ObaAgon
圖片、言論不做投資及財務建議，僅為個人紀錄訓練使用。
1 Following
1.7K+ Followers
3.8K+ Liked
208 Shared
All
Quotes
See original
PINNED
I only post on Binance Square, X, and the TG group. All other platforms charge under false pretenses, please be cautious!
Please recognize my account name ObaAgon, there are too many impersonators!
—————————————————————
Explanation:
Bullish: 'Define high point'. Bullish directional energy. Bullish main behavior dynamics;
Bearish: 'Define low point'. Bearish directional energy. Bearish main behavior dynamics;
Starting with the defined high point. Bullish directional dynamics, dynamics will have time dynamics, regardless of how bullish actions are made. Ultimately, it is for defining the high point.
So if the bulls do not enter at the highest point, how can it be called a high point?
—————————————————————
'Event-driven, event occurrence rate is only 30%'
For example, event bulls: Event bulls have event news, most people do not know that news events are going to happen, so before the event detonates, there will only be a short squeeze, and when the event occurs, there will be a direct spike. Event bulls only represent events, not bullish actions; simply stating event bulls means only events without bullish actions, which leads to only bearish actions.
During the short squeeze process before the event occurs, if the event does not happen, the price may have already been declining throughout this process.
—————————————————————
'A high point' does not represent a high price.
'A low point' does not represent a low price.
In terms of low points, the text is different from low prices.
For example: low price low point, high price low point. Price and point are different things.
—————————————————————
'Build high point' 'Build low point'
Bearish builders establishing low points is a dynamic process. Only the bearish can achieve the lowest point price; ordinary people do not have the capability to absorb large liquidity orders. Therefore, the establishment of a low point occurs after the bearish start placing orders; during this order placement period, a price low point will be produced. Before the bearish leaves, a low point will appear before moving to a high point. As time passes and comes to an end, the K-line price will show a V shape, moving from the top of V to the bottom of V and back to the tail of V, producing a process called building a low point.
#BTC
Please recognize my account name ObaAgon, there are too many impersonators!
—————————————————————
Explanation:
Bullish: 'Define high point'. Bullish directional energy. Bullish main behavior dynamics;
Bearish: 'Define low point'. Bearish directional energy. Bearish main behavior dynamics;
Starting with the defined high point. Bullish directional dynamics, dynamics will have time dynamics, regardless of how bullish actions are made. Ultimately, it is for defining the high point.
So if the bulls do not enter at the highest point, how can it be called a high point?
—————————————————————
'Event-driven, event occurrence rate is only 30%'
For example, event bulls: Event bulls have event news, most people do not know that news events are going to happen, so before the event detonates, there will only be a short squeeze, and when the event occurs, there will be a direct spike. Event bulls only represent events, not bullish actions; simply stating event bulls means only events without bullish actions, which leads to only bearish actions.
During the short squeeze process before the event occurs, if the event does not happen, the price may have already been declining throughout this process.
—————————————————————
'A high point' does not represent a high price.
'A low point' does not represent a low price.
In terms of low points, the text is different from low prices.
For example: low price low point, high price low point. Price and point are different things.
—————————————————————
'Build high point' 'Build low point'
Bearish builders establishing low points is a dynamic process. Only the bearish can achieve the lowest point price; ordinary people do not have the capability to absorb large liquidity orders. Therefore, the establishment of a low point occurs after the bearish start placing orders; during this order placement period, a price low point will be produced. Before the bearish leaves, a low point will appear before moving to a high point. As time passes and comes to an end, the K-line price will show a V shape, moving from the top of V to the bottom of V and back to the tail of V, producing a process called building a low point.
#BTC
See original
ETH has been mentioned since July 7 about the big bull market, and it was mentioned that the bull market is the altcoin season. It has continued until now, August 11, and we can see that ETH has risen significantly and has broken through 4300.
From the attached image, we can see that historical articles were published before the bull market started.
As of today, with the altcoin season bull market reaching a high level of enthusiasm, we are beginning to see scams and promotions emerging. They are starting to promote how much profit can be obtained through investing in ETH. They are advertising that by purchasing ETH and investing in certain things, one can earn significant amounts of ETH. This is all "fraud".
I want to remind everyone, especially my fellow villagers, to safeguard your wallets and not to be greedy. If you don't understand investment, research it first, instead of investing money right away.
I hope everyone can avoid these scams and disasters.
#eth $ETH
$BTC
From the attached image, we can see that historical articles were published before the bull market started.
As of today, with the altcoin season bull market reaching a high level of enthusiasm, we are beginning to see scams and promotions emerging. They are starting to promote how much profit can be obtained through investing in ETH. They are advertising that by purchasing ETH and investing in certain things, one can earn significant amounts of ETH. This is all "fraud".
I want to remind everyone, especially my fellow villagers, to safeguard your wallets and not to be greedy. If you don't understand investment, research it first, instead of investing money right away.
I hope everyone can avoid these scams and disasters.
#eth $ETH
$BTC
See original
BTC mentioned setting a low after 9 AM from midnight to 6 AM.
Subsequently, after seeing the red candlestick at 9 AM, it surged again to consolidate at a high point at 10 AM.
$BTC
Subsequently, after seeing the red candlestick at 9 AM, it surged again to consolidate at a high point at 10 AM.
$BTC
BTC mentioned that the low point of consolidation was at 0:00 on the 9th, and at 18:00 on the 9th, it mentioned that the information once again led to consolidation, becoming the high point of consolidation.
It can be seen that after rising from 0:00 on the 9th to 18:00, it has now retraced.
$BTC
It can be seen that after rising from 0:00 on the 9th to 18:00, it has now retraced.
$BTC
See original
In the previous message, I mentioned that the price of pi on exchanges belongs to privately negotiated contracts, and I have also seen many people online who believe that the GCV pi price of 314159 is a fantasy.
Here are some personal views:
Based on my previous article explaining that the pi prices on exchanges are all privately negotiated prices, the on-chain price and the exchange price are completely different things.
Everyone can freely create a game to privately negotiate the price of pi traded within the game.
So, why do investors prefer to use the cheaper privately negotiated price on exchanges instead of believing the on-chain price presented before them?
Then the question arises, since investors believe that the privately negotiated price of pi on exchanges exists and can be traded at that price, why can't we also consider that GCV's privately negotiated price of 314159 has a real trading existence?
Both the exchange and GCV belong to privately negotiated contract prices; why the double standard?
And then constantly manipulated on the exchange, yet still blame PCT for inaction. If you choose to gamble in the place of privately negotiated prices on someone else's exchange, who can you blame?
The ones who truly care for you, for value, and for ecology have been working hard, yet they end up being attacked from all sides.
There is no reason for people to lose money; it is often self-inflicted.
#pi
#PI
Here are some personal views:
Based on my previous article explaining that the pi prices on exchanges are all privately negotiated prices, the on-chain price and the exchange price are completely different things.
Everyone can freely create a game to privately negotiate the price of pi traded within the game.
So, why do investors prefer to use the cheaper privately negotiated price on exchanges instead of believing the on-chain price presented before them?
Then the question arises, since investors believe that the privately negotiated price of pi on exchanges exists and can be traded at that price, why can't we also consider that GCV's privately negotiated price of 314159 has a real trading existence?
Both the exchange and GCV belong to privately negotiated contract prices; why the double standard?
And then constantly manipulated on the exchange, yet still blame PCT for inaction. If you choose to gamble in the place of privately negotiated prices on someone else's exchange, who can you blame?
The ones who truly care for you, for value, and for ecology have been working hard, yet they end up being attacked from all sides.
There is no reason for people to lose money; it is often self-inflicted.
#pi
#PI
Pi previously launched a wallet that allows users to purchase Pi directly with fiat currency using Banxa, which attracted large spot traders and led to a rapid surge in its price on July 28th.
Now, Pi has launched a second fiat purchase service, TransFi.
The purpose of launching these two platforms is to serve users in different countries, as not everyone has access to Banxa. This time, the launch of TransFi, targeting the European market, is particularly significant.
TransFi is a fiat currency exchange platform based in Lithuania. Following the impact of Banxa, the current purchase price of Pi on TransFi is 0.1 higher than on exchanges. Yes, you read that right: the exchange is currently 0.35, while the purchase price on TransFi is 0.45.
Will this entry into the European fiat currency market trigger another wave of large spot traders buying? Let's wait and see.
On-chain prices are generally being driven up. As previously explained, exchanges are merely private contracts, like in-game prices within private games. They cannot be used to translate into external fiat prices because they are privately contracted.
Therefore, two prices are currently emerging, some even diverging from each other, creating a large premium.
When retail investors mistake the exchange price for the on-chain Pi price, they are voluntarily choosing to sell at a lower price in someone else's private contract.
Currently, most retail investors, unaware of how to access on-chain prices, are forced to use the exchange price as their pricing.
In fact, as soon as someone releases an on-chain price chart, it becomes clear that the private contract prices on exchanges are deceptive and manipulated.
The current price of Pi must be based on the on-chain exchange value of foreign exchange fiat currencies. Don't rely on exchange prices anymore. You can sell to others at a lower on-chain price, so why use the exchange price to sell at a lower price?
Other manipulation is their business; we only use the on-chain price.
Withdrawing Pi from exchanges will reduce price manipulation by whales borrowing coins in private contracts on exchanges.
#PI
#pi
Now, Pi has launched a second fiat purchase service, TransFi.
The purpose of launching these two platforms is to serve users in different countries, as not everyone has access to Banxa. This time, the launch of TransFi, targeting the European market, is particularly significant.
TransFi is a fiat currency exchange platform based in Lithuania. Following the impact of Banxa, the current purchase price of Pi on TransFi is 0.1 higher than on exchanges. Yes, you read that right: the exchange is currently 0.35, while the purchase price on TransFi is 0.45.
Will this entry into the European fiat currency market trigger another wave of large spot traders buying? Let's wait and see.
On-chain prices are generally being driven up. As previously explained, exchanges are merely private contracts, like in-game prices within private games. They cannot be used to translate into external fiat prices because they are privately contracted.
Therefore, two prices are currently emerging, some even diverging from each other, creating a large premium.
When retail investors mistake the exchange price for the on-chain Pi price, they are voluntarily choosing to sell at a lower price in someone else's private contract.
Currently, most retail investors, unaware of how to access on-chain prices, are forced to use the exchange price as their pricing.
In fact, as soon as someone releases an on-chain price chart, it becomes clear that the private contract prices on exchanges are deceptive and manipulated.
The current price of Pi must be based on the on-chain exchange value of foreign exchange fiat currencies. Don't rely on exchange prices anymore. You can sell to others at a lower on-chain price, so why use the exchange price to sell at a lower price?
Other manipulation is their business; we only use the on-chain price.
Withdrawing Pi from exchanges will reduce price manipulation by whales borrowing coins in private contracts on exchanges.
#PI
#pi
See original
BTC mentioned that the low point of consolidation was at 0:00 on the 9th, and at 18:00 on the 9th, it mentioned that the information once again led to consolidation, becoming the high point of consolidation.
It can be seen that after rising from 0:00 on the 9th to 18:00, it has now retraced.
$BTC
It can be seen that after rising from 0:00 on the 9th to 18:00, it has now retraced.
$BTC
When writing articles, it is essential that the meanings of the words correspond with the historical context at the time of referencing them in the future; only then can they be considered correct.
On BTC, starting from July 31, the mention of the event on the 1st led to a decline and the establishment of a new consolidation range.
As of now, reviewing historical articles and trends aligns perfectly.
From the new consolidation range line chart, it can be seen that the lowest price from the short-selling on the 3rd that did not materialize is the starting low point of the range, up to the current pressure line of the range, and it was mentioned on the 8th that after four o'clock in the morning, a consolidation peak should be established. Now, it can be seen that after four o'clock, the consolidation peak began to decline.
A: Why do my articles have to wait until after events occur for most people to understand them?
Q: This is because most people use their own expectations of the market to interpret the articles. Rather than demanding facts.
A: So why can I not understand the beginning of the article, yet understand it after the event has occurred?
Q: Clearly, the article remains unchanged, indicating that what has changed is your own thought process and sensory logic, which is a double standard.
If you do not practice writing future articles, how will you realize that your thoughts are extremely inconsistent with reality?
#BTC
$BTC
On BTC, starting from July 31, the mention of the event on the 1st led to a decline and the establishment of a new consolidation range.
As of now, reviewing historical articles and trends aligns perfectly.
From the new consolidation range line chart, it can be seen that the lowest price from the short-selling on the 3rd that did not materialize is the starting low point of the range, up to the current pressure line of the range, and it was mentioned on the 8th that after four o'clock in the morning, a consolidation peak should be established. Now, it can be seen that after four o'clock, the consolidation peak began to decline.
A: Why do my articles have to wait until after events occur for most people to understand them?
Q: This is because most people use their own expectations of the market to interpret the articles. Rather than demanding facts.
A: So why can I not understand the beginning of the article, yet understand it after the event has occurred?
Q: Clearly, the article remains unchanged, indicating that what has changed is your own thought process and sensory logic, which is a double standard.
If you do not practice writing future articles, how will you realize that your thoughts are extremely inconsistent with reality?
#BTC
$BTC
See original
On August 7th, Pi saw that there was an important event related to PCT on the 9th and initially thought it would be an announcement. However, no announcement was made; instead, it was a systematic buying pressure generated by PCT.
Now we see a significant increase today, the 9th.
It has reached a point where it is about to conclude.
#pi
#PI
Now we see a significant increase today, the 9th.
It has reached a point where it is about to conclude.
#pi
#PI
See original
When writing articles, it is essential that the meanings of the words correspond with the historical context at the time of referencing them in the future; only then can they be considered correct.
On BTC, starting from July 31, the mention of the event on the 1st led to a decline and the establishment of a new consolidation range.
As of now, reviewing historical articles and trends aligns perfectly.
From the new consolidation range line chart, it can be seen that the lowest price from the short-selling on the 3rd that did not materialize is the starting low point of the range, up to the current pressure line of the range, and it was mentioned on the 8th that after four o'clock in the morning, a consolidation peak should be established. Now, it can be seen that after four o'clock, the consolidation peak began to decline.
A: Why do my articles have to wait until after events occur for most people to understand them?
Q: This is because most people use their own expectations of the market to interpret the articles. Rather than demanding facts.
A: So why can I not understand the beginning of the article, yet understand it after the event has occurred?
Q: Clearly, the article remains unchanged, indicating that what has changed is your own thought process and sensory logic, which is a double standard.
If you do not practice writing future articles, how will you realize that your thoughts are extremely inconsistent with reality?
#BTC
$BTC
On BTC, starting from July 31, the mention of the event on the 1st led to a decline and the establishment of a new consolidation range.
As of now, reviewing historical articles and trends aligns perfectly.
From the new consolidation range line chart, it can be seen that the lowest price from the short-selling on the 3rd that did not materialize is the starting low point of the range, up to the current pressure line of the range, and it was mentioned on the 8th that after four o'clock in the morning, a consolidation peak should be established. Now, it can be seen that after four o'clock, the consolidation peak began to decline.
A: Why do my articles have to wait until after events occur for most people to understand them?
Q: This is because most people use their own expectations of the market to interpret the articles. Rather than demanding facts.
A: So why can I not understand the beginning of the article, yet understand it after the event has occurred?
Q: Clearly, the article remains unchanged, indicating that what has changed is your own thought process and sensory logic, which is a double standard.
If you do not practice writing future articles, how will you realize that your thoughts are extremely inconsistent with reality?
#BTC
$BTC
Short-term traders who are actively trading in the BTC market, driven by their own greed and a desire for quick money, cannot accept prolonged periods of no market movement.
As a result, they are easily influenced by the bullish and bearish analyses found online. Every day they either feel that the market is about to soar or that it is about to crash. Ultimately, very few people actually make money over the long term.
The historical market trend aligns perfectly with this article: it mentioned a consolidation period starting from July 25 and lasting until the 31st, and on the 31st, it noted an event gap on the 1st, followed by a mention of re-establishing a new consolidation zone after the event gap.
However, investors are unwilling to accept a market consolidation and always demand that the market must respond to their presence, giving immediate movements. The losses incurred are a result of their own actions.
Now we can see that this long period of consolidation has the price still at 115000. Yet every day, the analyses written online make me think that yesterday it crashed to 80k and today it soared to 150k.
Calm down a bit, look at what the article has already described, set aside subjectivity, and accept the market forces.
#BTC $BTC
As a result, they are easily influenced by the bullish and bearish analyses found online. Every day they either feel that the market is about to soar or that it is about to crash. Ultimately, very few people actually make money over the long term.
The historical market trend aligns perfectly with this article: it mentioned a consolidation period starting from July 25 and lasting until the 31st, and on the 31st, it noted an event gap on the 1st, followed by a mention of re-establishing a new consolidation zone after the event gap.
However, investors are unwilling to accept a market consolidation and always demand that the market must respond to their presence, giving immediate movements. The losses incurred are a result of their own actions.
Now we can see that this long period of consolidation has the price still at 115000. Yet every day, the analyses written online make me think that yesterday it crashed to 80k and today it soared to 150k.
Calm down a bit, look at what the article has already described, set aside subjectivity, and accept the market forces.
#BTC $BTC
See original
Never said that disasters represent a price drop. Otherwise, it is impossible to explain why the price of BTC, which was liquidated for 1.1 billion on June 13, ultimately remained unchanged.
Disasters always refer to massive losses for a large number of investors. As for whether there are losses among those, it is up to oneself to decide.
#BTC
Look at history and compare it with the price at that time! The price hasn't changed at all, and the liquidations are still recorded in history.
$BTC
Disasters always refer to massive losses for a large number of investors. As for whether there are losses among those, it is up to oneself to decide.
#BTC
Look at history and compare it with the price at that time! The price hasn't changed at all, and the liquidations are still recorded in history.
$BTC
See original
Sometimes, we match our own understanding in our minds when reading articles to assess their accuracy, but we fail to realize that we haven't even read the article clearly.
Here, there is only a pure translation of the main points. I also belong to those who interpret the main information; the main players do not care who understands their meaning. The trends we encounter afterwards are also facts created by the main players beforehand. When we mistakenly interpret an article, we do not examine whether we misunderstood it regarding future trends, and we even use our understanding to persuade others.
So, this is a problem between ourselves and others, unrelated to the main players, because future trends continue to prove the main players correct over time, as they are the ones making the moves, while the readers never verify their own understanding.
When one wants to use their incorrectly understood perception to convince others that the article is wrong, that is their own issue, unrelated to the main players and the article. Each person's position is not my profit value.
If you want to save some money, you have to compensate with your own understanding. When your understanding is incorrect, you bear the risk yourself.
$BTC
Here, there is only a pure translation of the main points. I also belong to those who interpret the main information; the main players do not care who understands their meaning. The trends we encounter afterwards are also facts created by the main players beforehand. When we mistakenly interpret an article, we do not examine whether we misunderstood it regarding future trends, and we even use our understanding to persuade others.
So, this is a problem between ourselves and others, unrelated to the main players, because future trends continue to prove the main players correct over time, as they are the ones making the moves, while the readers never verify their own understanding.
When one wants to use their incorrectly understood perception to convince others that the article is wrong, that is their own issue, unrelated to the main players and the article. Each person's position is not my profit value.
If you want to save some money, you have to compensate with your own understanding. When your understanding is incorrect, you bear the risk yourself.
$BTC
See original
Short-term traders who are actively trading in the BTC market, driven by their own greed and a desire for quick money, cannot accept prolonged periods of no market movement.
As a result, they are easily influenced by the bullish and bearish analyses found online. Every day they either feel that the market is about to soar or that it is about to crash. Ultimately, very few people actually make money over the long term.
The historical market trend aligns perfectly with this article: it mentioned a consolidation period starting from July 25 and lasting until the 31st, and on the 31st, it noted an event gap on the 1st, followed by a mention of re-establishing a new consolidation zone after the event gap.
However, investors are unwilling to accept a market consolidation and always demand that the market must respond to their presence, giving immediate movements. The losses incurred are a result of their own actions.
Now we can see that this long period of consolidation has the price still at 115000. Yet every day, the analyses written online make me think that yesterday it crashed to 80k and today it soared to 150k.
Calm down a bit, look at what the article has already described, set aside subjectivity, and accept the market forces.
#BTC $BTC
As a result, they are easily influenced by the bullish and bearish analyses found online. Every day they either feel that the market is about to soar or that it is about to crash. Ultimately, very few people actually make money over the long term.
The historical market trend aligns perfectly with this article: it mentioned a consolidation period starting from July 25 and lasting until the 31st, and on the 31st, it noted an event gap on the 1st, followed by a mention of re-establishing a new consolidation zone after the event gap.
However, investors are unwilling to accept a market consolidation and always demand that the market must respond to their presence, giving immediate movements. The losses incurred are a result of their own actions.
Now we can see that this long period of consolidation has the price still at 115000. Yet every day, the analyses written online make me think that yesterday it crashed to 80k and today it soared to 150k.
Calm down a bit, look at what the article has already described, set aside subjectivity, and accept the market forces.
#BTC $BTC
BTC really has nothing going on, nothing to announce.
From July 25, it was mentioned that it would slightly decline and consolidate until the 31st, and you can see that the trend consolidated until the 31st.
During this time, the market was filled with daily calls for bullish and bearish trends, and it seemed everyone was depressed.
Later, after the 31st, it was mentioned that there would be a bearish event on August 1, and it also indicated that the consolidation would continue. However, there were still a lot of comments online predicting a major drop, and if you weren't watching the market, you would really think BTC had already crashed to 80,000. As a result, the price is still consolidating at 114,500.
#BTC
$BTC
From July 25, it was mentioned that it would slightly decline and consolidate until the 31st, and you can see that the trend consolidated until the 31st.
During this time, the market was filled with daily calls for bullish and bearish trends, and it seemed everyone was depressed.
Later, after the 31st, it was mentioned that there would be a bearish event on August 1, and it also indicated that the consolidation would continue. However, there were still a lot of comments online predicting a major drop, and if you weren't watching the market, you would really think BTC had already crashed to 80,000. As a result, the price is still consolidating at 114,500.
#BTC
$BTC
See original
The PI mentioned on July 31 that the lending whale would come to borrow and sell on August 1. Later, on the 1st, a whale loaned five million units for sale in the market, causing a drop.
Subsequent articles mentioned to pay attention to the 5th; as long as there is no speculation on the 5th, continue to watch for short selling. Later, it was observed that after consolidating until the 5th, it continued to create new lows.
Until the 6th at 1 PM, it was mentioned that the crisis was resolved and began to rebound. Now we can see the rebound moving upwards until now.
The trend is consistent with the original article's description.
The subsequent rebound will establish a rebound high point after 3 AM on the 7th.
#PI
#pi
Subsequent articles mentioned to pay attention to the 5th; as long as there is no speculation on the 5th, continue to watch for short selling. Later, it was observed that after consolidating until the 5th, it continued to create new lows.
Until the 6th at 1 PM, it was mentioned that the crisis was resolved and began to rebound. Now we can see the rebound moving upwards until now.
The trend is consistent with the original article's description.
The subsequent rebound will establish a rebound high point after 3 AM on the 7th.
#PI
#pi
Some people blame the exchanges for the issue of PI lending whales, without blaming the source. Originally, any decline was blamed on PCT, and now any lending is blamed on the exchanges.
What I've mentioned is about fighting against lending whales, not against the exchanges. Are you planning to have specific exchanges directly remove that data?
Anyway, the lending feature will not be removed from PI; what is removed is the data shown to you. In the end, the retail investors will still get cut. If you don't fight against lending whales, just wait to get cut.
#pi
What I've mentioned is about fighting against lending whales, not against the exchanges. Are you planning to have specific exchanges directly remove that data?
Anyway, the lending feature will not be removed from PI; what is removed is the data shown to you. In the end, the retail investors will still get cut. If you don't fight against lending whales, just wait to get cut.
#pi
See original
Some people blame the exchanges for the issue of PI lending whales, without blaming the source. Originally, any decline was blamed on PCT, and now any lending is blamed on the exchanges.
What I've mentioned is about fighting against lending whales, not against the exchanges. Are you planning to have specific exchanges directly remove that data?
Anyway, the lending feature will not be removed from PI; what is removed is the data shown to you. In the end, the retail investors will still get cut. If you don't fight against lending whales, just wait to get cut.
#pi
What I've mentioned is about fighting against lending whales, not against the exchanges. Are you planning to have specific exchanges directly remove that data?
Anyway, the lending feature will not be removed from PI; what is removed is the data shown to you. In the end, the retail investors will still get cut. If you don't fight against lending whales, just wait to get cut.
#pi
The PI market investors are unwilling to pay attention to the lending whales who borrow one million coins at a time to sell you off.
Just now, a lending whale seized the opportunity to borrow 1.9 million PI from the exchange to sell you off.
However, it can be seen that the market will blame this issue on PCT, and the bad guys will ultimately not be punished. Because those who stake on the exchange are all accomplices in the selling.
If community investors are unwilling to take action against the lending whales, then they have no right to complain.
Should we demand that PCT prohibit exchanges from providing lending functions, and if they use the lending function, they should have their KYB qualifications revoked?
If the community does not respond long-term to combat the whales, just wait for the arrival of 0.1.
#pi
Just now, a lending whale seized the opportunity to borrow 1.9 million PI from the exchange to sell you off.
However, it can be seen that the market will blame this issue on PCT, and the bad guys will ultimately not be punished. Because those who stake on the exchange are all accomplices in the selling.
If community investors are unwilling to take action against the lending whales, then they have no right to complain.
Should we demand that PCT prohibit exchanges from providing lending functions, and if they use the lending function, they should have their KYB qualifications revoked?
If the community does not respond long-term to combat the whales, just wait for the arrival of 0.1.
#pi
See original
Based on the previous news mentioning that the United States holds 40% of the total Bitcoin supply, the news also reported that 30% of Bitcoin is considered lost.
This means that the United States effectively holds 57% of the Bitcoin supply, which can almost be said to represent Bitcoin fully becoming a subordinate to U.S. debt.
#BTC
$BTC
This means that the United States effectively holds 57% of the Bitcoin supply, which can almost be said to represent Bitcoin fully becoming a subordinate to U.S. debt.
#BTC
$BTC
A news article indicates that the total amount of BTC held in the United States reaches 8 million, accounting for 40% of the total BTC supply.
Currently, although the U.S. government does not require institutions or exchanges to hold U.S. Treasury bonds in proportion to their BTC holdings, there are regulations requiring stablecoins to be held in equal measure to U.S. Treasury bonds.
From this perspective, given that the United States already holds 40% of the total Bitcoin, it can be said that Bitcoin does not necessarily need to become a strategic reserve for the U.S.; instead, the regulated stablecoins are more important.
In other words, holding stablecoins requires equal holdings of U.S. Treasury bonds. Given the 40% holding in the United States, when Bitcoin continues to surge in the future, this group will inevitably need a very large demand for stablecoins when they want to exchange back. And holding a large amount of stablecoins requires issuing more stablecoins and purchasing more U.S. Treasury bonds.
Therefore, it appears that the ultimate beneficiaries are the U.S. Treasury bonds.
#BTC
#美債 $BTC
Currently, although the U.S. government does not require institutions or exchanges to hold U.S. Treasury bonds in proportion to their BTC holdings, there are regulations requiring stablecoins to be held in equal measure to U.S. Treasury bonds.
From this perspective, given that the United States already holds 40% of the total Bitcoin, it can be said that Bitcoin does not necessarily need to become a strategic reserve for the U.S.; instead, the regulated stablecoins are more important.
In other words, holding stablecoins requires equal holdings of U.S. Treasury bonds. Given the 40% holding in the United States, when Bitcoin continues to surge in the future, this group will inevitably need a very large demand for stablecoins when they want to exchange back. And holding a large amount of stablecoins requires issuing more stablecoins and purchasing more U.S. Treasury bonds.
Therefore, it appears that the ultimate beneficiaries are the U.S. Treasury bonds.
#BTC
#美債 $BTC
See original
A news article indicates that the total amount of BTC held in the United States reaches 8 million, accounting for 40% of the total BTC supply.
Currently, although the U.S. government does not require institutions or exchanges to hold U.S. Treasury bonds in proportion to their BTC holdings, there are regulations requiring stablecoins to be held in equal measure to U.S. Treasury bonds.
From this perspective, given that the United States already holds 40% of the total Bitcoin, it can be said that Bitcoin does not necessarily need to become a strategic reserve for the U.S.; instead, the regulated stablecoins are more important.
In other words, holding stablecoins requires equal holdings of U.S. Treasury bonds. Given the 40% holding in the United States, when Bitcoin continues to surge in the future, this group will inevitably need a very large demand for stablecoins when they want to exchange back. And holding a large amount of stablecoins requires issuing more stablecoins and purchasing more U.S. Treasury bonds.
Therefore, it appears that the ultimate beneficiaries are the U.S. Treasury bonds.
#BTC
#美債 $BTC
Currently, although the U.S. government does not require institutions or exchanges to hold U.S. Treasury bonds in proportion to their BTC holdings, there are regulations requiring stablecoins to be held in equal measure to U.S. Treasury bonds.
From this perspective, given that the United States already holds 40% of the total Bitcoin, it can be said that Bitcoin does not necessarily need to become a strategic reserve for the U.S.; instead, the regulated stablecoins are more important.
In other words, holding stablecoins requires equal holdings of U.S. Treasury bonds. Given the 40% holding in the United States, when Bitcoin continues to surge in the future, this group will inevitably need a very large demand for stablecoins when they want to exchange back. And holding a large amount of stablecoins requires issuing more stablecoins and purchasing more U.S. Treasury bonds.
Therefore, it appears that the ultimate beneficiaries are the U.S. Treasury bonds.
#BTC
#美債 $BTC
See original
BTC really has nothing going on, nothing to announce.
From July 25, it was mentioned that it would slightly decline and consolidate until the 31st, and you can see that the trend consolidated until the 31st.
During this time, the market was filled with daily calls for bullish and bearish trends, and it seemed everyone was depressed.
Later, after the 31st, it was mentioned that there would be a bearish event on August 1, and it also indicated that the consolidation would continue. However, there were still a lot of comments online predicting a major drop, and if you weren't watching the market, you would really think BTC had already crashed to 80,000. As a result, the price is still consolidating at 114,500.
#BTC
$BTC
From July 25, it was mentioned that it would slightly decline and consolidate until the 31st, and you can see that the trend consolidated until the 31st.
During this time, the market was filled with daily calls for bullish and bearish trends, and it seemed everyone was depressed.
Later, after the 31st, it was mentioned that there would be a bearish event on August 1, and it also indicated that the consolidation would continue. However, there were still a lot of comments online predicting a major drop, and if you weren't watching the market, you would really think BTC had already crashed to 80,000. As a result, the price is still consolidating at 114,500.
#BTC
$BTC
I haven't posted about BTC in a long time, why?
Most of the analyses online are either bullish or bearish, gambling every day.
But here I straightforwardly said on the 25th that it would simply consolidate downwards until the 31st.
As you can see, the price has been moving along here. Previously, whenever I mentioned long-term consolidation while going out, there was no market movement.
I don't really care what others think about the market.
#BTC $BTC
Most of the analyses online are either bullish or bearish, gambling every day.
But here I straightforwardly said on the 25th that it would simply consolidate downwards until the 31st.
As you can see, the price has been moving along here. Previously, whenever I mentioned long-term consolidation while going out, there was no market movement.
I don't really care what others think about the market.
#BTC $BTC
See original
Pi previously launched a wallet that allows users to purchase Pi directly with fiat currency using Banxa, which attracted large spot traders and led to a rapid surge in its price on July 28th.
Now, Pi has launched a second fiat purchase service, TransFi.
The purpose of launching these two platforms is to serve users in different countries, as not everyone has access to Banxa. This time, the launch of TransFi, targeting the European market, is particularly significant.
TransFi is a fiat currency exchange platform based in Lithuania. Following the impact of Banxa, the current purchase price of Pi on TransFi is 0.1 higher than on exchanges. Yes, you read that right: the exchange is currently 0.35, while the purchase price on TransFi is 0.45.
Will this entry into the European fiat currency market trigger another wave of large spot traders buying? Let's wait and see.
On-chain prices are generally being driven up. As previously explained, exchanges are merely private contracts, like in-game prices within private games. They cannot be used to translate into external fiat prices because they are privately contracted.
Therefore, two prices are currently emerging, some even diverging from each other, creating a large premium.
When retail investors mistake the exchange price for the on-chain Pi price, they are voluntarily choosing to sell at a lower price in someone else's private contract.
Currently, most retail investors, unaware of how to access on-chain prices, are forced to use the exchange price as their pricing.
In fact, as soon as someone releases an on-chain price chart, it becomes clear that the private contract prices on exchanges are deceptive and manipulated.
The current price of Pi must be based on the on-chain exchange value of foreign exchange fiat currencies. Don't rely on exchange prices anymore. You can sell to others at a lower on-chain price, so why use the exchange price to sell at a lower price?
Other manipulation is their business; we only use the on-chain price.
Withdrawing Pi from exchanges will reduce price manipulation by whales borrowing coins in private contracts on exchanges.
#PI
#pi
Now, Pi has launched a second fiat purchase service, TransFi.
The purpose of launching these two platforms is to serve users in different countries, as not everyone has access to Banxa. This time, the launch of TransFi, targeting the European market, is particularly significant.
TransFi is a fiat currency exchange platform based in Lithuania. Following the impact of Banxa, the current purchase price of Pi on TransFi is 0.1 higher than on exchanges. Yes, you read that right: the exchange is currently 0.35, while the purchase price on TransFi is 0.45.
Will this entry into the European fiat currency market trigger another wave of large spot traders buying? Let's wait and see.
On-chain prices are generally being driven up. As previously explained, exchanges are merely private contracts, like in-game prices within private games. They cannot be used to translate into external fiat prices because they are privately contracted.
Therefore, two prices are currently emerging, some even diverging from each other, creating a large premium.
When retail investors mistake the exchange price for the on-chain Pi price, they are voluntarily choosing to sell at a lower price in someone else's private contract.
Currently, most retail investors, unaware of how to access on-chain prices, are forced to use the exchange price as their pricing.
In fact, as soon as someone releases an on-chain price chart, it becomes clear that the private contract prices on exchanges are deceptive and manipulated.
The current price of Pi must be based on the on-chain exchange value of foreign exchange fiat currencies. Don't rely on exchange prices anymore. You can sell to others at a lower on-chain price, so why use the exchange price to sell at a lower price?
Other manipulation is their business; we only use the on-chain price.
Withdrawing Pi from exchanges will reduce price manipulation by whales borrowing coins in private contracts on exchanges.
#PI
#pi
The article from the 26th began mentioning that large buyers in the spot market are buying at market prices, and for the past two days, it has been explaining the importance of buying coins with the pi wallet.
Now it's 8 AM on the 28th and it's in!
I'm here to trade coins and make money; whether the content of the posts generates traffic or not has nothing to do with me.
#pi
Now it's 8 AM on the 28th and it's in!
I'm here to trade coins and make money; whether the content of the posts generates traffic or not has nothing to do with me.
#pi
See original
Pi friends, hurry up and transfer your Pi to the exchange's staking balance, so we can see the price of 0.1 yuan faster.
The borrowing whales have already borrowed over ten million Pi from investors and are selling them on the market.
Hurry up and stake all your Pi on the exchange, so we can see 0.1 faster.
Whales are making big money!
#pi
The borrowing whales have already borrowed over ten million Pi from investors and are selling them on the market.
Hurry up and stake all your Pi on the exchange, so we can see 0.1 faster.
Whales are making big money!
#pi
The PI market investors are unwilling to pay attention to the lending whales who borrow one million coins at a time to sell you off.
Just now, a lending whale seized the opportunity to borrow 1.9 million PI from the exchange to sell you off.
However, it can be seen that the market will blame this issue on PCT, and the bad guys will ultimately not be punished. Because those who stake on the exchange are all accomplices in the selling.
If community investors are unwilling to take action against the lending whales, then they have no right to complain.
Should we demand that PCT prohibit exchanges from providing lending functions, and if they use the lending function, they should have their KYB qualifications revoked?
If the community does not respond long-term to combat the whales, just wait for the arrival of 0.1.
#pi
Just now, a lending whale seized the opportunity to borrow 1.9 million PI from the exchange to sell you off.
However, it can be seen that the market will blame this issue on PCT, and the bad guys will ultimately not be punished. Because those who stake on the exchange are all accomplices in the selling.
If community investors are unwilling to take action against the lending whales, then they have no right to complain.
Should we demand that PCT prohibit exchanges from providing lending functions, and if they use the lending function, they should have their KYB qualifications revoked?
If the community does not respond long-term to combat the whales, just wait for the arrival of 0.1.
#pi
See original
The PI market investors are unwilling to pay attention to the lending whales who borrow one million coins at a time to sell you off.
Just now, a lending whale seized the opportunity to borrow 1.9 million PI from the exchange to sell you off.
However, it can be seen that the market will blame this issue on PCT, and the bad guys will ultimately not be punished. Because those who stake on the exchange are all accomplices in the selling.
If community investors are unwilling to take action against the lending whales, then they have no right to complain.
Should we demand that PCT prohibit exchanges from providing lending functions, and if they use the lending function, they should have their KYB qualifications revoked?
If the community does not respond long-term to combat the whales, just wait for the arrival of 0.1.
#pi
Just now, a lending whale seized the opportunity to borrow 1.9 million PI from the exchange to sell you off.
However, it can be seen that the market will blame this issue on PCT, and the bad guys will ultimately not be punished. Because those who stake on the exchange are all accomplices in the selling.
If community investors are unwilling to take action against the lending whales, then they have no right to complain.
Should we demand that PCT prohibit exchanges from providing lending functions, and if they use the lending function, they should have their KYB qualifications revoked?
If the community does not respond long-term to combat the whales, just wait for the arrival of 0.1.
#pi
Do you think the drop in pi is due to investors selling off?
In fact, it is the whales borrowing pi who are lending one million pi at a time from the lending pool to replace your sell-off.
At nine o'clock in the morning, the drop in BTC attracted the interest of lending whales, who borrowed one million pi at a time from the exchange to replace your sell-off.
If it weren't for the sell-off by lending whales, the price of pi wouldn't be affected by the drop in BTC.
Do not stake pi on the exchange, and do not use excess coin treasure, because whales are borrowing one million pi at a time from the lending pool to replace your sell-off.
You are optimistic about pi and invest in pi hoping that the price will rise to gain profits. However, the more you stake, the more you allow the whales to push the price down.
Ways to counteract whales:
Do not stake pi on the exchange. Do not use excess coin treasure to stake pi.
$BTC
#pi
In fact, it is the whales borrowing pi who are lending one million pi at a time from the lending pool to replace your sell-off.
At nine o'clock in the morning, the drop in BTC attracted the interest of lending whales, who borrowed one million pi at a time from the exchange to replace your sell-off.
If it weren't for the sell-off by lending whales, the price of pi wouldn't be affected by the drop in BTC.
Do not stake pi on the exchange, and do not use excess coin treasure, because whales are borrowing one million pi at a time from the lending pool to replace your sell-off.
You are optimistic about pi and invest in pi hoping that the price will rise to gain profits. However, the more you stake, the more you allow the whales to push the price down.
Ways to counteract whales:
Do not stake pi on the exchange. Do not use excess coin treasure to stake pi.
$BTC
#pi
Login to explore more contents