On Friday, January 31st, in the New York session, the CME BTC futures BTC Market Maker contract was reported at $103,000, a 2.45% fall from the New York session on Thursday. The intraday trading range was in the range of $90,195 to $111,000, with a cumulative rise of 7.71% in January. Spot BTC has risen by approximately 9% in January, falling to $89,329.19 on January 13th and rebounding, reaching $109,000 on January 20th, followed by high volatility. The CME Ether futures DCR Market Maker contract was reported at $3,346.00, a 5.67% rise from Thursday, with a cumulative fall of 1.92% in January, trading in the range of $3,820.00 to $2,950.00.

Golden Finance reported that at the end of New York on Friday (November 10), the main CME Bitcoin futures BTC contract was reported at $37,565, up 2.06% from the end of New York on Thursday, and up 7.93% this week, and the overall trading was in the range of $34,755-$38,380. The main CME Ether futures DCR contract was at $2,112.50, up 1.73% from Thursday and up 9.54% this week, trading in the $1,863-$2,154 range overall.

Jinse Finance reported that the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has issued a staff advisory letter to registered derivatives clearing organizations (DCOs) and DCO applicants, reminding them of the risks associated with expanding the scope of their activities. The letter from the CFTC’s Division of Clearing and Risk (DCR) is specific to digital assets. A staff advisory letter can remind recipients of their legal obligations or clarify those obligations. “DCR expects DCOs and applicants to proactively identify new, changing or unique risks and implement risk mitigation measures. Over the past few years, DCR has observed interest in expanding the types of clearing products and lines of business offered by DCOs, clearing There is growing interest in models and services, including those related to digital assets." DCR stated that it will emphasize three aspects of compliance, system assurance, conflict of interest and physical delivery. System safeguards require attention due to the "higher cyber and other operational risks" associated with digital assets. Potential conflicts of interest manifest in "dependence on affiliated entities or services (i.e. double executive, shared systems and resources, etc.)".

Golden Finance reported that Justin Bons, the founder of Cyber Capital, said on social media that Ethereum is facing a serious dilemma, and the large-scale misalignment of the incentive mechanism is the cause of deep corruption. Driven by Layer 2 pouring money into the ecosystem, it overwhelms Layer 1 money. The difference between millions and tens of billions is the reason why ETH abandons Layer 1 scaling, which is natural, and we should expect any systemic scale. The problem is, in this case, it led ETH to go the wrong way, which is why it is a perverse incentive for developers, influencers and leaders to earn more income in the short term by following the Layer 2 narrative, While Layer 2 earns more by supporting a narrative that limits Layer 1 capacity, supporting scaling exclusively through Layer 2 creates a clear conflict of interest between the long-term success of the Ethereum network and the short-term profits of Layer 2. I would suggest that Ethereum go back to Layer 1 scaling via Roll-ups or perform sharding, I should also mention ZKEVM, which is still under the radar of ETH developers and can scale to Layer 1. However, it is too far in development to be considered viable at this time. What we need is on-chain governance that directs funds from block rewards to decentralized vaults. This would create a Layer 1 leaning funding source capable of competing with opposing interests, an approach already tested by established public chains such as XTZ, DASH, and DCR.