Orbit: Crypto Community Feed
$CRV surged today, is it worth shorting now?
$CRV 今天涨了很多，目前已经是涨幅榜第一了。 如果按照过去几天的情况，它是到不了涨幅榜第一的，因为过去几天有很多其他的山寨表现非常好。 今天没有了，那些表现好的山寨基本都萎靡不振的。 这也印证了我之前说的一件事，目前市场的流动性在撤退，很难有能保持一直涨的山寨。 不过，一般这种情况下，市场就要合力推出妖币了。 我们这篇文章不讲妖币，我们来讨论讨论$CRV 后续的表现会怎样？ —————————————————— 我们看一下它的合约数据。 我们可以发现，它的持仓量是有两轮上涨的，对应的合约多空比都是处于下降趋势的。 这说明，伴随着$CRV 的上涨，市场是出现了很多做空的资金。 我们再看一下它长一点时间的数据。 我们可以发现，它的持仓量是处于稳步上涨的情况，多空比是先增后长。 这说明，在昨天下午是有一部分资金做多的。 不过，$CRV 上涨所带来的做空资金已经能够压住这些做多资金了。 我们再来看一下$BICO 和$CRV 上涨的对比。 可以发现，它们的大致走势还是比较像的，只不过$CRV 没有那么大的涨幅。 那现在情况其实已经很明朗了，目前来看的话，$CRV 应该是处于一个较高的位置的。
Influential Creator
When everyone starts going crazy
$SPCX will give a big surprise
Some are already seeing 150-170, which is really absurd
Tesla's stock is already ignored, but SPCX is very hot
Can you keep hyping it just because it's hot? What if the hype cools down?
Many people are already getting carried away, but I still remain bearish
Don't worry about whether I'll get liquidated, worry about whether you can make money
The less capital and the smaller the courage and vision, the more you act like a clown
If you think you can short, then short; if you think you can go long, then go long
I'm just expressing my personal opinion
Good stocks need to go through trials; relying on hype will end badly sooner or later
#财报观察员：空头回补成焦点，SpaceX后续怎么看？
Snapshot at 11 Aug 2026, 09:34
Most people say that staking 42 million ETH is a supply positive, but I don't see it that way.
The staked amount has surpassed 42 million, accounting for nearly 35% of the total supply. Many accounts say: ETH is becoming increasingly scarce, supply is locked, and price pressure is reduced.
I understand this logic; on the surface, it does hold true. But if you look closely at what has happened with Ethereum this year, you'll find that behind the surge in staking rate is a more complex, even somewhat ironic story.
On August 4th, Justin Drake, along with five other Ethereum Foundation researchers, submitted EIP-8361. The core mechanism is "Tapered Issuance Burn": as the staking ratio rises, the proportion of validator rewards that are burned also increases, until the staked amount reaches 50% of the total supply (about 60.25 million ETH), at which point new consensus layer issuance drops to zero.
This proposal made me think for a long time.
On the surface, EIP-8361 addresses the problem of "over-staking leading to centralization"—indeed, when 35% of ETH is locked in staking contracts, and Lido alone accounts for over 30% of validator share, the centralization risk is real.
But here’s the question: who is most disadvantaged by this proposal?
The ones most disadvantaged are those currently staking. If you stake ETH today, you earn about 3.5%-4% annualized yield. Once EIP-8361 passes and staking rates continue to climb, your rewards will be automatically diluted by the system until they reach zero at the 50% threshold. In other words, the more people stake, the faster they push the critical point where their own rewards diminish.
It’s a bit like the story of everyone desperately pouring water into a pool, unaware that the pool has an ever-growing leak.
Now, regarding the DeFi side. Ethereum staking’s base yield has long been regarded as the "risk-free rate anchor" in the DeFi world—interest rate pricing for lending protocols like Aave and Compound is, to some extent, referenced to this anchor. If EIP-8361 pushes this base yield down or even to zero, liquid staking projects that rely on Ethereum staking yields as their product narrative (Lido, Rocket Pool) and LRT protocols (EigenLayer’s EIGEN staking logic) will face valuation shocks.
Community controversy over EIP-8361 is still significant. On the Ethereum Magicians forum, some voices directly say: the proposal was submitted just before the Hegotá upgrade deadline, leaving seriously insufficient time for community discussion. This is not an ordinary parameter adjustment; it is a fundamental change to Ethereum’s monetary policy, yet it was pushed through like an emergency bill. This procedural issue alone deserves separate caution.
My current judgment is: the probability of EIP-8361 being implemented in 2026 is low, but its very existence already casts a question mark over ETH’s "monetary expectations"—what exactly will Ethereum’s future issuance policy be? Who decides? This uncertainty creates friction for institutions allocating ETH.
This is my understanding at this stage, but I leave myself a 30% chance to reverse because if EIP-8361 passes in a modified form with a sufficiently long transition period (the proposal mentions 18 months), the impact might be milder than I expect. For those following ETH staking mechanisms, do you think the impact on the DeFi side will be more severe than the consensus layer issuance itself, or not so much?
#现货ETF资金分化，BTC卖压仍在
Brothers, today I invested ¥2150 to buy 3.3 OKB, and now I have 242. I aim to break through 300 OKB this month; this is my goal for the month. Those who are still willing to stay in this circle and keep hustling today must be clearer-headed than before and must have stronger faith than before. It's not because there is definitely gold everywhere here, nor because every project is trustworthy, but because this market has truly changed the fate of many ordinary people before. $ETH $BTC
Zero downtime throughout, OKX "moved" its core trading system to another country!
OKX founder and CEO Star announced on X that the platform completed a cross-border core trading system migration last week.
During the entire process, there was no perceptible downtime on the user side; the main impact was a brief increase in trading latency, lasting about 30 to 40 minutes.
This fully demonstrates the strong capabilities of the OKX team. The challenge lies in the crypto market running 24/7 without the maintenance windows available after traditional financial market closures.
The exchange migration involved not only servers and related code but also order status, account balances, market data, risk control, and API connections.
Any data desynchronization at any stage could cause duplicate orders, abnormal asset displays, or even trigger erroneous liquidations!
From the results, the brief latency indicates the migration was not completely "invisible," but the system remained available throughout, with no interruption to data or trading, which is still a highly challenging engineering feat for a large trading platform.
The team believes this might be the industry's first migration of this scale under similar business conditions.
The migration did not disclose the specific countries involved nor the regulatory or business reasons behind it, so excessive speculation is unwarranted.
However, this reflects OKX's efforts to strengthen cross-regional deployment, disaster recovery switching, and infrastructure resilience.
For exchanges, handling traffic during market surges is just the first hurdle; the real long-term operational strength lies in the system's ability to upgrade and migrate without downtime!
$OKB
$HOME plummeted! Can we short it now?
$HOME 在今天凌晨的时候，往上暴涨暴跌了一次。 我认为，现在还不能够去追空。 我甚至认为，现在可以进去抄底。 为什么我会这么想呢？ 想要回答这个问题，我们需要去看一些数据。 —————————————————— 我们看一下它的合约数据。 可以发现，它的持仓量是呈现先上升后下降的趋势，它的多空比是呈现先下降后上升的趋势。 这说明，在凌晨上涨的时候，市场是出现了一批空头，目前这批空头也已经止盈了。 同时，从数据最后的结果来，我认为在下跌阶段是有一批多头积累下来的。 我们再看一下它短时间的合约数据。 可以发现，它的持仓量是有很多次上涨阶段的，对应的合约多空比多数都是上涨的。 这说明，即便是在现在的位置，也许有很多资金愿意去做多的。 我们再去看一下它六月初上涨的走势。 可以发现，这个币在高位上下震荡的幅度非常的大。 目前来看，$HOME 还没有这种大幅震荡的阶段。 这就意味着，如果按照之前的那一轮走势来看，现在应该还是没有到高点的。 —————————————————— 我个人是想要做多的$HOME 。 我在很多篇文章里讲，说现在要慎重的抄底一些币。 但是，慎重不等于不去抄底。 我个人目前
Influential Creator
$BTC Is the sentiment really this bad now? Yesterday I saw BTC stagnating, and I thought maybe all the funds were waiting on the CPI. But the CPI hasn't even been released yet, and it already dropped below 64,000 last night? I guess some institutions are betting on the CPI exceeding expectations.
1. This week's market mainly depends on tomorrow's CPI data: the expectation is a year-over-year 3.42%, core 2.52%. If it's below expectations, it could mean no rate hike or even a rate cut, and BTC would go up; if it exceeds expectations, it will break below 62,000.
2. Institutions had net inflows yesterday, indicating some funds are withdrawing, probably because some institutions speculate the CPI data will exceed expectations. The current fear and greed index is 31, sentiment is positive, so retail investors probably won't run.
3. Regarding the CPI data and last week's non-farm payroll data, some friends asked if there could be falsification. It's actually quite possible, but consider this: government falsification is also to serve monetary policy. Non-farm payroll and CPI data themselves are meant to serve normal monetary functions, so even if falsified, interpreting policy from the data is still reasonable.
But I don't recommend betting on the CPI in advance, because retail investors' information sources are still much worse than institutions. Don't turn investing into a game of betting on size or luck. #本周三CPI公布，9月加息定价会改写吗？
Key points: Some thoughts on this altcoin season:
Playing this altcoin cycle with the logic of the last altcoin cycle will inevitably lead to a mental breakdown.
What everyone thinks about the altcoin season:
1. Like the last cycle, all coins rise, whether new or old coins.
2. The increase matches the last cycle's rise; only then is it called a rise, only then is it called an altcoin season.
In fact, many altcoin sectors in this bull market are already relatively large. If you haven't made money, it's because:
1. You missed the rhythm and missed the explosive sectors.
2. You entered late, with a high cost basis.
For example, if you bought wld at 9u or ordi at 70u and call them trash, saying there's no altcoin season, look at how much they've risen from the bottom to the highest point. Why didn't you buy earlier?
The two altcoins above belong to the local hotspot altcoin season.
Those holding onto old coins shouldn't fantasize that all old coins will reach or even break their previous highs; not every coin is inj.
Most old coins have already exited the historical stage, but in the final phase of the bull market, they will still have a spike to show respect to the bull market.
Orbit Media Partner
When a very busy big shot suddenly posts a long article, there’s usually a reason.
First, Huang went on Twitter to post, then Zuckerberg wrote a 6,500-word long article in one go. Recently, both have been emphasizing the same thing: open source.
Yesterday, Zuckerberg published a long article titled "The Future Belongs to Everyone," and on the same day, Meta open-sourced the new model Muse Glimmer, also previewing that stronger model weights will be released soon.
The core of the long article is one sentence: superintelligence should not be concentrated in the hands of a few companies; it should be distributed to everyone, becoming a personal super assistant.
It sounds great. But looking at Meta’s overall actions, it’s very clear.
Open-sourcing model weights means actively lowering the barrier for others to make products;
At the same time, they continue to lock in computing power, glasses, social data, and advertising systems. The easier it is for others to use your model, the harder it becomes to bypass your ecosystem for monetization in the end.
This is completely opposite to OpenAI and Anthropic’s insistence on closed source and emphasis on "safe and controllable" approaches. Both sides use the "safety" narrative to serve their own business models: one says centralization is safe, the other says decentralization is safe.
The louder they say "The future belongs to everyone," the more you need to see clearly who is defining the rules and who is collecting the toll.
Techflow
The big shot started the account, and the effect was immediate.
Jensen Huang posted his first-ever post on X, and within a few hours, it had already reached 17.42 million views.
The post was a repost of an open letter signed by NVIDIA titled "Why AI Needs Open Weights."
The stance of this letter is almost directly opposed to the one Google DeepMind CEO @demishassabis posted ten days ago.
Hassabis advocates for establishing a standard organization where all cutting-edge models, including China's DeepSeek and Qwen, must pass safety assessments set by the U.S. before going public.
Jensen Huang's letter, on the other hand, argues that open weights are the right direction and that restrictions should not be imposed.
There is a passage in the letter that I think is quite good, roughly stating that relying solely on closed-source models is not inherently safer; they can also be hacked, misused, or fail in ways undetectable to outsiders. Concentrating advanced AI in a few closed-source models only creates more single points of failure.
Additionally, the letter defends "distillation," saying it is a legitimate model improvement technique, consistent with the tradition of open-source software, and should not be confused with theft. Those who understand know who this is defending.
If you still don’t get it, just look at the list of signatories of this open letter.
Signatories include NVIDIA, Meta, Microsoft, a16z, Hugging Face, Mistral, Y Combinator.
Non-signatories include OpenAI, Anthropic, Google.
The two camps of AI openness vs. closed-source models have now publicly taken sides.
$865 million flowed into $BTC ETFs, so why is BTC still not rising? The answer might be more important than "institutional accumulation."
From August 3 to 7, U.S. spot BTC ETFs saw a cumulative net inflow of about $865 million, with BlackRock contributing approximately $694 million; ETH ETFs also had a net inflow of about $244 million during the same period.
But BTC is still only around $64,100.
The reason is: ETFs are just part of the buying side.
#CPIToResetFedBets #BTCETHETFFlowsDiverge #AIInfraFundingDiverges