$ETH (per request) Just hanging out mid-range.. Looks like it can test range highs.

$ETH BREAKS OUT FROM RANGE TREND FIRMLY BULLISH $ETH /USDT LONG Leverage: 10x Entry Zone: 2,715 – 2,760 TP1: 2,807 +18% TP2: 2,850 +35% TP3: 2,900 +53% Stop Loss: 2,674 Chart Structure • Strong breakout from a long, choppy consolidation range (~2,326–2,530) into a sharp impulsive rally to a fresh high of 2,807.34 • Sharp rejection off the top pulled price back to 2,754.46, -1.59% on the day, now consolidating right at MA7 (2,747.84) • MA7, MA25 (2,673.93), and MA99 (2,531.45) are all rising steeply and cleanly stacked bullishly, confirming a strong trend across all timeframes • Massive volume behind the move (829.60M USDT 24h turnover) adds strong conviction to the breakout • Prior consolidation zone (2,427–2,530) now acts as a solid support shelf well beneath current price • A close back above 2,807 confirms continuation toward 2,850–2,900; losing the MA7/MA25 cluster (~2,674–2,748) risks a deeper retracement • Confidence: MEDIUM-HIGH blue-chip with clean multi-timeframe trend alignment, strong volume, and confirmed breakout structure $ETH ‌#AMDMarketCapTops1Trillion

Rollback and burn vs. hard fork and release: If CORE had chosen to “flip the table” back then, how many times higher would its valuation be now? ⚠️This article is based solely on publicly available on-chain information and does not constitute investment advice. The 8.31 incident presented the CORE project with two mutually exclusive choices: Option A (the actual choice): Move forward with a hard fork to patch the vulnerability, without rolling back or burning the 69 million “phantom” tokens that had already been released. Preserve the decentralized narrative that “the ledger cannot be altered,” but permanently leave an overhanging sell pressure. Option B (the hypothetical “flip the table” option): Hard fork and selectively roll back/burn the attacker’s excess tokens, directly wiping out the 69 million phantom tokens. Fix the token release curve once and for all, but take on the massive controversy that “the project can arbitrarily modify on-chain assets.” Many people would think: As long as this batch of tokens were burned, the supply risk would disappear and the valuation would immediately double. But the real world is not that simple. This issue has two major sides, just like Ethereum’s The DAO fork back then: after the fork, one chain was reborn while the other split into ETC. What would have been the benefits of choosing rollback and burn back then? 1. Tokenomics would be directly repaired, eliminating the biggest hidden bomb The 69 million low-cost tokens released ahead of schedule would have been burned, restoring the token release curve to the 81-year schedule set out in the white paper. The scarcity narrative around the 2.1 billion hard supply cap would have become effective again. In institutional valuation models, the massive potential sell pressure that could not be quantified would have been reduced to zero, allowing risk controls to be incorporated into the assessment again. Capital in the BTCFi sector would reassess CORE instead of rejecting it outright. ​ 2. Market trust would be restored and retail confidence would recover The market’s biggest concern is that any rally will be met with selling by large holders. With the phantom tokens gone, the ceiling for an uptrend would open up, and during sector rotations, capital would be willing to assign a higher valuation premium. ​ 3. Compared with the current situation: CORE’s valuation is continuously discounted because of token allocation risk A large part of CORE’s current market discount comes from the 69 million phantom tokens. If the token issue were resolved once and for all, its valuation under a neutral bull-market scenario could rise by 1.8–2.5x. Note: This is a valuation-repair premium, not a direct 2.5x increase in the token price. The overall bull or bear market in the sector and BTCFi sentiment would remain decisive factors. But! The “flip the table” option comes with two devastating side effects (which many people overlook) 1. The decentralization narrative would be directly damaged, and CORE would be labeled as “centralized and able to arbitrarily alter the ledger” CORE positions itself as a decentralized public blockchain powered by Bitcoin’s computing power. Once the project could selectively burn tokens from certain addresses through a hard fork, the market would reach a consensus: whenever the project deems something inappropriate, it could modify anyone’s wallet balance at any time. The core belief of the BTCFi sector is Bitcoin’s immutability. Once CORE actively rewrote the ledger, some conviction-driven nodes, community developers, and Bitcoin-native supporters would abandon the chain outright. A chain split could even occur, with some nodes continuing to run the old chain and forming CORE Classic. The Ethereum DAO incident is a reference point: ETC split off after the fork. ​ 2. Distinguishing addresses would be extremely difficult, making it easy to wrongly target innocent retail holders After the vulnerability occurred, some of the excess tokens had already circulated through DEXs and exchanges. Wallet addresses could not distinguish whether their holders were the original attackers or ordinary retail users who had bought on the secondary market. If all the tokens were burned indiscriminately, the assets of innocent holders would be wiped out, triggering large-scale complaints and lawsuits, while exchanges would reassess the risks of listing the token. Three scenario projections: What if CORE had chosen to burn the phantom tokens back then? - Optimistic scenario (high community consensus with no large-scale node split): 2–2.5x valuation premium. The phantom-token risk disappears, institutional capital returns, and when the BTCFi market takes off, CORE’s upside approaches MERL, with no further token-allocation discount. Premise: a complete governance process and a high proportion of node votes in favor. ​ - Neutral scenario (fierce community arguments, with a small number of nodes splitting off): 1.2–1.7x valuation premium. The supply risk is resolved, but the centralization controversy continues to suppress the valuation. Only part of the discount can be repaired, preventing a full return to the valuation of an unblemished public blockchain. ​ - Pessimistic scenario (nodes reject the upgrade on a large scale and the chain splits): The valuation falls instead. One chain splits into two, liquidity is fragmented, the community is divided, and capital is diverted, potentially leaving the fundamentals even worse than they are now. Compared with reality: The project chose the conservative option, sacrificing valuation to preserve the unity of the chain The project ultimately chose to move forward with a hard fork without rolling back or burning the tokens. Essentially, it prioritized avoiding a chain split and protecting the decentralization narrative, but permanently accepted the token-allocation discount. Viewed through Marx’s line that “one step of actual action is worth more than a dozen programs”: the project preserved the superficial outcome of the chain continuing to produce blocks, but did not take practical action to resolve the phantom-token issue. No matter how many announcements were made, the market valuation discount remained. One-sentence summary If CORE had hard-forked to burn the 69 million excess tokens back then, the best outcome would have been a valuation increase of around 2x, but there would also have been a significant chance of triggering a chain split and destroying the ecosystem’s value instead. The phantom tokens are merely the biggest of CORE’s many fundamental weaknesses; even if they were removed, issues such as inflated ecosystem data and weak endogenous staking revenue would still exist. Clean token allocation is a plus, but it does not mean the project would immediately enter a sustained bull-market uptrend. Closing question: Do you think CORE had a third compromise option back then—one that would neither roll back the ledger nor fail to properly constrain this batch of phantom tokens?