FrionKing

Nếu bạn nghĩ “đầu tư crypto” là mua Bitcoin hay Ethereum rồi cầu mong nó tăng giá…
Thì bạn đang không đầu tư -> Bạn đang đánh bạc.
Mình nói điều này không phải để dọa. Mà vì mình đã thấy tận mắt:
Người ta kiếm cả triệu đô nhờ thị trường lên.Mua xe xịn, nhà to.Rồi 18 tháng sau quay lại trắng tay. Một số còn dính vào nợ nần.
Tại sao?
Vì kiếm được tiền không có nghĩa là biết giữ tiền.Không ai dạy họ cách làm chủ tài chính trước khi giàu.Nên khi giàu, sai lầm cũng đắt giá hơn.Kinh nghiệm từ người trong cuộc
Mình đầu tư crypto từ năm 2019.
Và đây là sự khác biệt giữa người thắng cuộc và thua lỗ:
Người thắng:
Biết giữ đồng nàoNé đồng nàoDám chấp nhận rủi ro có tính toán
Người thua:
Mua coin đang trendRồi cầu nguyệnKhông phải crypto nào cũng giống nhau
Crypto có:
Stablecoin: neo theo đô laBlue-chip như Bitcoin, Ethereum với ứng dụng thực tếRác: coin trend, coin hot, coin “hứa hẹn”
Rủi ro mỗi loại khác nhau hoàn toàn.
🔴 Nhưng người mới không biết. Họ chỉ thấy coin nào đang “x5 x10”, coin HOT là nhào vô.
Bài học về thời điểm:
Năm 1990, cổ phiếu Apple chỉ ~$1.2.Giữ đến hôm nay? > 4 triệu đô.Bitcoin năm 2016 chỉ ~$400.Giờ? > $100,000.Người mua sớm dù chỉ vài chục đô vẫn thắng.
Vậy nên:
Không quan trọng bạn đầu tư bao nhiêu, mà là khi nào bạn bắt đầu, và bạn tích được bao nhiêu.Nếu bạn đang nghĩ “Tôi không có nhiều tiền để đầu tư…”
Hãy thử thế này:
Bớt vài ly cafe mỗi tuầnBớt ăn hàng một thángTiết kiệm 50k – 200k
-> Nếu mất, không ảnh hưởng cuộc sống.
-> Nhưng nếu đúng thời điểm, đó có thể là khoản sinh lời lớn nhất bạn từng có.
Câu hỏi thật sự nên là:
Không phải: “Tôi có nên đầu tư không?”
Mà là:
Bạn có thể tiếp tục sống mà không hiểu gì về tài chính không?
Một điều ít người biết:
Crypto được chia thành 4 nhóm rủi ro:
1. Rủi ro thấp
2. Rủi ro trung bình thấp
3. Rủi ro trung bình
4. Rủi ro cao
Mỗi nhóm có những đồng phù hợp.
Người mới không phân biệt được → mất tiền → đổ lỗi “Crypto là lừa đảo”.
Không, Crypto không lừa ai cả.Chỉ có sự thiếu hiểu biết là cái giá quá đắt.
Mình mất vài năm để học cách đánh giá crypto:
Market capUse caseCơ chế vận hànhĐộ ứng dụngMức độ rủi ro
👉🏻 Phần lớn mọi người sẽ lướt qua bài viết này. Và sẽ nói " cái kết cũng chỉ là lùa gà "
- Một số ít sẽ dừng lại để tìm hiểu và quan sát.
- Và đó cũng là sự khác biệt lớn nhất giữa người giàu và phần còn lại.
- Nên mình muốn hỏi bạn câu này. Câu mà mình được nghe từ người thầy vĩ đại của mình từng hỏi:
💪🏻Bạn muốn trở thành ai?
$BTC $BNB #bitcoin

Lịch sử tài chính có một thói quen kỳ lạ nhưng đều đặn:
Mỗi khi thế giới có biến động lớn về tiền tệ, dòng tiền thông minh không nhảy ngay vào Bitcoin. Nó sẽ “dừng chân” ở vàng trước như một nơi trú ẩn an toàn.
Và rồi, khi vàng bắt đầu tăng mạnh như bây giờ, nó đang báo hiệu một thứ gì đó đang tới.
💰 Vàng vừa lập đỉnh lịch sử. Các ngân hàng trung ương trên thế giới đang âm thầm gom vàng. Căng thẳng toàn cầu tăng, rủi ro tăng. Dòng tiền đổ về vàng là điều dễ hiểu.
👉🏻 Nhưng Bitcoin thì vẫn còn đang “ngủ đông”. Điều này không mới vì trong các chu kỳ trước, cũng chính lúc Vàng đi trước, Bitcoin đi sau là khi những cú breakout lớn của $BTC xảy ra.
Kịch bản này đang lặp lại.
👉 Một khi vàng không còn dư địa tăng hoặc nguồn cung khan hiếm thì dòng tiền sẽ bắt đầu tìm nơi có biên độ lợi nhuận lớn hơn: đó chính là Bitcoin.
📊 Quỹ ETF Bitcoin spot hiện nay đang hút lượng mua lớn hơn cả lượng Bitcoin được đào ra.
Và nếu “lịch sử lặp lại theo vần” như Mark Twain từng nói, thì:
Vàng là tín hiệu.
Bitcoin là cú nổ. 🚀
$BTC $XAU

I have been in this market long enough to learn one blunt truth. Narratives are unlimited, but PMF is rare. A project can talk beautifully about privacy, about compliance, about the future of on chain finance, but when you zoom in on reality, the questions become simple. Do people use it consistently, is there real flow, does it run inside real processes. With Dusk Network, I do not look at it as a trend trade. I look at it as an infrastructure problem, if it is solved correctly, it survives multiple cycles, if it is solved poorly, it stays a thesis forever.Dusk’s thesis is clear and it is expensive. Privacy with control. Conditional assets, transferable, but still rule bound. A system where you can prove what must be proven, without exposing the entire dataset to the public. It sounds simple, but anyone who has built for businesses knows the hardest part is not the slogan, it is making it operational in an environment constrained by law, audit requirements, and reputation risk. Have you ever seen an institution reject a solution simply because they could not defend it to their compliance team.But let’s be honest, has Dusk reached PMF. If you define PMF like retail, hundreds of thousands of daily users, fees rising, activity exploding, then no. If you define PMF like financial infrastructure, fewer customers, but customers with process, budget, and long life cycles, then Dusk is in the transition zone. Its positioning is coherent, but PMF evidence must come from real deployments, real partners, and use cases where shutting it off would cause pain. I always use one simple test. If the project disappeared tomorrow, who would panic and call first. If the answer is not obvious, PMF is not locked in.What I respect about Dusk is that it is not trying to prove it is alive by chasing memes. It chose the hard route, building mechanisms where privacy is not the enemy of compliance, but a tool for compliance. That direction fits institutional flow, because institutions do not need to show data, they need to control risk. They need to know who is allowed to transact, under what conditions, and when an audit hits, they need to prove compliance without leaking business secrets. Do you notice that as more serious capital moves on chain, the missing piece is not speed, it is operational safety.So where is Dusk’s solution. Dusk aims to package rule sets into the asset and the transaction path itself. Instead of leaving compliance outside the system and depending on intermediaries, Dusk embeds conditional logic into issuance and transfer. Through proof based mechanisms, the system can verify that a person or a transaction meets requirements, without revealing sensitive information publicly. That opens the door to models like tokenized issuance with whitelists, rule bound OTC transfers, or financial products that must restrict investors by jurisdiction and eligibility. More importantly, it creates a shared language between developers and compliance teams, something many projects talk about but rarely deliver.Still, turning a solution into PMF requires ruthless practicality. First, the integration toolkit must be clear, so businesses can deploy quickly without fear of being trapped in an unfamiliar stack. Second, Dusk needs use case templates, issuance, transfer, reporting, so partners do not have to reinvent everything. Third, it needs an operations story, who owns incident response, what support looks like, how audits and standards are handled. Fourth, it must prove itself with a few anchor customers, not many, but high quality, cases with volume and repeat behavior. Do you think Dusk needs 100 small experiments, or just 3 large partners running real flow for a long time.If I summarize this in a veteran market voice, Dusk today still leans toward thesis, but it is a thesis pointed at real markets. It does not lack ideas, it needs more operational evidence. When real deployments appear and repeat, the PMF question stops being asked. And then what remains is not noise, but infrastructure, and infrastructure wins in the long run.
@Dusk #dusk $DUSK

I look at Plasma in a pretty practical way, the market is not short on chains, what is rare is a platform that lets stablecoins behave like money, fast, cheap, clear, and reliable enough for users to come back every day. Plasma chooses a “stablecoin first” direction, it sounds simple, but it is actually a statement of priorities, optimize the payment experience first, then talk about everything else. Have you ever opened a payment app, pressed confirm, then waited, then wondered if the transaction was stuck.
What catches my attention is that Plasma pairs this with EVM compatibility. EVM is not just a technology, it is an entire ecosystem of developer habits, Solidity, libraries, token standards, audit processes, and workflows that have become muscle memory. When Plasma is EVM compatible, teams building payment apps do not have to relearn everything, they do not have to switch toolchains, they do not have to rebuild from scratch just to run on a new virtual machine. Instead of replacing the foundation, they can bring what already works and focus on what matters most, does the product have real users.
But saying EVM is still not enough, because “EVM compatible” is a line many chains already use. Plasma stands out because it puts stablecoins at the center of the design. Stablecoins come with a set of demanding requirements, fees must be low and stable, confirmation must be fast and predictable, the user experience must feel as smooth as Web2 payments, and most importantly it must not scare the user. Do you notice that users can tolerate risk when they speculate, but they rarely accept risk when they simply want to pay.
A “stablecoin first” system forces the infrastructure to optimize the payment loop. Creating invoices, sending, confirming, reconciling, refunding, managing state, these sound like business operations, not on chain games. When the infrastructure understands that most transactions are small, repeated, and latency sensitive, the design starts to prioritize stable throughput instead of just chasing a big TPS number for marketing. I believe this is the difference between a chain that can run a demo and a chain that can run revenue.
Plasma combining these two ideas creates a clear promise. Developers can ship faster because the EVM environment is familiar. Users can use it daily because stablecoins sit at the core of the experience. But the real question is whether Plasma can turn “compatibility” into “optimization”. Many chains claim compatibility, but when real apps arrive, fees still spike, latency still surprises, and then every promise becomes marketing. Would you choose a platform that sounds exciting, or a platform that lets you predict operating costs every day.
I also see Plasma as a way to redefine what a chain is trying to be. Not another place to swap and farm, but rails for stablecoin payments, where merchants and apps can build payment flows the way they do in Web2, but with on chain settlement. If executed well, stablecoins stop being tokens that sit in wallets waiting for an opportunity, they become working tools, payroll, fees, collections, subscriptions. When repeated behavior shows up, infrastructure demand shows up, and that is what creates a durable base of value.

In the end, I think the most important point about Plasma is focus. Markets often reward broad narratives, but products win through specificity. Plasma chooses specificity, stablecoin first, plus a direct path into the biggest developer ecosystem through EVM. So what do you think, do stablecoin payments need “one more chain”, or do they need a chain disciplined enough to put the payment experience ahead of everything else.
@Plasma #plasma $XPL

I’ve been in this market long enough to learn a blunt lesson. Coins aren’t short on stories. What’s rare is a product that actually runs, users who actually come back, and a system that can survive when the excitement fades. So when you ask why VANRY still has room to grow, I don’t start with the noise, I start with how ready VanarChain is for the AI era.
AI is a double edged blade. When the cycle is hot, everyone says AI, everyone slaps an AI label on something, everyone ships a demo. But after a few cycles, you realize demos don’t pay infrastructure costs, don’t pay teams, and don’t keep users. What keeps users is experience, speed, stability, and the ability to verify what the system is doing. Have you ever watched an AI project get hyped for a week, then disappear because people tried it once and never returned.
VanarChain going AI native, if executed properly, targets the hardest part. It tries to become the base layer where AI and applications can operate in real daily rhythm. Sustainable demand doesn’t come from a single pump, it comes from repeated behavior. AI naturally creates repeated behavior, ask, process, suggest, generate content, verify, pay, share, update. The problem is most systems can’t handle that loop at real scale, or the fees and latency push users away. I’ve seen this market long enough to know what kills products isn’t bad ideas, it’s too much friction.
AI native infrastructure creates durable demand when it makes that loop cheaper, faster, and less error prone. When data has context, when execution is stable, when outputs can be explained and verified, businesses are willing to deploy it in production. Users are willing to rely on it every day. If you run a real operation, would you choose the system that feels exciting, or the one that helps you sleep at night.
For VANRY, the growth space is in whether the token can be tied to real activity, not just headlines. I’ve met too many coins that lived on narrative, when the narrative cooled, liquidity left, the community fractured, and people finally realized there was no real demand. If VanarChain builds an ecosystem of AI applications that use the infrastructure daily, then demand has a chance to become steady. And steady is what helps projects survive the cold season. Do you notice that the projects that last are rarely the loudest, they are the ones with the most consistent usage.
This is the core point. Readiness matters more than excitement in the AI era because AI doesn’t forgive weak systems. One delay and users lose patience. One unpredictable fee spike and businesses pause deployment. One wrong output with no explanation and trust breaks. In crypto, I’ve watched too many things pump fast on hype and collapse because they couldn’t handle reality. AI is even more unforgiving because it plugs directly into habits, work, and decisions.
So I judge VanarChain with the questions people who’ve been around always ask. Can you build something real today. Can the system handle more users next week. When the market is bleeding, can it still keep users. If those answers gradually shift toward yes, then VANRY has room. Not because someone tweeted well, but because the base layer is ready enough for real demand to stick.

In the end, I remind myself of one thing. Excitement is short term fuel. Readiness is the long road. In AI, the long road wins because users don’t return for emotion, they return because it makes life easier. Are you betting on noise, or are you betting on readiness.
@Vanarchain #vanar $VANRY

Statystyki pokazują:
Każdy cykl „rynku niedźwiedzia” dla wskaźnika Bitcoin/Złoto zazwyczaj trwa około 14 miesięcy.
I zgadnij co?
⏰ Właśnie osiągnęliśmy 14 miesięcy. WŁAŚCIWY MOMENT.
Wszystko zbiera się jak sprężyna mocno ściśnięta.
Odwrotność średniej (mean reversion) ładuje energię.
I za każdym razem, gdy to się działo w przeszłości,
Bitcoin nie tylko przewyższa złoto, ale także je miażdży.
Obecna konfiguracja jest idealna co do punktu:

GM! Bracia
Bracia, bardzo czekacie na sezon altcoinów, prawda? Ja też hehe. Ale nie możemy wymusić rynku według naszych życzeń. Musimy spojrzeć na strukturę techniczną i przepływ kapitału MM.
Zwróćcie uwagę. Patrzę na parę ETH/BTC, aby zobaczyć, w którą stronę płynie kapitał...
BTC może być królem, ale ETH jest stacją przesiadkową całego sezonu altcoinów.
ETH/BTC gromadzi się na dnie 0.016 od wielu lat, gdy płynność przechodzi z BTC do ETH, a potem dopiero na altcoiny. Każdy cykl podąża w tym kierunku, nie da się od tego odejść.

If you’ve been in this market long enough, you learn a blunt truth. Institutional money isn’t short on interest, it’s short on a venue that’s “clean” enough to operate in without turning itself into a target. A lot of people think institutions enter crypto for profit and that’s it, but I see it differently. What they need first is a framework. Process, control, compliance, and just enough privacy so they don’t expose their hand. Dusk Network sits right at that intersection, privacy paired with compliance, not privacy to hide wrongdoing, but privacy to do serious work.

I’ve watched too many projects preach total transparency, and then that transparency becomes the blade that cuts their largest users. You place a big order and the market watches. You move capital and someone tracks it. You deploy a strategy and others copy it or front run it. In the end, institutions conclude that on chain can be fast and cheap, but information leakage is far more expensive. Have you ever wondered why some funds clearly want in, but keep hovering outside and only test with tiny size. It’s not that they fear the tech, they fear the exposed surface area.
Dusk approaches this problem in a way that catches my attention. They don’t sell privacy as an invisibility cloak, they try to turn privacy into something that can still be verified. Meaning you can prove you meet conditions without publicly revealing all sensitive data. That difference matters. Institutions don’t want to hide so they can break rules, they want to hide so they don’t get exploited, while still being able to prove they acted correctly when it matters. Don’t you think that balance is exactly what this market has been missing.
When people hear “compliance” in crypto, many instinctively recoil. But I’m used to how traditional finance actually runs. Compliance isn’t just paperwork, it’s the mechanism that lets large capital move without choking at audit, approval, and legal responsibility. If rules can be embedded into the logic of assets and contracts, who can buy, who can transfer, what limits apply, then you’re turning “law” into part of the infrastructure. Have you ever considered that the future of institutional DeFi isn’t about breaking fences, but about automating fences in a more efficient way.
What I like about Dusk’s story is that it sticks to real needs. Institutions need access control, role based permissions, the ability to prove compliance, and privacy that protects strategy. When you assemble those pieces, you can finally talk about tokenized assets, security tokens, and on chain settlement without turning everything into a playground for predators. Dusk is aiming at a layer where “conditional assets” are the default, not the exception.

I’m not saying Dusk is the only answer. In this market, nothing is guaranteed. But if you ask me which direction makes sense for pulling institutional capital deeper on chain, then “privacy + compliance” is one of the few angles that already smells like real execution. And I’ll leave you with one question. If a network can protect transaction data while still allowing rules to be verified when needed, what’s still stopping institutional money from truly flowing in, technology, or trust.
@Dusk $DUSK
#dusk

VanarChain going AI native is often described as putting AI into the core of the blockchain, instead of simply attaching a few extra utilities on the outside. I think the real competitive question is not whether VanarChain has many features, but whether the advantage comes from infrastructure, or from applications. If applications do not build habits, infrastructure is still just a good looking skeleton.

In an AI native system, infrastructure must handle data properly. AI survives on data, while dapps survive on context, who did what, when, and why. Blockchains usually store data in a fragmented way that is difficult to reuse. That is why the value of VanarChain’s infrastructure can lie in how it organizes data so applications can call it, understand it, and verify it. Have you ever seen an on chain dashboard produce a conclusion, but you could not tell what evidence it was built on. If infrastructure helps applications not only read data but also explain it, trust increases.
Second is execution. AI related tasks need low latency and predictable costs. If every time an application calls an AI module it becomes slow, or the fee suddenly spikes, users will leave. Strong infrastructure is when it turns complexity into simplicity for developers, reduces the number of extra layers they must build on their own, and reduces dependence on centralized servers.
Third is control. When AI participates in decision making, the risk is not only code errors, it is also bad data and bad incentives. So infrastructure needs constraints and traceability, so users can see where verification happens and who is accountable. Would you be comfortable letting an AI assistant influence a financial decision when you cannot audit the data sources and the operating rules behind it.
Still, sustainable advantage is often locked in by applications. Users do not pay for architecture, they pay for saving time and making fewer mistakes. If VanarChain produces applications that bring you back every day, like a trading assistant that enforces discipline, an analytics tool that explains its reasoning clearly, or a social product that fights spam and keeps long term memory, then the phrase AI native starts to carry real weight. Have you ever opened an application daily without needing to remind yourself.
The key point is that infrastructure and applications create a feedback loop. The more an application is used, the richer the data becomes, the better the models can get, the smoother the experience feels, and the longer users stay. If applications are weak, data stays thin, models do not improve, and the ecosystem stalls. That is why I lean toward an answer that the true competitive advantage sits at the intersection, where VanarChain’s infrastructure matches what AI applications actually need in reliability, and where those applications actively exploit the infrastructure strengths.

In the end, ask yourself this. Would you trust a chain because of its structure, or because an application on it helps you make better decisions. Would you follow AI native as a slogan, or as an experience you can feel every day.
@Vanarchain $VANRY #vanar

If you’ve ever built a payment app on-chain, you’ll know the real bottleneck isn’t sending a transaction, it’s making the experience feel like real payments, fast, clear, low friction, without forcing users to learn a new wallet, a new network, or a new way to think about gas. Plasma aims at that bottleneck by putting stablecoin payments at the center, while keeping EVM compatibility so developers don’t have to rebuild everything from scratch.

EVM compatibility means you can bring a familiar toolchain from Ethereum into Plasma, Solidity, Hardhat, Foundry, audit libraries, token standards, and wallet flows like MetaMask. When the platform doesn’t force you to learn a new virtual machine, the time from idea to working prototype shrinks dramatically. You ship faster, you test faster, you iterate faster. Do you agree that iteration speed is what decides who wins in payments.
In payments, one second of delay can make users think a transaction is stuck. One extra step can make them abandon checkout. One confusing fee can destroy trust. Plasma positions itself as a chain optimized for stablecoin payments, so the story isn’t just TPS, it’s the payment feeling, near instant, low fees that are hard to notice, and confirmations that stay consistent even when activity spikes. Have you ever wondered why web2 checkout feels simple, while web3 often turns into a chain of popups, approvals, and waiting.
When you build on Plasma with EVM compatibility, you can focus on the experience layer instead of plumbing. You can design one tap flows, saved recipients, invoice style transfers, subscriptions, refunds, reconciliation, and merchant permissions. You write smart contracts with patterns you already trust, then compose them into products, payment routers for routing and fee logic, escrow for buyer seller safety, streaming for salaries and subscriptions, spending limits for controlled accounts. This makes a payment app faster in the practical sense, less technical friction, less time rebuilding infrastructure, and more time optimizing UI, UX, and operations.
A payment product also has to scale through evolution. Today you may only need stablecoin transfers. Tomorrow you need discounts, loyalty points, coupons, invoicing, revenue splits, and settlement rules for partners. EVM compatibility lets you expand without changing the foundation. You extend contracts and the surrounding backend services while keeping the same developer mental model. And because Plasma is focused on stablecoins, you can design pricing, fees, and accounting in a stable unit from day one, instead of letting users see totals shift with gas token volatility.

I view payments in three layers, perceived speed for the user, certainty for reconciliation, and simplicity for integration. Plasma combines a stablecoin first direction with EVM compatibility to accelerate all three. Users feel speed because confirmations are fast and steps are fewer. Merchants feel confident because the flow is clear and easy to verify. Developers move faster because they can reuse familiar tooling, audits, and patterns instead of inventing everything again. Do you want your app remembered for being as fast as tapping a card, or forgotten because it kept saying wait a bit more until users walked away.
@Plasma #Plasma $XPL

Ở thị trường Crypto, giá không chỉ là cung cầu mà giá là cảm xúc được “đóng nến”. Ai ở thị trường đủ lâu sẽ từng thấy những tin xấu nhỏ, cũng đủ để làm đỏ lửa. Vì vậy, Fear & Greed Index ra đời không phải để đoán đỉnh hay đáy, mà là để trả lời một câu khá đơn giản, đám đông hiện đang sợ hãi hay đang tham lam?
1. Fear & Greed Index Được Chấm Theo Thang Điểm 0 Đến 100
Fear & Greed Index được chấm theo thang điểm từ 0 đến 100.0 đến 24 là Extreme Fear, thị trường sợ hãi tột độ.25 đến 49 là Fear, tâm lý thận trọng, nghi ngờ.50 là Neutral, thị trường cân bằng.51 đến 74 là Greed, lòng tham bắt đầu chiếm ưu thế.75 đến 100 là Extreme Greed, FOMO lan rộng, rủi ro cao.
2. Nguồn Gốc Của Chỉ Số Crypto Fear & Greed
Chỉ số Fear & Greed ban đầu do bộ phận kinh doanh của CNN ( Cable News Network ) phát triển để đo lường tâm lý thị trường chứng khoán truyền thống. Mục đích là để hiểu rõ tâm lý nhà đầu tư và xác định mức sẵn sàng chi trả của các nhà giao dịch trong các điều kiện thị trường khác nhau. Chỉ số này xoay quanh hai cảm xúc cốt lõi, sợ hãi và tham lam.
3. Cơ Chế Tính Toán Chỉ Số Fear & Greed
Cơ chế tính toán của chỉ số này dựa trên nhiều yếu tố khác nhau chứ không chỉ riêng biến động giá. Trong đó bao gồm độ biến động của Bitcoin, khối lượng giao dịch, xu hướng tìm kiếm trên Google, mức độ thảo luận trên mạng xã hội, và sức mạnh tương đối của Bitcoin so với Altcoin. Khi giá giảm mạnh, biến động tăng cao, dòng tiền rút ra và tin tức tiêu cực xuất hiện dày đặc, chỉ số sẽ nghiêng về Fear. Ngược lại, khi giá tăng nhanh, thanh khoản dồi dào, truyền thông tích cực và nhà đầu tư hưng phấn, chỉ số sẽ tiến dần về Greed.
4. Cách Đọc Fear & Greed Index
Mọi người không nên hiểu đơn giản là chỉ số thấp thì mua còn cao thì bán. Thực chất thì đây chỉ là công cụ phản ánh tâm lý đám đông, giúp nhà đầu tư tránh bị FOMO theo cảm xúc số đông. Lịch sử cho thấy, những vùng Extreme Fear thường xuất hiện gần đáy hoặc trong giai đoạn thị trường bị bán tháo quá mức. Trong khi đó, Extreme Greed thường xuất hiện ở cuối các nhịp tăng mạnh, khi rủi ro điều chỉnh đang dần tích tụ.
5. Lợi Ích Khi Sử Dụng Chỉ Số Fear & Greed
Giúp các nhà giao dịch chuyên nghiệp nắm bắt được tâm lý của thị trường, từ đó -> quyết định giao dịch được an toàn hơn trong thời điểm bất ổnGiúp người mới tránh giao dịch theo đám đông, ít nhất là biết mình đang bị FOMO cảm xúc theo hướng nào.Hữu ích cho Swing Trader vì tâm lý ngắn hạn thường tạo ra biên độ đủ lớn để giao dịch.
6. Hạn chế Của Chỉ Số Fear & Greed
Không phải là chỉ báo đáng tin cậy cho dài hạn, do tập trung vào tâm lý ngắn hạn vốn biến động mạnhChỉ số này không tính các đồng Coin, Token lớn khác như Ethereum, Solana và Altcoin khác nên hiệu quả khá hạn chế đối với các nhà giao dịch đa dạngCó thể phát sinh tín hiệu sai lệch trong kì thanh khoản thấp hoặc khi Market bị thao túngPhụ thuộc vào chất lượng dữ liệu đầu vào, dễ bị ảnh hưởng bởi Bot mạng xã hội hoặc khảo sát không đáng tin cậy
7. Chỉ Số Fear & Greed Có Đáng Tin Cậy Không?
Mọi người không nên dựa vào chỉ số này để quyết địch các giao dịchCần quyết định kĩ lưỡng kết hợp với nghiên cứu chuyên sâu và phân tích kĩ thuật Chỉ số này chỉ nên để tham khảo chứ không nên tin cậy quá nhiều vào nóNhững ai đầu tư dài hạn thì nên ưu tiên các chỉ số như nền tảng lợi thế về công nghệ, đội ngũ phát triển ra sao, lộ trình của dự án và ứng dụng thực tế của Token. Chỉ số Fear & Greed chỉ phù hợp với nhà giao dịch Swing và giao dịch ngắn hạn
👉🏻 Tóm lại, Fear & Greed Index nó giống như nhìn mặt đám đông để biết họ đang sợ hãi hay đang tham lam. Nó không cho bạn điểm mua đáy bán đỉnh nhưng nó giúp bạn tránh bị thua lỗ hơn, mua khi hưng phấn và bán khi tuyệt vọng.
Còn ở chu kỳ hiện tại, theo bạn chỉ số này đang phản ánh đúng tâm lý thị trường hay đang khiến mọi người bị nhiễu?
Bạn dùng nó như tín hiệu để giao dịch hay chỉ để tham khảo và không bị cuốn theo cảm xúc chung? Hãy để lại bình luận phía dưới để mình được tham khảo thêm góc nhìn của bạn nhé😍
#fear&greed #bitcoin #BinanceSquare