the convergence of technical and market sentiment factors. However, after entering October, the price fell back into the $84,000-$85,000 range. CoinMarketCap data shows that as of October 3, Bitcoin had declined approximately 0.7% over 24 hours, while its seven-day gain was just 0.79%, indicating that upward momentum is weakening.
Bull-market signal or false breakout?
There is significant disagreement in the market over whether current conditions mark the beginning of a new bull market:
Optimistic view
Jurrien Timmer, Fidelity Investments' head of global macro, believes Bitcoin has hovered around the $60,000 support zone for nearly a year and that a new four-year-cycle bull market may have already begun. Bitcoin's Z-score relative to gold has shifted from -100% to positive territory, which is typically a bottoming signal.
Cautious view
Chris Sullivan, co-portfolio manager at Hyperion Decimus, warned: "This will be the first bull market of the new cycle, but when this rally ends, the market will see a sharp correction."
Technical view
Technical analysis shows that $84,000-$84,300 is a key 0.618 Fibonacci support level. If $82,500 breaks, the next major support level is around $80,000. The short-term trend is neutral to bearish.
Key indicators to watch
To determine whether the bull market has truly begun, the following core data points require attention: 1.24 million US ETF holdings totaling $2.1 billion, with IBIT recording a weekly net inflow of 2.28 million coins to exchanges.
On-chain data shows that long-term holders (holding coins for more than 155 days) recorded net inflows of 82,000 BTC from September 18-20, the highest level since December 2025; Bitcoin balances on exchanges fell to 2.28 million, the lowest level in nearly three years. These figures indicate that supply-side pressure is easing.
Overall, Bitcoin's move above $86,000 is more likely a strong technical rebound than a clear signal that a bull market has begun. The current price is below a key resistance zone and must break above $87,000 decisively and hold there to open the way toward $100,000. The Federal Reserve's FOMC meeting on October 28 will be the next major catalyst.
If the Federal Reserve sends a dovish signal, it could provide Bitcoin with further upward momentum; conversely, if its policy stance is hawkish, the price could fall back toward $80,000 in search of support.
Key price range: $84,000-$87,000. $BTC ‌

#英伟达股价新高 Nvidia Hits a New All-Time High, Opening a Valuation Relief Window—What Comes Next for the AI Compute Rally
The U.S. stock market staged a dramatic comeback. Nonfarm payroll data came in far below expectations, while falling oil prices sharply reduced market bets on a Federal Reserve rate hike in October. The Nasdaq and AI-compute leader Nvidia simultaneously hit new recent highs, semiconductor stocks rallied across the board, and the market entered a rare valuation relief window.
U.S. nonfarm payrolls added only 29k jobs in September, far below the market’s expectation of 90k. Employment data for the previous two months was also revised downward, year-on-year wage growth fell to 3%, the lowest since 2021, and the unemployment rate rose to 4.2%. The data sent a clear signal: the labor market is cooling. The market immediately drove the probability of an October rate hike below 10%. Long-term U.S. Treasury yields fell in response, while the dollar weakened.
For growth stocks such as AI-compute companies, long-term Treasury yields are the denominator in valuation. Over the past period, Treasury yields continued to rise. Even as corporate earnings estimates were repeatedly raised, stock prices remained suppressed by valuation compression. Under DCF valuation models, the value of future cash flows was continuously diluted by high interest rates.
Now, with labor-market cooling and falling oil prices, the two restraints on technology stocks are easing simultaneously. The market has officially entered a valuation relief window, and the rally may shift from “valuation compression” to an “earnings-driven” phase.
On the trading floor, Nvidia hit a new all-time high intraday, with its share price reaching around $237 and its total market capitalization approaching $5.7 trillion. Buoyed by sentiment, AMD, Marvell, Broadcom, ASML and the broader semiconductor supply chain rallied across the board, while the Nasdaq also set a new high.
The support is not only macroeconomic. Industry fundamentals are also providing backing. A JPMorgan research report pointed out that since June, forward 12-month earnings estimates for the semiconductor sector have been raised by nearly 30%, while the Magnificent Seven’s valuation relative to the broader market has fallen back toward a ten-year low range. Earnings remain resilient, and valuations are no longer expensive.
At a deeper level, the industry logic is changing: AI is moving from simple question-and-answer models into the era of agents. Agents require planning, retrieval, tool use and iterative retries, causing compute demand to expand severalfold. Compute consumption is no longer limited to a single conversation but extends across the entire task cycle. Demand for compute is spreading beyond GPUs, with CPUs, HBM, high-speed interconnects, memory and servers all set to benefit continuously. At the same time, lower interest rates reduce data-center financing costs. Many data-center expansion projects previously stuck at the break-even point now have the conditions to move forward, creating a positive cycle of “AI application boom → increased capital expenditure → earnings realization for chip companies.” Nvidia’s massive 235 billion stock buyback plan further shows that the company itself is using real money to affirm its long-term value.
But beneath the celebration, we cannot ignore the divergences hidden in the market. Many investors still remember that Nvidia has repeatedly plunged soon after setting new highs. In stock forums, calls that “a new high means an immediate plunge” are constant, and the risk of profit-taking once positive news is realized is always present.
Several key variables will determine how far Nvidia and the AI-compute sector can go:
First, expectations for Federal Reserve policy have eased but have not completely shifted. No rate hike in October has essentially become consensus, but inflation data remains stubborn. If CPI rebounds again, rate-hike expectations will return, Treasury yields will rise once more, and valuation pressure on growth stocks will return. This is the biggest macro risk. Geopolitical tensions in the Middle East have not been fully resolved, and oil prices could rebound at any time, directly disrupting inflation and Federal Reserve decisions.
Second, whether earnings expectations can continue to be met. The market has already priced in very high growth expectations. Subsequent earnings reports, cloud providers’ capital-expenditure guidance, and the pace of AI-agent commercialization will be the litmus tests for the rally’s substance. If capital expenditure falls short of expectations, stock prices will quickly price down those expectations. At the same time, cloud providers’ continued development of in-house chips will create potential medium- to long-term competitive pressure on Nvidia’s market share.
Third, the positioning structure at the trading level. After a rebound, positions in the compute sector will recover quickly. Once positive news is realized, sharp volatility driven by profit-taking can easily emerge. A new high does not mean a one-way move upward; major pullbacks and shakeouts along the way will become normal.
At present, the macro environment has opened the door to valuation recovery for AI compute. The long-term upward cycle in industry demand has not ended, but the rally will not simply rise in a straight line. Falling interest rates are the catalyst, but how far stock prices ultimately go will still depend on the realization of corporate earnings. The macro environment sets the stage, but performance is the true lead actor. $NVDA

#BONER逆势上涨逼近历史高位 Bloomberg-backed "crypto-stock meme": at its core, a liquidity game

BONER (Boner Coin) rose 17.8% in 24 hours, with its market cap briefly surpassing $70 million and approaching its all-time high—supported by two factors:
① Bloomberg's 10/2 special report, "Robinhood Stock Tokens Spark a $440 Million Meme Frenzy," featured BONER as the "star example";
② The "crypto-stock meme" narrative—pairing meme coins with tokenized U.S. stocks, with BONER having accumulated control of 53% of the tokenized HIMS float.
But remember three numbers you must understand clearly: the 53% "control" accounts for only about 0.014% of HIMS's actual total shares outstanding—this is a "token-level pseudo short squeeze," not a stock-level short squeeze; the price is set by the extremely shallow HIMS pool, which cannot absorb large capital inflows or outflows.
The narrative is genuinely sexy, and the risk is genuinely lethal—this is a short-term event-driven asset, not a value asset you can hold overnight.

I. Why BONER can rise: three layers of logic
First layer: Bloomberg's endorsement = a breakout signal. Bloomberg's 10/2 report covered Robinhood's $440 million on-chain meme frenzy: BONER controlling 53% of tokenized HIMS, AI paired with tokenized NVIDIA, and MEME paired with AMC—the mainstream financial media's first systematic report on "crypto-stock memes," effectively giving the sector a "regular-army entry ticket" and drawing in follow-on capital.
Second layer: the "fresh narrative" of crypto-stock memes. The mechanism is clever: when you buy BONER, the funds enter the HIMS stock-token pool—the speculative demand for the meme becomes buying pressure for the stock token, turning the stock token from "passive RWA" into a "speculative liquidity pool." BONER = "you're not buying a dog, you're buying HIMS's hidden option." The narrative itself has strong viral appeal.
Third layer: the "artificial scarcity" created by control. BONER has locked up 53% of the tokenized HIMS float—less HIMS in the pool means someone can "support" BONER's price; combined with KOL holdings (crypto influencer eric is a major holder), this creates a feedback loop of "the more it rises, the more people buy; the more people buy, the more it rises."

II. Why this is an extremely high-risk "liquidity game"
Risk one: The 53% control is at the "token level," not the "stock level." The 53% of tokenized HIMS float translates into only 0.014% of actual HIMS shares outstanding—you are controlling not HIMS stock, but a "shadow of the stock." When it is time to cash out, the shadow's value is determined by the pool, not by the stock.
Risk two: The pool's depth cannot withstand "smart money's exit." Professional analysis has already pointed out that the main HIMS/USDG pool has never had enough depth to absorb major selling pressure—"the short squeeze is over, but the capital flow that triggered the short squeeze remains." Translation: it feels great on the way in and hurts badly on the way out—a shallow pool means "you can get in, but you can't get out."
Risk three: The price has become detached from value. The price of tokenized HIMS was once far above the underlying stock's closing price—the market structure itself contains the risks of "unstable price tracking + liquidity fragmentation," a risk Bloomberg itself highlighted.
Risk four: Dependence on narrative momentum. This BONER rally is that of a "contrarian strong coin amid Robinhood's crash"—its strength is built precisely on siphoning liquidity from others' collapse; once the Robinhood ecosystem broadly recovers and funds flow back into mainstream memes, BONER's "safe haven" narrative will disappear.

BONER is a short-term breakout product combining "Bloomberg coverage + KOL holdings + a control narrative," but it makes money from a "liquidity game"—the 53% control is an illusion at the token level, the 0.014% real exposure is the truth detector, and the shallow pool is a double-edged sword. You can watch the show, or enter and exit quickly with a small position, but "holding for a doubling" means putting your life in the hands of the pool's depth.
The name BONER is itself a joke, but don't use real money to indulge the joke—the end of meme coins is liquidity, and the end of liquidity is bagholders. $BONER ‌

##美国9月非农新增2.9万 September Nonfarm Payrolls: Employment Trends Shift Abruptly, Policy Course Hard to Change
U.S. nonfarm payroll growth in September fell far short of expectations, while data for the previous two months were revised down simultaneously, showing cooling hiring momentum as the labor market continued to exhibit the characteristics of “low hiring and low layoffs.”
September nonfarm payrolls increased by just 29,000, significantly below the market expectation of 90,000, while total job growth for July and August was revised down by 60,000, reflecting a continued weakening in companies’ willingness to hire.
By sector, private-sector employment continued to post modest growth, but healthcare hiring slowed, while employment in finance, information, and professional and business services continued to contract, with pressure on white-collar jobs beginning to emerge.
The unemployment rate rose from 4.1% to 4.2%, mainly because labor supply expanded faster than employment absorption. The labor force increased by 485,000 in September, with 406,000 moving into employment and 78,000 entering unemployment; the rise in unemployment came more from new entrants and reentrants to the labor market than from an increase in corporate layoffs.
After the data were released, the risk of an October rate hike declined, U.S. Treasuries strengthened, and stocks and gold rebounded. According to Fed Watch, the probability of an October rate hike quickly fell to 19% after the data release. The 10-year U.S. Treasury yield fell to around 5.20%, while the S&P 500 and Nasdaq rose by approximately 0.9% and 1.2%, respectively; spot gold briefly rose by around $40.
Regarding subsequent monetary policy, we believe the probability of another rate hike this year is declining, but not because of the simplistic logic that “weak payrolls mean rate hikes will stop.” In “Stop Fantasizing and Recognize ‘Warsh,’” we previously pointed out that Warsh’s policy assessment focuses more on inflation trends and sustained changes in the labor market than on fluctuations in a single month’s data. At the September FOMC meeting, the backdrop to his reinforced hawkish stance was that indicators such as PCE inflation and inflation expectations still showed upward pressure, while the credibility of anti-inflation policy still needed to be maintained. Therefore, weak payrolls are more likely to change short-term rate-hike expectations than to alter his policy framework; only when labor-market cooling persists and a downward trend in inflation is confirmed may the Federal Reserve further adjust its policy stance.
The scope for one more rate hike this year is being constrained mainly by easing inflationary pressures and the renewed stabilization of policy expectations. On the one hand, the energy shock has eased marginally, reducing the risk of a second rise in inflation. Europe recently discussed releasing diesel reserves, while the U.S. also called for increased diesel supplies, somewhat easing energy supply pressures; if oil prices continue to fall, the upward impact of energy on inflation will weaken. On the other hand, tensions within the Fed have eased somewhat, reducing the necessity of further rate hikes. New York Fed President Williams recently said that there was no need to rush policy adjustments; Fed governors also sent dovish signals, stressing that subsequent decisions would need to take changes in the data into account. After hawkish expectations were fully priced in, market concerns about another rate hike in the near term eased somewhat. #每周来晒

#GT三季度销毁近200万枚 Deflation is real, but long-term value has never been created by burning alone 🔥

Q3 data (10/5 announcement): 1,987,321 GT burned (approximately 1.99 million, worth $22.35 million), bringing cumulative burns to 191.9 million GT and reducing the total supply from 300 million by 63.98%.
One detail to note: Q3 burns (1.99 million) were approximately 22% lower than in Q1 (2.557 million) and Q2 (2.57 million), but the burn value was roughly comparable ($22.35 million vs. $20.68 million/$17.75 million)—because the GT price has risen ($11 vs. $7–8 previously).
The burn budget is “constant in dollar terms, declining in quantity,” which is a normal feature of a deflationary mechanism, not “burning less.”
Long-term value in one sentence: GT = Gate’s profit “profit-sharing rights” (returned through burns) × sustained deflation (supply only decreases, never increases) × ecosystem expansion (from discount coupon to fuel)—the product of the three determines the ceiling. Deflation is real, profitability is the anchor, and the ecosystem is the variable.

I. How to read the Q3 burn data: three figures, three layers of meaning
1.99 million GT per quarter: At this pace, approximately 8 million GT will leave circulation each year—an annualized deflation rate of roughly 7–8% against a circulating supply of 108 million. Not aggressive, but its strength is that it is “unwavering”—announced every quarter, verifiable on-chain, and never stopped in 7 years
​63.98% cumulative: Of the initial 300 million GT, 191.9 million has been burned, leaving only approximately 108 million in circulation—nearly two-thirds of the supply has disappeared. This is the first cornerstone of GT’s long-term value: scarcity
​$1.504 billion in cumulative burned value: Over the years, Gate has used every bit of its real cash profit to buy and burn GT—this is the strongest evidence of “profit sharing”

II. The core of long-term value: deflation is only an “amplifier”; profitability is the “engine”
Many people look only at burns when evaluating exchange tokens, but where the money for the burns comes from is the key:
GT’s formula: GT value = Gate profit × buyback-and-burn ratio ÷ circulating supply
Numerator (Gate profit): 60 million users, 37 state-level licenses, $7.394 billion in assets, and $118 million in 7-day net inflows, ranking third globally—Gate is making money, and making more and more
​ Burn ratio: 15% of spot + futures profits—the fixed “profit-sharing ratio”
​Denominator (circulating supply): 108 million GT, still declining each quarter
As long as Gate’s profits grow, GT’s “earnings per coin” will continue to strengthen—burns turn this strengthening into something “embedded” in the token price. Deflation itself does not create value; it amplifies the denominator effect of Gate’s “profitability”!
Q3’s 63.98% deflation is “certain scarcity,” Gate’s profitability is the “certain engine,” and the 10/7 ecosystem upgrade is the “biggest variable”—deflation provides the “floor,” profits provide the “growth rate,” and the upgrade provides the “imagination.”
The GT story is worth telling for the long term, and GT has a promising future 🔥🔥🔥$GT ‌

#布局本周交易 #每周来晒 Part 1: Position Management

This week's trading plan: Trim GT, hold DOGE, keep powder dry— in choppy markets, position sizing matters more than direction

After the favorable nonfarm payrolls data came in, BTC surged to $87K before falling back, and $85K was reclaimed and lost again—the market has entered a "data vacuum" choppy market. The biggest variable this week is just one thing: Gate's upgrade speech at TOKEN2049 tomorrow (10/7). In this kind of market, direction is not the focus; position structure is.

My position plan for this week:

GT: Currently in floating profit around $11; trim half before the 10/7 speech to lock in profits—if the upgrade exceeds expectations, buy back on a pullback; if it's underwhelming, wait for $10. Don't turn "expectations" into a position
BTC: Leave the core position untouched; hold as long as $84K holds, reduce the position and wait for $82K if it breaks; don't chase the upside—let it choose its own direction
DOGE: Hold a small position; $0.092-0.093 is the lifeline, and exit if it breaks; don't add unless $0.10 is broken
Cash: Keep 30%—before the October FOMC (at the end of the month), dry powder is more valuable than a position

This week, don't bet on direction; bet on "position flexibility"—have coins to sell if it rises and cash to buy if it falls. That's what positioning is all about.

#布局本周交易 #每周来晒 📌 Part 2: Asset Selection

Mainstream, altcoins, and US stock tokens: Which am I focusing on this week?
First, the allocation: 60% mainstream, 30% altcoins, and 10% US stock tokens—the three categories each have their own script this week, but their risk levels are completely different.
1️⃣ Mainstream coin (BTC) = ballast: It rose above $85K but fell back, while holding $84K—it is the "risk switch" for the entire market. If BTC stays steady, altcoins have a chance; if BTC breaks $82K, every narrative is just hot air. This week, I’m watching only one level: holding above $85K = increase exposure; breaking $84K = reduce exposure.
2️⃣ Altcoins (DOGE/ZEC/HYPE) = high-beta positions: DOGE is grinding below the $0.10 wall ($0.093), ZEC is forming a bottom after its plunge ($1,376), and HYPE’s treasury is accumulating, but unlock pressure is weighing on it ($88)—all are in a state of "having a story but not having started."
The rule for altcoins: Either wait for a breakout signal or stay out. Only when DOGE breaks $0.0966 on heavy volume is it time for its performance.
3️⃣ US stock tokens (BONER/AI/MEME) = watchlist positions:
They did indeed heat up after the Bloomberg report (BONER’s market cap surged to $70 million), but the lesson that "53% control accounts for only 0.014% of the actual equity" is right there—new narrative, shallow liquidity, huge risk. Only trade them on an event-driven basis, entering and exiting quickly; never hold for the long term.

This week, put the bulk of the money into mainstream assets we "understand," use a small portion to bet on altcoins that "have a story," and just watch the US stock tokens—the new track is worth watching, but there’s no need to stake your fortune on it.

#HYPE财库公司持仓超32亿美元 Add HYPE to the watchlist and estimate what price would be worth entering at
01 Price and revenue: The price has risen, but revenue shows no sign of rising
The price reference is the opening price of the Hyperliquid perpetual hourly candle at 8:00 a.m. Beijing time on October 4: $89.28, 8.9% below the September 23 perpetual daily candle high of $97.9. The opening price 30 days ago, on September 4, was $87.48, up 2.1%. The opening price one year ago was $49.48, up 80%. CoinGecko's rolling figures show a 3.5% gain over 30 days and an 83% gain over one year.
Revenue is based on DefiLlama. Over the 30 complete days from September 3 to October 2, protocol revenue and holder revenue were $72.76 million in fees, with holders receiving $56.36 million, or 77.5%, equivalent to $686 million annualized. Looking at the revenue structure, over the past 30 days, perpetuals accounted for 95.7% of fees, the spot order book for 3.6%, and HLP for 0.8%. Holder revenue also came almost entirely from perpetuals, plus a small amount from spot. Spot trading volume from September 3 to October 2 was $4.77 billion, up 17.4% from the previous 30 days. Whether it can grow is not apparent in the near term. Holder revenue in 2026 was $59.84 million in January, $59.96 million in June, fell to $38.42 million in July, and recovered to $55.89 million in September. The latest two 30-day periods were $54.32 million and $54.34 million, almost identical. Daily fees on October 3 were only $866,000, the lowest in the past 14 days.
The share remains number one, which reflects the existing stock, but there is no clear sign of significant revenue growth.
02 Token burns: The mechanism is real, but the number of tokens burned in the past 30 days cannot be verified
Fees go to the community. Spot and HIP-3 deployers can retain up to half. The Assistance Fund is an account belonging to the protocol itself. It uses the fees allocated to it to buy HYPE, and the purchased tokens are held at this address and removed from the circulating and total supply, which should constitute a burn.
At 8:00 a.m. Beijing time on October 4, this address held 47.66 million HYPE. Its nominal value was $1.335 billion, equivalent to approximately $28 per token. It also held 14.33 million USDC. If the $54.34 million in revenue from September 4 to October 3 were all used to buy tokens at $89.281, that would amount to approximately 610,000 tokens. Multiplied by 12 months, that would be about 7.3 million tokens, equivalent to approximately 3.3% of the current circulating supply. At the same price, assuming all holder revenue was used for purchases, the month with lower revenue, $38.42 million, could buy approximately 5.16 million tokens annually; the month with higher revenue, $59.96 million, could buy approximately 8.06 million tokens annually.
This range is calculated by multiplying the lowest and highest months that have actually occurred by 12; it does not mean next year will necessarily fall in between. The actual total buyback volume is likely to be somewhat lower, because not all revenue goes into buybacks.
03 Supply: Only 23% is circulating, and actual annual unlocks are difficult to determine
The cap is 1 billion tokens. The genesis allocation was as follows: 38.888% reserved for gradual future distribution, or 388.9 million tokens; 31% distributed at the beginning, or 310 million tokens, usable immediately; 23.8% for core contributors, or 238 million tokens; 6% for the foundation, or 60 million tokens; 0.3% for grants, or 3 million tokens; and 0.012% for HIP-2, or 120,000 tokens.
The core contributors' allocation is locked for one year, and most of it will only gradually become sellable by them between 2027 and 2028. At approximately 9:37 a.m. Beijing time on October 4, CoinGecko showed 222.4 million circulating tokens and 955.3 million total tokens, with circulation accounting for 23.3%. The page showed the next unlock on October 6: 9.92 million tokens for core contributors, approximately 4.5% of the circulating supply.
The truly large amount not yet circulating is the 388.9 million tokens from the genesis allocation, approximately 1.7 times the current circulating supply, but there is no date, and it may not be released in the next few months. The main problem is the lack of a table showing dates and actual claims.
04 Competition: Market share remains number one
According to OpenChainBench at 8:00 a.m. Beijing time on October 4, the combined trading volume of 27 venues over the past 30 days was $529.5 billion. Hyperliquid's main venue accounted for $187.2 billion, or 35.4%, with $12.8 billion in open interest. HIP-3's tradexyz accounted for an additional $61.2 billion; including it would raise the share to 46.9%. For the fees column, the figures that can be matched use DefiLlama's fees over the past 30 days, from September 4 to October 3. Hyperliquid's $67.11 million is perpetual fees and already includes HIP-3. The main venue cannot be broken out separately, so no separate figure is listed for tradexyz.
05 Valuation: Approximately 30x on the circulating supply, so the valuation is not cheap
At the 8:00 price, multiplying by the circulating supply gives a circulating market cap of $19.86 billion. Multiplying by the total supply gives $85.29 billion. CoinGecko's fully diluted valuation uses the current total supply, not the 1 billion cap. The calculation uses actual holder revenue over the past year, not the past 30 days annualized. From October 4, 2025 to October 3, 2026, holder revenue was $681 million. The circulating market cap of $19.86 billion was 29.2x revenue. Based on the total supply, $85.29 billion was 125x.
HYPE is currently at 29.2x, essentially no different from UNI at 30x, but it has an even more obvious disadvantage: approximately three-quarters is still not on the market, putting it at more than 120x based on the total supply.
Ask yourself: at what price would it be worth considering buying?
Using the actual $681 million in revenue over the past year and 222.4 million circulating tokens to work backward: 20x implies approximately $61, and 15x implies approximately $46. This is also based on two assumptions: annual revenue does not decline, and the circulating supply does not increase substantially.
So for now, this remains watchlist-only, with no action. $HYPE ‌

#OneGate见证计划 #FIL After the FIL halving! Can it take off and break above 100U?
FIL has started being discussed by many people again. Especially after market sentiment recovered, an old question has once again come to the forefront: if FIL undergoes a halving, does it have a chance to reclaim $100?
This question sounds crazy, but it is not entirely without merit. After all, during the 2021 bull market, FIL once surged above $200. Looking back now, that market performance was truly impressive.
But the question now is, how far is FIL from $100?
If we calculate based on around $1, reaching $100 would mean an increase of roughly 100 times.
So the first thing that must be made clear is this: it is not entirely impossible for FIL to reach $100 in the future, but it absolutely cannot be interpreted as “halving = a guaranteed 100x increase.” These are two completely different concepts.
When many people hear “halving,” they immediately think of Bitcoin. After a Bitcoin halving, new supply decreases. If market demand continues to grow, the supply-demand relationship changes, and the price may receive support. Some people then directly apply this logic to FIL.
But in reality, Filecoin’s economic model is more complex. FIL issuance, miner rewards, locked-up tokens, and network transaction fees all affect its actual circulation and supply.
Therefore, what truly needs attention is not the simple phrase “halving,” but rather: how much will FIL’s new supply actually decrease in the future? At the same time, can market demand genuinely grow? That is the core issue.
More importantly, Filecoin’s development priorities are also changing. In the past, people mainly discussed “how much storage capacity Filecoin has” and “how much computing power the entire network has.” Now, what truly deserves attention is this: is anyone actually paying to use that storage?
One of Filecoin’s strategic priorities in 2026 is to promote paid on-chain storage, increase network economic activity, and attract more large-scale customers.
This is actually very important. Because for a token to rise over the long term, it cannot rely solely on reduced supply. There must also be people willing to buy it. More importantly, people must actually use it.
Suppose FIL’s supply decreases, but there are no new users, no real storage demand, and no more capital entering the ecosystem. Then simply reducing issuance would make it difficult to support a rise from $1 all the way to $100.
Conversely, if demand for AI data, on-chain data, decentralized cloud computing, and other areas continues to grow in the future, and Filecoin can truly convert that demand into paid business, the situation would be completely different. If supply contraction is added on top of that, price elasticity could naturally be amplified.
So FIL will truly need to go through three stages in the future. First, it must prove that it can continue developing.
Don’t rush to shout “$100” every day. First, see whether FIL can regain market attention, whether its price can stabilize, and whether its ecosystem can continue generating real activity. Second, it must establish real demand.
This is the most crucial step. If Filecoin can continuously increase paid storage, real users, and actual economic activity, then FIL’s fundamentals may truly change.
Third, it must wait for the major cycle.
If the entire crypto market enters a strong bull market in the future, BTC and ETH continue rising, capital begins flowing into high-quality altcoins, and Filecoin itself also experiences significant business growth, then FIL may display substantial price elasticity. Only then would it truly make sense to discuss $10, $20, $50, or even $100.
So, how difficult is $100?
Extremely difficult.
Because rising from $1 to $100 is essentially a 100x move. This requires not only market sentiment, but also enormous simultaneous changes in market capitalization, capital, and real demand.
So if someone tells you, “FIL will hit $100 immediately after the halving!”
It is advisable to stay calm. The truly reasonable logic should be: reduced supply + growing real demand + a crypto market bull run + continued ecosystem development + sustained capital inflows.
If these conditions appear simultaneously, FIL’s future valuation potential could indeed be reopened.
But if there is only a “halving” without demand growth, $100 would still be extremely difficult.
So, can FIL break above 100U?
The answer is: it is possible, but definitely not because of the halving itself.
What ultimately determines FIL’s long-term value is still demand. What we should really watch in the future is not how many percentage points it gains each day, but three questions: Are the number of real users increasing? Is paid storage growing? Can Filecoin truly turn its technology and narrative into sustained economic value?
If all three questions can receive strong answers, then $100 will at least have a basis for discussion. If not, then no matter how many stories there are about “halving,” “AI,” “Web3,” and “bull markets,” it will still be difficult to support a sustained price of $100. So for those who have held FIL for a long time, instead of shouting “100U” every day, it would be better to calmly observe whether it has undergone any real changes.
The halving changes supply. A bull market amplifies sentiment. What truly determines whether FIL can take off is still demand. This is the most crucial card for FIL to break above $100.$FIL

#非农就业数据 #每周来晒 September U.S. nonfarm payroll weakness may be merely an illusion, and expectations for a Fed rate hike this year may be difficult to change!
U.S. nonfarm payrolls increased by only 29,000 in September, significantly below expectations, prompting markets to quickly lower expectations for a rate hike in October. However, the household survey showed employment actually increased by 406,000, the labor force participation rate rose to 61.8%, and the unemployment rate edged up only slightly to 4.2%. Combined with continued strong U.S. economic growth, the nonfarm payroll data may not be as pessimistic as it appears, and the possibility of further Fed rate hikes this year cannot be ignored.
I. U.S. nonfarm employment came in below expectations in September, increasing by only 29,000, while the unemployment rate edged up to 4.2%.
The U.S. labor market suddenly poured cold water on the market.
On October 2, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics released data showing that U.S. nonfarm employment increased by only 29,000 in September 2026, far below the market's previous expectations of approximately 84,000–90,000; the unemployment rate edged up from 4.1% to 4.2%.
More notably, data for the previous two months were also revised down significantly: July employment was revised from an increase of 21,000 to a decrease of 10,000, while August was revised from an increase of 162,000 to 133,000, meaning the combined figure for the two months was 60,000 jobs lower than previously reported. In other words, the U.S. labor market has indeed been cooling over the past few months, and the issue is not limited to September alone.
By industry, September's employment growth mainly came from healthcare, construction, and manufacturing. Healthcare added approximately 17,000 jobs, construction added 11,000, and manufacturing added 9,000; government employment fell by 17,000, information-sector employment declined by 10,000, and financial activities employment decreased by 7,000.
On the surface, this was clearly a weak nonfarm payrolls report. But that is precisely where the issue lies—weak nonfarm payroll data does not mean that the U.S. labor market has already deteriorated significantly. If U.S. companies were truly cutting jobs on a large scale, the unemployment rate would normally rise more noticeably, whereas in September it increased by only 0.1 percentage point.
More importantly, another set of survey data is telling a completely different story. Therefore, whether this nonfarm payrolls report reflects genuine weakness or a significant divergence between statistical methodologies deserves further examination.
II. After the nonfarm payrolls data were released, Treasury yields and the dollar index fell, while U.S. stocks rose as the probability of a Fed rate hike in October declined.
After the nonfarm payrolls data were released, the financial market's first reaction was very direct: weaker employment meant less pressure on the Fed to raise rates. After U.S. September nonfarm payrolls came in far below expectations, markets quickly reduced their bets on a rate hike at the Fed's October meeting, the dollar weakened temporarily, and U.S. stocks received support.
U.S. Treasury yields fell in response: the 10-year yield declined by approximately 3–6 basis points to around 5.18%–5.20%; the more policy-sensitive 2-year yield fell even more, dropping by 8–10 basis points at one point.
The market interpreted the cooling labor market as reducing near-term pressure on the Fed to raise rates, pushing bond prices higher and yields lower. The dollar index weakened in tandem, falling approximately 0.1%–0.2% that day to around 101.8–101.9. The weaker dollar directly reflected cooling rate expectations, while funds' relative attraction to U.S. Treasuries declined. At the same time, U.S. stocks gained support and rose.
Futures and cash markets for all three major stock indexes opened higher, with major indexes such as the S&P 500 and Nasdaq recording moderate gains, exceeding 0.5%–1% during some periods. Investors believed that slower employment growth reduced the risk of rapid policy tightening, supporting risk-asset valuations.
The CME FedWatch tool showed that market expectations for the Fed's October 27–28 meeting shifted sharply. In the week before the nonfarm payrolls report, the probability of a rate hike had been as high as approximately 70%, but had fallen to the 20%–30% range before the report; after the data were released, the probability of a 25-basis-point hike fell further to approximately 14%–22%, while the probability of keeping rates unchanged in the current 3.75%–4.00% range rose to approximately 78%–86%. However, markets still priced in a possible rate hike in December, while action in October was essentially ruled out.
Overall, weak nonfarm payrolls data reinforced the narrative of “slowing employment and inflation still requiring observation,” suppressing the urgency of a rate hike in the short term, driving yields lower, weakening the dollar, supporting a stock-market rebound, and sharply reducing the probability of an October hike.
Subsequent data such as CPI will continue to influence the final decision. Fed officials are weighing economic conditions and their implications for the next rate adjustment, and this report significantly changed the market's short-term pricing of the interest-rate path. This is actually easy to understand.
The Fed is currently facing not simply the question of whether employment is weak or strong, but a more difficult combination: economic growth remains resilient, inflation has not returned to the 2% target, and yet the labor market is beginning to show signs of cooling.
III. Nonfarm payrolls are misleading, and other data indicate that the U.S. labor market may be performing better than the nonfarm payrolls data suggest.
What truly deserves attention is the stark contrast between the two sets of employment data in September. The U.S. nonfarm payrolls survey primarily draws on businesses, while the unemployment rate and household employment data come from a household survey. In September, the establishment survey showed that U.S. nonfarm employment increased by only 29,000; however, the household survey showed that U.S. employment increased by 406,000, while the labor force grew by 485,000, and the labor force participation rate rose from 61.6% to 61.8%.
What does this mean? The establishment survey tells you that businesses did very little hiring. The household survey, however, tells you that employment increased substantially and that more people are entering the labor force. The two figures even appear to “contradict” each other. But that does not mean one of them is necessarily false. The two surveys differ in their subjects, sampling methods, and statistical methodologies, so significant short-term divergence is not unusual. At least one important fact is conveyed by this month's household survey: the U.S. labor market currently looks more like “low hiring, low unemployment” than “mass corporate layoffs.” These are fundamentally different situations. If companies were laying off workers in large numbers, we would typically see a significant increase in unemployment, a rapid rise in the unemployment rate, and a sustained increase in initial jobless claims. But the U.S. has not seen such a combination. On the contrary, the unemployment rate was only 4.2% in September, while the labor force participation rate continued to rise. A broader measure of unemployment, including discouraged workers and those working part-time for economic reasons, also fell from 7.7% to 7.6%, its lowest level since January 2025.
That is why some economists believe that although this nonfarm payrolls report was weak, it cannot simply be defined as a precursor to a U.S. recession.
Another extremely important signal is wages.
In September, average hourly earnings for private-sector nonfarm employees in the U.S. rose only 0.1% month over month and 3.0% year over year, the lowest growth rate since May 2021; average weekly hours remained at 34.4 hours. Slower wage growth is of course not a particularly positive employment signal, but from the Fed's perspective, it means that the pressure on inflation from labor costs is easing. The problem is that U.S. inflation has still not been fully resolved. At its September meeting, the Fed clearly stated that inflation remained elevated, while its long-term target is 2%. The latest data show that the personal consumption expenditures price index remains significantly above the target level. At the same time, U.S. economic growth has not displayed typical recessionary characteristics.
After revisions, economic data previously released by the U.S. Department of Commerce showed that economic growth in both the first and second quarters of 2026 was higher than previously estimated; the Atlanta Fed's GDPNow model at the end of September projected that U.S. real GDP growth in the third quarter of 2026 would be approximately 3.7% annualized.
It should be emphasized that GDPNow is a real-time estimation model, not an official forecast by the Atlanta Fed, but it at least indicates that current U.S. economic activity remains quite resilient. The question, then, becomes very clear. If the U.S. economy continues to grow at a relatively rapid pace, inflation remains above 2%, and the labor market is merely shifting from “overheating” to “low hiring, low unemployment,” why would the Fed have to completely abandon rate hikes because of one weak nonfarm payrolls report? The answer is: there is no need to do so. This is why the market currently tends to view the October meeting as a period of observation rather than interpreting it as the end of the rate-hike cycle.
A latest Reuters report showed that markets have significantly lowered expectations for an October rate hike, but investors still regard whether to raise rates in December as an important variable, while Fed officials have also emphasized the need to wait for more inflation and employment data.
In other words, what September's nonfarm payrolls truly changed may have been only the timing of rate hikes, not their direction. Of course, the biggest variable here remains inflation. If CPI and core inflation continue to decline over the coming months and employment deteriorates further, the Fed could pause rate hikes or even revisit an easing policy. But if inflation picks up again while economic growth remains resilient, the Fed will still have reasons to continue raising rates.
Therefore, do not focus solely on the 29,000 nonfarm jobs added in September. What truly determines U.S. monetary policy is never a single data point, but rather the relationship among employment, inflation, and economic growth.
This time, U.S. nonfarm payrolls data was indeed very weak. But when the household survey, labor force participation rate, unemployment rate, wages, jobless claims, and GDP growth are considered together, the U.S. economy may be far less weak than the nonfarm payrolls figure suggests. This also means that lower expectations for an October rate hike do not mean that expectations for a rate hike this year have disappeared. For global capital markets, the real test may still lie ahead.

#OneGate见证计划 Weekend Check-In: Positive nonfarm payrolls sent Bitcoin to $87k, but $85k was regained and lost again—Uptober's opening was less smooth than expected
What I most want to discuss today is the subtle way this wave of “good news being priced in” played out 📊
First, the conclusion: On the night of the nonfarm payrolls report (10/2), BTC briefly surged to **$87,250** intraday, but failed to hold over the weekend—closing at **$84,791** on 10/2 and continuing to consolidate around **$84.5K** on 10/3. Regaining and losing $85K shows three things:
① The positive nonfarm payrolls news was fully priced in by “front-running positions”; ② There is heavy trapped and profit-taking supply above $85K; ③ Weekend liquidity is thin, and no one wants to catch a falling knife at this level.
This does not mean Uptober has failed; Uptober’s “first wave” simply needs to be digested first.
Review of the past three days:
10/2 (nonfarm payrolls day): The 29k figure came in, sending BTC straight from $86K toward $87,250—but it retreated immediately after hitting the top, with resistance everywhere above $87K, ultimately failing to hold even $85K at the close
​10/3-10/4 (weekend): $84.5K moved sideways as both bulls and bears waited—buyers waited for a “buy-the-dip entry point,” while sellers waited for a “rally distribution level”
​DOGE moved in sync: sliding from $0.095-$0.096 to $0.093, with plans to break $0.10 remaining on hold—altcoins are still following BTC’s lead
The three things to really watch next week:
1. The $85K battle: Holding above it = the launchpad for Uptober’s second wave, targeting the previous high at $87.25 and $90K; breaking below $84K = a pullback to $82-83K (the old lifeline)—the first two days of next week should decide
​2. October FOMC (10/27-28): The market is currently pricing in “no move in October and an 80% probability of a rate hike in December”—any hawkish or dovish remarks from officials next week will amplify volatility
​3. U.S. Treasury bond turmoil: The aftershocks of the 30-year yield at 5.62% are still being felt; if Treasuries remain unstable, BTC cannot keep rising
Uptober’s script is a “slow bull market,” not a “short squeeze”—that move to $87K was the market testing the waters, not the end of the rally.
Next week will reveal the truth—how much dry powder have you kept for your position? Let’s discuss in the comments 👇$BTC ‌

#每周来晒 #BTC BTC’s chip concentration is nearing the warning zone, and the crypto market may be on the verge of a major trend shift
Bitcoin’s recent market performance has drawn significant attention, with analysts warning that BTC’s chip concentration has approached the warning range and that market volatility is highly likely to expand significantly in the near future.
PANews reports that analyst Murphy posted an analysis of the current BTC market on social media. From the candlestick patterns, BTC has formed consecutive doji candles on the daily chart, with frequent wicks on both sides—a typical signal of intensifying competition between bulls and bears.
On-chain chip data is even more noteworthy. On August 1, two chip columns formed in the $62,000-$63,000 price range, totaling approximately 1.68 million BTC, with chip concentration at 12.9%. By October 3, two similarly prominent chip columns appeared in the $83,000-$84,000 range, totaling approximately 1.52 million BTC, while chip concentration rose to 12%, very close to the warning range.
Looking back at historical market movements, after a similar chip structure appeared in August, BTC surged from $60,000 to $80,000 in just 17 days, producing a strong upward trend. Many traders are also watching to see whether this instance of concentrated chips will replicate the previous market movement.
However, the analyst also issued an important reminder: the accumulation and rising concentration of chips do not directly equate to a rise or fall, and historical market movements cannot simply be used to predict the subsequent direction.
The true meaning of this indicator is that differences between bulls and bears are continuously accumulating, the conditions for a major market move are maturing, and subsequent price volatility will increase significantly.
Across the broader crypto market, once BTC enters a high-volatility trend-shift window, the entire crypto market will be affected. As a market barometer, Bitcoin’s sharp volatility will directly spill over into various major cryptocurrencies, accelerating sector rotation.
If BTC subsequently breaks upward, market sentiment will quickly recover and capital will accelerate its inflow into the market; if it instead chooses to correct downward, it will also bring the risk of broad-based pullbacks.
For traders, blindly taking oversized positions should be avoided during this stage, as both gains and losses will be amplified in a highly volatile market. With the market at its current position, both bulls and bears are accumulating strength.
Chip concentration is merely a precursor signal for a trend shift, not a definitive indication of direction. The market’s capital flows should be monitored continuously, with risk management in place to cope with the intense market conditions ahead.

#OneGate见证计划 #ZEC Zcash Falls 21% From Its High as ETF Outflows and North Korean Hacker Rumors Converge, but the Rally May Not Be Over
After surging 253%, Zcash has pulled back 21%, while the Grayscale ETF saw more than $30 million in single-day outflows, compounded by suspected North Korean hackers using its privacy pool to move stolen funds—the market's biggest question under this triple pressure is: Is this a pullback or the end? This article uses on-chain data and indicators to break down whether the privacy coin rally still has a second half.
Thursday was a tough day for Zcash.
ZEC is currently quoted at around $1,333.50, down 7.29% on the day, with about three hours remaining before the daily close. This means the privacy coin has fallen about 21% from the $1,698.00 peak it reached at the end of September. It also shows just how sharply ZEC had risen: it climbed about 253% from a starting point of $480.72 to reach that high.
The broader market offered little respite either.
Bitcoin surged to $85,600 on Wednesday after PCE inflation data came in below expectations, then quickly gave back its gains. The 10-year U.S. Treasury yield closed at 5.29%, while CME FedWatch data showed the probability of a Federal Reserve rate hike in October had fallen from 70% to below 50%.
First, let's look at ETF flows.
Grayscale launched the Zcash ETF, ticker ZCSH, on August 25, and by mid-September it had attracted $233 million in net inflows.
The fund recorded $30.25 million in net outflows yesterday, reducing cumulative net inflows to nearly $268 million. Its 3-for-1 share split also officially took effect that morning.
The Bit hack is another factor to consider, especially for market sentiment.
A group of hackers stole about $387 million from the exchange on September 24, up from the initial estimate of $351.6 million—because more transfers were later discovered on the Zcash and Tron chains. Bit's CEO said the attack bore the hallmarks of a North Korean hacking group, but the exact attribution remains under investigation. For a cryptocurrency determined to build a positive image on Wall Street, this is undoubtedly bad news.
On Wednesday, blockchain investigator ZachXBT flagged 2,746 ZEC (about $3.9 million) flowing from hacker-linked addresses into Zcash's privacy pool, where the sender, recipient, and amount are all concealed. The hacking incident was probably not the trigger for today's decline, and the $3.9 million involved is relatively limited in scale, but it certainly did not help.
What the chart says
Overall, Zcash remains in a strong bullish structure, but its price action over the past five days is pointing to a sharp correction. The Relative Strength Index (RSI) is a buying and selling momentum indicator ranging from 0 to 100. Its current reading is 50.2, in completely neutral territory, indicating that ZEC is neither overextended nor oversold.
Technically speaking, this is a relief compared with the persistently overbought readings during the previous advance. The Average Directional Index (ADX) reads 52.0. ADX measures trend strength rather than direction, and any reading above 25 is considered a genuine trend. A reading of 52 is very strong, but it mainly reflects the previous vertical surge, and because ADX lags, it may remain elevated even as prices fall. Exponential moving averages (EMAs) track average prices but assign greater weight to the most recent days. The 50-day EMA remains above the 200-day EMA, keeping the trend structure bullish on paper. If the decline continues, the two lines will converge—which is usually how a trend change first becomes visible. However, reaching that point would require a sustained and rapid plunge in Zcash, which is unlikely in the short term.
Is the rally over, or is this a dip worth buying?
A 21% pullback after a 253% surge is not unusual. In June, ZEC fell from $635 to an intraday low of $309 after a key vulnerability in its privacy pool was disclosed. It then climbed steadily, eventually breaking above $1,600.
So at least for now, the charts look more like a correction than a collapse. Trend indicators have not turned bearish, but momentum has cooled, and the ETF has just recorded $30.25 million in outflows. A daily close below $1,233.00 will activate the golden zone, while reclaiming $1,410.72 would indicate that the rally is back on track.$ZEC ‌

#HYPE财库公司持仓超32亿美元 Publicly listed company hoards 37 million HYPE: $3.2 billion in “insider” holdings—is it conviction or exit liquidity? 💰
Let’s clarify the data first: this purchase was 1.9 million HYPE worth $167.2 million (about $88 per token)—the “$3.2 billion” refers to the total holdings of this company, Hyperliquid Strategies, which is listed on Nasdaq: approximately 37 million HYPE worth $3.26 billion, plus $293 million in cash.
The essence of this move is that a publicly listed company is accumulating HYPE the way Strategy accumulates BTC—with institutional-grade real-money purchases and continued accumulation, providing genuine buying support and confidence for the token price. But in the same week, the foundation wallet unstaked 3.75 million HYPE (about $330 million)—as buyers entered, sellers were also unloading. Bullish in the short term; in the medium term, it comes down to a race between the “accumulation speed vs. unlock speed.”
I. The three implications of this move
Demand side: $167 million bought at market price—not a paper commitment; every purchase reduces the circulating supply
Signal side: A Nasdaq-listed company is backing it with its balance sheet—the same logic as Strategy buying BTC, which the market will interpret as “the people who understand HYPE best are willing to keep adding”
Flywheel side: More importantly, approximately $14.58 million in USDC revenue has been transferred to the assistance fund for HYPE buybacks under the AQAv2 framework—buyback funds are decoupled from trading volume, so buybacks can continue even on low-volume days. Most protocols lock treasury revenue in multisig wallets or distribute subsidies; Hyperliquid directly cycles its revenue back into the token.
II. Don’t just look at the buying: the other hand that same week
On 9/30, Hyperliquid Labs (the foundation wallet) unstaked 3.75 million HYPE (about $330 million)—a routine withdrawal of staking interest, but its nature is “unlocking”; these tokens could hit the market at any time.
So HYPE is now in a “two-way race”:
Bulls: Publicly listed company accumulation ($167 million per purchase) + buybacks ($14.58 million/month) + trading-fee buybacks
Bears: Foundation unlocks ($330 million) + early holders taking profits
In the short term, the token price will favor whoever moves faster.
III. Two risks to watch
Unlock pressure is ongoing: 3.75 million tokens was just a “routine withdrawal”—larger unlocks are still queued up. Accumulation is buying, while unlocking is selling; don’t treat “accumulation bullishness” as a reason to go blindly long.
“A publicly listed company buying its own token” is a double-edged sword: token price rises → treasury market value rises → it dares to keep buying (positive cycle); token price falls → treasury shrinks → financial statements look worse → it is forced to reduce its holdings (negative cycle).
$81-88 is the observation range for this race.
IV. Conclusion
The accumulation is a tangible positive: “institutional-grade buying + confidence backing,” while AQAv2 makes the buyback flywheel more resilient—but with 330 million tokens unlocked and queued up on the other side that same week, HYPE’s core tension has shifted from “is anyone buying?” to “who is buying faster or selling faster?”
Bullish thesis: Holding above $88 + continued monthly accumulation by the publicly listed company + diversification of buyback funding—the path to $100+ in the medium term remains intact.
Risk level: $81 (the 50-day moving average) is key support—breaking below it means unlock pressure exceeds accumulation buying power, so exit first; $95-100 is the previous-high resistance zone.
Strategy: Don’t chase the price—publicly listed company purchases are “dollar-cost averaging”; you should learn from it: scale in on a pullback to $82-85, reduce at $95+, and don’t go all-in at once.
Reminder: The intraday wick on the day of bullish accumulation news is often the most brutal.
Finally: HYPE’s narrative has evolved from a “decentralized exchange” into a “public-company treasury + buyback flywheel”—the story is more attractive now, but don’t forget that it also contains 37 million tokens held by “insiders”; they understand better than you when to sell. #每周来晒 $HYPE ‌

#TRUMP团队8个月套现2.49亿美元 This is the “classic script” for celebrity coins, not news
On-chain data shows that wallets linked to the TRUMP team transferred approximately 81.87 million TRUMP to bm, OK, and other CEXs over the past 8 months, worth approximately $249 million at the time of transfer (average price: $3.04). This is not a “sudden negative catalyst,” but rather the data finally confirming that the “draining machine” has been running for 8 months—the key figures are: the team controls 80% of the allocation (800 million tokens), and this transfer involved only 81.87 million tokens (approximately 10%), leaving approximately 718 million tokens in the wallets.
In other words, cashing out $249 million is merely an “appetizer.” At $3, there is still more than $2 billion in potential selling pressure sitting in the team’s wallets. For anyone buying TRUMP, the true counterparty is not the shorts, but the issuer itself.
The structure of TRUMP: a total supply of 1 billion, with the team/creators receiving 80% (800 million tokens) while retail investors receive 20% with unlocking requirements—this is a game where the issuer always has 8 times more tokens than you.
This cash-out:
8 months, in batches, transferred to CEXs—not a one-time dump, but “continuous drainage”: whenever the market rallies a little, some tokens are transferred to exchanges for sale
​Average price of $3.04—even if the team “sold cheaply,” it still pocketed $249 million; what about retail investors who bought at $10, $20, or $50?
​Historical reference: A Senate investigation showed that approximately 1 million retail investors collectively lost $3.8 billion on this project, while Trump earned approximately $636 million from TRUMP—this is not a coincidence, but a structural feature.
Three direct impacts on the token price
Impact one: Continuous selling pressure, with a clear ceiling. The team’s wallets still hold 718 million tokens—every rally provides the team with a “better exit price.” This is the “sword of Damocles” hanging over TRUMP, and the underlying reason it has fallen from its ATH of $74 to its current level (just a fraction of the high).
Impact two: Positive catalysts become “exit windows.” The “crypto dinner” a few days ago (which invited the top 185 holders) sparked a rally—but the market quickly realized that the rally driven by the event news was precisely a window for the team to continue transferring tokens.
The pattern of celebrity coins: positive news ≈ cover for the issuer to sell.
Impact three: Regulatory narrative intensifies. TRUMP has already become a focal topic in the Senate’s CLARITY Act debate—each confirmed instance of the “team cashing out” adds fuel to tighter regulation, putting pressure on the entire “political celebrity meme coin” sector.
The TRUMP team cashing out $249 million is not news, but an inevitability as the “celebrity coin cycle” reaches its midpoint—the issuer makes money, retail investors pay the bill, and regulators close in. It teaches everyone buying “political celebrity meme coins” a lesson: when the issuer holds 80% of the tokens, you are not investing—you are providing liquidity for someone else’s cash-out plan. $TRUMP ‌