FreedmanCrypto[互关版]

I just saw a piece of news on my Moments feed, and after reading it, I felt pretty unsettled. The wife of a Sandbox executive was kidnapped, and after the kidnappers succeeded, they actually called an Uber to escape. You read that right, a ride-hailing app. This isn’t a movie plot; it’s a real "wrench attack" happening in the crypto world. A recent report from CertiK shows that these criminal gangs usually consist of 3 to 5 people, mostly amateurs, with the real masterminds often controlling things remotely from abroad. To put it bluntly, these people don’t hack your blockchain or steal your private keys—they physically threaten you directly. Once on-chain assets are moved, they’re almost impossible to trace, making this method far more efficient than robbing a bank. Many early players have shown off their holdings and faces on social media, essentially handing criminals a "prey list." When we usually talk about security, it’s about mnemonic phrases, cold wallets, 2FA, but the easiest vulnerability might be our own mouths. How many people have bragged about their crypto earnings at dinners or on social media? Honestly, after reading this news, I quietly deleted a holding screenshot I posted a few days ago. Have you ever talked about your crypto trading experiences in public? Next time, it’s better to keep a low profile. What do you think about these offline security issues? Share your prevention experiences in the comments.

Playing with my kid downstairs in the community, I took a quick glance at the market during his slide break. $BTC is still hovering around 77,400. Honestly, it’s been stuck at this level for almost a week. Every morning when I open the K-line chart, it feels like copy-paste—neither going up nor down. But I actually find this sideways movement more torturous than a crash. A crash at least is a sharp, decisive cut; sideways trading is like a dull knife slowly cutting your flesh, wearing down your judgment bit by bit every day. You want to bottom-fish but fear a breakdown; you want to exit but fear missing the rally. Looking at on-chain data recently, large transfers haven’t stopped; whales have been active all along. Retail investors keep moving in and out around 77K, paying plenty in fees, but the real winners are those who stay put. Institutions aren’t idle either; ETF funds flow in and out like tides, indicating smart money is also waiting for direction. The market isn’t lacking money, it’s lacking a catalyst. My current strategy is to watch the market less and spend more time with my kid. The breakthrough that’s coming won’t arrive any faster just because you’re staring at the screen. Instead of stressing, it’s better to manage your position size, set stop-loss and take-profit levels, and leave the rest to time. Lately, are you choosing to stay put and wait for the breakout, or can’t resist repeatedly trading?

A friend just sent me a message saying that bipartisan members of the US Congress have teamed up for a major move again. This time it's the ARMA Act, with a very clear goal: to upgrade the BTC strategic reserve from a presidential executive order to formal legislation. An executive order can be revoked by the next president, but once it's written into law, that's a true long-term commitment. When Trump signed the executive order to establish the strategic reserve in March this year, the market already reacted strongly. Now, Congress members feel that's not enough and want to lock it in through legislation. Behind this is the crypto industry's continuous lobbying efforts, from PAC donations to direct lobbying on Capitol Hill; these actions over the past few years are finally starting to yield substantial results. If this bill really passes, it means the US government will become a permanent holder of BTC at the legal level. There will be no selling pressure, no policy uncertainty. From a supply and demand perspective, the largest potential seller will directly exit the market, which structurally supports the price. Of course, the legislative process is still long, with both the House and Senate needing to approve it, so there are many variables. But interestingly, even Democratic members have started to participate, which shows that crypto is no longer a matter of just one party. When both parties are competing for crypto votes, the big picture is actually quite clear. BTC is currently around $77,357, just a step away from $80,000. If the ARMA Act makes any substantial progress soon, $80K could come faster than many expect. Even if the bill is temporarily shelved, the mere fact that "the US Congress is seriously discussing the BTC strategic reserve" is already a bull market signal. Do you think this is real legislation or just another round of political showmanship? $BTC

Just took a break and checked my phone, the news is quite explosive——Blockchain.com has secretly submitted IPO documents to the SEC, preparing to list on Nasdaq. This exchange was founded in 2012, has been around for 14 years, and is valued at $7 billion. CoinDesk, Bloomberg, and Reuters have all confirmed this simultaneously; it's not a rumor. Interestingly, Kraken and Ledger recently both paused their IPO plans, and the overall market is actually quite cold. Blockchain.com is choosing to push through against the trend at this time, either confident in its own cash flow or betting that the market window won't stay closed forever. In January this year, BitGo just raised $212.8 million to complete its listing, marking the first crypto IPO of 2026. Now Blockchain.com is taking over; if successful, it would be a strong boost for the entire industry. But there are risks—BTC is currently consolidating around 77,000, market sentiment is low, and institutional entry pace is slowing. Filing an S-1 in this environment means pricing and underwriting will be tough battles. What do you think about rushing an IPO at this time? Is it courage or recklessness?

During lunch, I overheard someone at the next table talking about the World Cup, so I casually looked it up and found out that the Scottish Football Association actually issued a $SFA token, planning to make moves at the 2026 World Cup. Honestly, issuing tokens in the sports world is nothing new, but this time it's a bit different. Scotland is returning to the World Cup finals after 28 years, and fans are already excited. On top of that, the token's incentive mechanisms—voting to participate in team decisions, unlocking exclusive content, matchday perks—essentially bring the "fan economy" onto the blockchain. Why is this worth paying attention to? Because it represents a trend: crypto is expanding beyond pure financial scenarios into sports, music, and social sectors, turning them into on-chain entry points. Previously, club tokens like $PSG and $BAR have validated the model, but national team tokens operate on a higher narrative level—they're tied not to a club's commercial interests but to the emotional resonance of an entire nation's fans. However, thinking calmly, the risks of these tokens are also obvious. Liquidity is concentrated during hype periods, and after the World Cup ends, it will likely decline. Also, most fans buy based on sentiment, not fundamentals, so once price and expectations diverge, selling pressure will be very concentrated. What’s really worth watching is whether $SFA can develop an independent market trend during the World Cup. If it can, it would indicate that the "sports + crypto" sector might really be taking off. Do you think national team tokens are a genuine demand or just another round of emotional speculation?

Got home last night and habitually opened my phone to check the market; BTC was still hovering around 77,000. I came across a piece of news that almost made me spit out my coffee—Mark Cuban said he sold most of his BTC. The same Cuban who a few years ago recommended Bitcoin to everyone he met, the one who said "BTC is better than gold," the one who even mentioned crypto during NBA game broadcasts. Now his exact words are: disappointed with Bitcoin's performance. Honestly, this shift left me a bit stunned. Wasn't it supposed to be "diamond hands"? Wasn't it supposed to be "hold long-term"? If even billionaires can't endure the sideways grind, what are retail investors holding on for? But looking at it from another angle, maybe this actually indicates something else—when the most steadfast believers start to waver, it's often when market sentiment is at its most pessimistic. Similar stories happened at the end of 2018 and during the 2022 bear market. Cuban selling BTC doesn't mean BTC is finished. But his disappointment does reflect the real feelings of many: this year BTC has been stuck oscillating between 70,000 and 80,000, no breakthroughs, no new highs, just endless grinding. I tend to see this as an emotional indicator—when the big players start cutting losses, the bottom might not be far off. Of course, it could also be that Cuban simply finds other assets more attractive. Are you still holding onto BTC now? Or like Cuban, are you just worn out?

Just got home, opened my phone, and saw a news from thestreet: another well-known crypto company couldn't hold on and announced its shutdown. The market is sluggish, project teams are retreating, exchanges are laying off staff—this story has been heard more than once this year. But on the same day, data from Bitcoin News was a bit surreal—67 million Americans hold cryptocurrencies, and 90% say they plan to increase their positions in the next year. On one side, companies are running away; on the other, retail investors are adding to their positions. This scene is somewhat absurd. I tend to interpret it as: the industry is undergoing a shakeout, but retail investors' faith hasn't been washed away. Most of the companies going bankrupt expanded with high leverage during the 2021 bull market; when the tide receded, those swimming naked naturally got exposed. Meanwhile, many of the true holders of BTC and ETH are seasoned investors who have experienced several bull and bear cycles, and their cost basis is likely well below current prices. What’s really worth observing is this "companies collapse, retail holds on" divergence, which often appears near market bottoms. Not saying this is the bottom now, but historically, after every major shakeout, the projects and users that remain tend to be stronger. BTC is still hovering around 77,000 with no clear direction, but there’s no panic either. This kind of situation is the most anxiety-inducing—no rise, no fall, holding costs remain, and every day when you open your account, the numbers are the same. Do you have many friends around you still steadfastly adding to their positions, or are they mostly waiting and watching?

Saw a message on my Moments feed and was stunned for a few seconds — Harvard University's endowment fund completely liquidated all $87 million worth of ETH in just one quarter. Not a single share left. In Q4 last year, they had just bought BlackRock's iShares Ethereum Trust ETF, but held it for less than three months before exiting. During the same period, they also reduced 2.3 million shares of the BTC ETF, but at least kept a $117 million position in BTC. ETH? They wiped it out entirely. Honestly, this move hit me hard. Harvard's asset management team isn't retail investors; they have a full research team and risk control system. Choosing to cut all losses in one quarter shows they have a clear mid-term outlook on ETH. ETH has dropped from nearly $5,000 in August last year to around $2,100 now, more than halving. The Ethereum Foundation has lost 8 people this year, with the latest two researchers, Julian Ma and Carl Beek, just announcing their departures. Laura Shin put it bluntly: EF is resting on its laurels while competitors are fiercely fighting for territory. SOL is sideways at $86, with on-chain activity and developer numbers catching up. New chains like HYPE and SUI are also diverting attention and funds. But to be clear, institutional cut losses and retail cut losses are two different things. Harvard has stop-loss discipline; when the time window comes, they exit regardless of losses. If retail investors follow now, what if ETH rebounds later? At $2,100, it's just a step away from the previous low psychological barrier of $2,000. If you still hold ETH, what's your mindset now? Are you decisively following Harvard and exiting, or holding on a bit longer? Let's discuss in the comments, do you still have ETH? #加息重回讨论桌：美债利率逼近19年高点

Sneaking a peek at OKX during a meeting break, BTC was still hovering around $77,440, nothing much happening. But a piece of news caught me off guard for a few seconds—Mark Cuban sold most of his BTC holdings. This billionaire, who once proclaimed "BTC is better than gold," gave a straightforward reason: the hedge narrative disappointed him. Simply put, he originally believed BTC could serve as a safe haven amid macro turmoil, but when trouble actually came, BTC fell alongside the US stock market, and the hedging function didn’t materialize. Honestly, this judgment hits hard. Retail investors are constantly taught "BTC is digital gold," but look at the recent period—oil prices soaring, Nvidia’s earnings volatility, rising geopolitical risks—BTC fell as expected. The $77,400 level isn’t panic territory, but it’s definitely not strong either. Cuban’s exit somewhat represents the attitude of a portion of institutional funds: when the "hedge" logic is disproven, smart money won’t hold on stubbornly. Futures data tells the same story—the price rebounded to $77,400, but traders are reducing positions, not adding. Of course, there are opposing voices. US lawmakers just proposed the ARMA Act to build a strategic reserve of 1 million BTC; Schwab is also launching spot crypto trading. The story of institutional entry is still being told, just by a different group. What’s really worth watching is: when a player of Cuban’s caliber chooses to exit, while policy is ramping up embrace, who will the market listen to? I’m now more inclined to define this as a phase of divergence—not a bull market nor a bear market, but a repricing between smart money and believers. Do you have friends around you who are starting to waver? Or are they getting more steadfast as prices fall? $BTC

Polymarket 98% Win Rate Scandal, This Is Not Probability, This Is a Script I saw a message on my commute that almost made me spill my coffee. Nicolas Vaiman, an investigator from Bubblemaps, uncovered a shocking statistic: there are 80 bets on Polymarket with a win rate as high as 98%. He said this is statistically impossible. What does this mean? In a normal prediction market, even the best players achieving a long-term win rate of 60% is considered legendary. A 98% win rate has only one explanation—you already know the answer before placing the bet. This is not prediction; this is an open-book exam. Even more explosive, the U.S. Congress has started taking action. They have directly classified crypto prediction markets as a "national security risk" and are preparing legislation to ban them. Polymarket previously attracted a lot of funds and attention with the narrative of "decentralized prediction," but now with this 98% data revealed, the legitimacy of the entire sector is shaken. $HYPE actually rose nearly 8% today against the trend, strengthening for five consecutive days. But if the prediction market sector really gets hammered by Congress, the valuation logic for this part of the DeFi ecosystem will have to be rewritten. Honestly, I used to be quite optimistic about prediction markets, thinking they had more informational value than pure gambling. But with a 98% win rate incident like this, it makes me reconsider one question: can decentralization really prevent manipulation? Or is it just a change of shell? Do you think prediction markets still have a future, or are they destined to become cash machines for a few?