📊 BTC’s 1-Year Journey: From $126K ATH to $57K Low
Bitcoin’s one-year journey is a strong reminder of market volatility. From around $114K in October 2025 to an ATH near $126K, followed by a major correction, BTC showed how quickly sentiment can change.
My lesson: Don’t put your entire portfolio into one trade. Keep some funds in reserve, protect profits, use proper position sizing, and avoid emotional decisions. Markets will always give another opportunity—protecting your capital should come first.
Life Is One's In This World Respect & Share Love With All Others🌱🍁🌱 Thankyou All Friends 🤍💚#SNM_Khan $ZEC Follow Repost This Post Claim Surprise Reward Box 🎁🎁
Life Is One's In This World Respect & Share Love With All Others🌱🍁🌱 Thankyou All Friends 🤍💚#SNM_Khan $ZEC Follow Repost This Post Claim Surprise Reward Box 🎁🎁
Life Is One's In This World Respect & Share Love With All Others🌱🍁🌱 Thankyou All Friends 🤍💚#SNM_Khan $ZEC Follow Repost This Post Claim Surprise Reward Box 🎁🎁
Electrum has released security update v4.8.2, but some Bitcoin self-custody users still need to take manual action by updating their channel backups.
A defect in older backup files could prevent users from recovering funds in anchor channels if a remote peer suddenly closes the channel. Because non-deterministic Lightning keys cannot be recreated strictly from a wallet seed, individual channel exports and full-wallet backups created under specific conditions lack the critical payment-key data needed to sweep coins back to the main blockchain.
This primarily impacts wallets using BIP39 seeds, imported private keys, or Electrum wallets generated prior to version 4.1.
For active Lightning network users, backup integrity is critical. A failure to sweep outputs after an unannounced channel closure directly puts user balances at risk, serving as a reminder that off-chain scaling solutions still require careful backup management.
Have you checked your Electrum Lightning backup settings recently, or do you prefer fully automated channel management?
A new study comparing Solana liquidity venues reveals a sharp performance split between professional operator pools (propAMMs) and public automated market makers (AMMs).
According to research covering September 2025 through August 2026, propAMMs recorded an execution cost proxy of just 0.26 basis points during quiet market conditions, compared to 2.59 basis points for public AMMs.
For traders, lower costs mean better price execution when swapping assets like SOL and USDC. However, the dynamics look very different for liquidity providers. The paper highlights two-second gross maker markouts of +0.37 basis points for propAMMs versus −0.22 basis points for public AMMs, showing that passive depositors in public pools remain more exposed to adverse selection.
While propAMMs clearly offer tighter pricing and better protection against stale quotes, low execution costs alone don't guarantee a strong investment case for passive pool depositors supplying the underlying inventory.
Which liquidity model do you prefer when trading on Solana, and do you think public AMMs will adapt to better protect passive LPs?