2026-01-08 08:20:44

#MSCI未排除数字资产财库企业纳入范围 Yesterday's review of the idea: the long position at 3185 almost entered, but I didn't get in. Since that's the case, I might as well open a short at the support level of 3150, add to the position at 3180, and set the stop loss at 3220. The lower target is focused on the 3100 to 3060 range, watching which level gets hit first. $BTC $ETH 's trend still depends on these key levels to guide the direction.

BTC1,27%

ETH-0,09%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

21 Likes

Reward
21
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

InscriptionGriller

· 01-11 03:35

Hey, the 3150 short position hasn't been liquidated yet. This brother's guts are really big. But speaking of which, MSCI is about to include digital assets. When institutions really start to buy the dip, our group of retail investors' short positions will just become chopped leeks.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-addcaaf7

· 01-10 14:31

Entering the 3150 short position in this wave. If 3100 isn't broken, consider taking profits. Don't be too greedy.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-0717ab66

· 01-08 08:50

Add to short position at 3150 and increase at 3180. Whether we can hold above 3100 depends on the subsequent trading volume.

View OriginalReply0

WalletWhisperer

· 01-08 08:40

ngl the pattern recognition here is almost too clean... 3150 support getting tested again feels like watching whale clustering before a cascade. those price levels aren't random—they're behavioral anchors. curious if the address profiling on the accumulation phase matches this directional thesis or if we're just seeing algorithmic footprints masquerading as "support."

Reply0

MetaverseHermit

· 01-08 08:34

Short position at 3150 plus 3180, stop loss at 3220... Can this strategy hold until 3060? Feels uncertain.

View OriginalReply0