avatar
Mercek

Following0Followers (X)117.87KPosts205Likes28.2K
avatar

Oil has been climbing for weeks, but the US 10-year yield has been falling. Warsh pointed out the same thing at last week's Fed meeting. For most of this year, oil and market rates moved in the same direction. Since early October they've been pulling apart. That's not how this usually works. Oil feeds into almost everything, from shipping and farming to factories and the things people buy every day. When it gets more expensive, costs go up, companies pass some of that on, and inflation expectations rise with it. Investors then ask for a higher yield to lend for ten years, because they want their money to keep its buying power. So oil and yields rising together isn't surprising. But yields don't only reflect inflation. They also reflect where growth is heading, what the Fed is likely to do next and how much the government needs to borrow. That's where this gets interesting. The 10-year went above 5.3% in early October and was back under 5% by the end of the month. Oil didn't ease off in the meantime, and fuel prices stayed high. So why are investors accepting lower yields when the inflation picture hasn't improved? The way I read it, the market is starting to worry more about growth than about inflation. Expensive oil doesn't just push prices up. It also eats into what households can spend and squeezes company margins. The same move can lift inflation and slow the economy at the same time, and right now bonds seem to be pricing the second part. That puts the Fed in an awkward spot. If the economy were slowing while inflation was falling, the job would be easy. But with energy costs still high, hiking again in December could deepen a slowdown the bond market is already pricing, while holding back risks letting that inflation settle in. The message from last week's meeting wasn't only about inflation either. Warsh said credit has become harder to get for some businesses and households, and that monetary policy is starting to work. He stopped short of calling financial conditions tight, and nothing suggests the economy is breaking. But the effects of higher rates may finally be showing up. This week adds a few more pieces. The Treasury's refunding announcements will show how much the government plans to borrow, which matters because yields also depend on how many bonds investors have to absorb. Tuesday's midterms could shift the outlook for spending, taxes and borrowing. Then come the jobs and inflation numbers. A month ago, with the 10-year above 5%, I asked why anyone was still carrying stocks, gold or Bitcoin. My answer was that the level mattered less than what growth did while yields stayed high. The bond market is now starting to price that part. Lower yields would normally take some pressure off risk assets, but not when they're falling because growth is weakening.

avatar

October is supposed to be Bitcoin's month. Crypto even has a name for it, "Uptober", and for most of the last decade it earned it. Since 2013, Bitcoin has closed October in the red only four times: 2014, 2018, 2025 and this year, down a little over 7%. What happened next in the other three years is the part I keep coming back to. December closed red every time, and November did in two of the three. Two of those years, 2014 and 2018, are also the same midterm years I compared in my post last month. I'm not reading that as a forecast. Three examples is far too few to build a trade on, and the market today looks very different from 2014 or 2018. But none of those red Octobers got rescued by the end of the year, so I wouldn't count on seasonality to bail this one out.

avatar

Somehow ended up #5 in a haunted mansion with 5 candies and only 1 knock. @POVMarket turned its Halloween event into a little competition, and apparently I’m already taking it seriously. E trading day can earn you another knock. on Nov 10, the mansion opens and we find out what’s behind the door. 13 knocks max and treats up to $500. Let’s see how long I can hold this rank.

avatar

What if Bitcoin miners end up having more say over new features than developers do? For about a decade, building something new around Bitcoin meant either fighting to change L1 or taking the idea to another chain. The eCash fork from @BTCdrivechains takes a different route. It activates drivechains (BIP300/301), so developers can launch their own sidechains without asking the whole network to adopt them. If one fails, the base layer isn't affected. What caught my attention is where miners fit into this. Anyone can propose a sidechain, but miners decide whether it goes live. They also vote on withdrawals back to the main chain, and that vote runs for months before any coins are released. So they're not only securing blocks, they sit right between users and their money on the way out of a sidechain. Seven sidechains go live at launch, covering payments, privacy, prediction markets and token issuance. Miners earn fees from them, which should push them toward the ones people actually use. But on a young network with a small mining base, a hashrate majority is much easier to put together, and that majority is exactly who approves withdrawals. The long voting window is the safety net. And since sidechains are opt-in, that trust only applies to people who choose to move funds into one. I'm curious whether drivechains can turn miner involvement into an advantage instead of just another point of trust. The fork is expected around Thursday. If you self-custody your BTC, you get ECX 1:1. If it sits on an exchange, you're relying on that exchange to credit you. Wallet setup and coin splitting are covered here: https://t.co/hJGuTal598

avatar

Bitcoin fell 53% from its ATH, yet US spot ETF holdings declined just 11%. Who was selling? Meanwhile, CME asset managers’ net longs and leveraged funds’ net shorts both fell 57% as basis trade returns compressed. @intangiblecoins’ research connects these shifts to a potential change in Bitcoin’s institutional ownership, and argues the bear market likely ended in June. Basis returns fell from 7.9% near the ATH to 4.8% now, barely above T-bills. The shrinking premium made cash-and-carry trades less attractive. CME positioning contracted sharply: - Asset managers’ net longs: 43.3K → 18.4K $BTC (-57%). - Leveraged funds’ net shorts: 71.4K → 30.6K $BTC (-57%). - Futures open interest: down 51% in dollar terms from the October 2025 high. @galaxyhq notes that much of leveraged funds’ short exposure reflected cash-and-carry trades, not outright bearish bets. Since Bitcoin’s June low, US spot ETFs have added approximately 87,000 BTC, suggesting renewed demand despite the broader sell-off. Nine multi-strategy and macro funds cut 68K BTC-equivalent in ETF exposure, exceeding the 48K net decline across reporting institutions. Other institutions, including wealth platforms and sovereign investors, collectively added exposure, suggesting ownership rotated between investor groups. The positioning reset changes the market’s demand mix: - Less capital tied to basis trades. - Greater dependence on directional spot demand. Key signals to watch: - ETF holdings rise, indicating sustained demand. - Spot demand strengthens while futures open interest stays subdued. - ETF holdings fall below 1.22M BTC, Galaxy’s stated invalidation threshold. - Basis returns recover, potentially reviving cash-and-carry trades. Bitcoin’s next phase depends on whether directional demand can absorb the supply left behind by exiting basis traders. If spot buying persists as arbitrage incentives fade, the reset becomes constructive. Without it, lower speculative positioning is not enough.

avatar

Perps dominate on-chain derivatives, but options account for less than 1% of perp DEX volume. If that gap starts to close, it will likely come from cheaper hedging, more efficient margin and options liquidity that doesn't depend on rewards, with value potentially flowing to the infrastructure underneath. The problem with perps is that being right isn't enough. A $BTC backtest of 10x longs that eventually turned profitable found they still faced these liquidation probabilities along the way: - 60 days: 18% - 90 days: 29% - 180 days: 47% An option buyer can't be liquidated. The most they can lose is the premium they paid. September 2026 set a record for on-chain options activity: - Notional volume: ~$5B, roughly double the previous month - Premium: $85M, up roughly one-third - Open interest: peaked near $2.5B Even after that record, on-chain is still the opposite of traditional markets, where options dwarf futures. In 2025, they traded 88.65B options contracts versus 30.64B futures contracts, almost 3x more. Earlier on-chain options protocols struggled with fragmented liquidity across strikes and expiries, expensive hedging, stale quotes exploited by arbitrageurs, and excessive collateral requirements. Selling a BTC call for $1,800 could require $100,000 in collateral. Building options alongside deep perp liquidity makes hedging cheaper and improves capital efficiency. @Decentralisedco’s example shows portfolio margin reducing required collateral from $100,000 to $15,000 for a $BTC call, raising monthly returns on locked capital from 1.8% to 12%. The main players occupy different positions in the options stack: - @HyperliquidX: Deep perp liquidity and shared margin for hedging. - @DeriveXYZ: Options infrastructure, professional liquidity and APIs for other applications. - @paradex: Institutional block flow, with daily volume reaching $58.7M after its Paradigm integration before open interest declined. - @ryskfinance: Covered calls that let HYPE, BTC and ETH holders earn premiums. - Hypercall (@SynapseProtocol): Options built around Hyperliquid's perp liquidity. Derive captured over 90% of on-chain options premium in September. Hypercall's rewards drove a 50x increase in notional with little change in premium. Demand could expand through new on-chain assets and embedded options, allowing lending protocols to offer liquidation protection and perp platforms to integrate downside hedging. Two models could help attract options sellers: - @metricxyz: Uses liquidity pools to distribute options, but each strike and expiry requires separate capital. - @papertrade_xyz: Uses token incentives to attract sellers, with perp hedging to manage risk. In a BTC backtest, daily hedging cut the worst weekly payout burden from 20 weeks of premium income to 10. On-chain options growth depends on sustainable market-maker economics, deeper liquidity and demand that persists beyond incentive-driven volume.

avatar

Bitcoin has only been through three US midterm cycles as a real market, and the fourth is two weeks away. If this one rhymes with any of the past three, the next 12 months could look something like the paths in the chart: 🟣 2014: A sharp drop, then a weak recovery. Ends around 55K, roughly 33% below today. 🔵 2018: A sharp drop, then a strong recovery. Ends around 102K, about 25% higher. 🔴 2022: A more controlled pullback, then a gradual climb. Ends around 116K, about 43% higher. Three examples isn't a dataset, and each of these cycles had its own character, so I wouldn't pull a rule out of this. What it does show well is how far apart the outcomes can be from the same starting point. What path do you see for the next year?

avatar

The Bitcoin levels I shared four days ago are already out of date. On Oct 14, options positioning showed a broad balance zone between 79K and 86K, with 87–88K above and 78–79K below as the areas that mattered. Today the balance zone has narrowed to 77–80K, the upside area has moved down to 81–82K, and the downside one has shifted to 74–76K. Some of these will probably look different again tomorrow. If the structure can move this much in four days, how much weight can you really put on a price target given six months ago, a liquidation map built a year ago, or a confident cycle call for two years from now? When I hear things like “it will definitely bounce from here,” “it can’t go below this price” or “the bull market starts on this date,” I honestly wonder how many of the people saying them have looked at how the market is positioned today, what risks are building up, and whether the conditions from four days ago still hold. Every day new positions are opened and closed, options expire, leverage changes and capital moves somewhere else. All of that changes the odds of what price does next. That’s why I follow this kind of data every day. One day on its own doesn’t tell you much. The next day either adds context or starts breaking the first idea, and a few days later you might have a trend, or realize the story you were following doesn’t exist anymore. You only get that by coming back to it regularly. I’d much rather change my view because the conditions changed than spend six months defending something just because I said it publicly. And if a target you gave six months ago eventually gets hit, that doesn’t mean you were right for those six months. You could have missed every shift in positioning, every new risk and every opportunity in between. That’s why I don’t put much weight on predictions that never get updated. What’s valid today can be invalid in two days, but once someone makes a bold call, people can keep following that same idea long after the setup itself stopped being valid. So I wouldn’t get too attached to the exact levels in this chart. They can move tomorrow. What matters is understanding why the map is moving.

avatar

Billions in TVL. Millions in token valuation. The gap between protocol fundamentals and token valuation is where things get interesting. By November 2025, @Uniswap had processed over $4 trillion in cumulative trading volume. Yet, $UNI holders had no direct mechanism to capture protocol trading fees for years. That changed in December 2025, when Uniswap activated a fee mechanism that uses protocol fees to burn UNI. Protocol growth and token value are two different things. What matters is how that growth translates into value for tokenholders. I'm looking across DeFi, RWA, and AI × Crypto for protocols where fundamentals and token valuations may be telling different stories. I'm focusing on four things: - TVL: How much capital does the protocol attract? - Fees and revenue: How much does it earn? - FDV/TVL: How does its valuation compare with its TVL? - Value accrual: How much of that value reaches tokenholders? The analysis spans five sectors, screening for potential valuation gaps. ➤ Liquid staking, restaking and DVT • @LidoFinance ( $LDO ): $24.3B TVL. The largest liquid staking ecosystem, with limited direct value accrual. • @Rocket_Pool ( ethereum:0xd33526068d116ce69f19a9ee46f0bd304f21a51f ): $1.3B TVL. A decentralised alternative to Ethereum staking. • @MarinadeFinance ( $MNDE ): $790M TVL. Solana staking with revenue-sharing mechanisms. • @sanctumso ( $CLOUD ): $2.08B TVL. Solana liquid staking infrastructure and liquidity. • @eigencloud ( $EIGEN ): $6.5B TVL. Extends Ethereum staking security to additional services. • @ether_fi ( $ETHFI ): $5.2B TVL. Liquid restaking combined with a broader product suite. • @ssv_network ( ethereum:0x9d65ff81a3c488d585bbfb0bfe3c7707c7917f54 ): $13.1B reported TVL. Distributed validator infrastructure for staking resilience. ➤ Lending and money markets • @aave ( $AAVE ): $18.5B TVL. A leading multichain lending protocol with substantial fee generation. • @Morpho ( $MORPHO ): $11.3B TVL. Permissionless lending infrastructure with institutional and RWA exposure. • @sparkfinance ( $SKY ): ~$7B combined ecosystem TVL. Lending and RWA collateral within the Sky ecosystem. • @maplefinance ( $SYRUP ): $2.8B TVL. Institutional credit and on-chain lending. • @kamino ( $KMNO ): $1.4B TVL. Solana lending and liquidity infrastructure. • @compoundfinance ( $COMP ): $1.55B TVL. Established lending markets with a different valuation profile from Aave. ➤ DEXs, aggregators and yield trading • @JupiterExchange ( solana:JUPyiwrYJFskUPiHa7hkeR8VUtAeFoSYbKedZNsDvCN ): High Solana trading activity, with approximately $1.9B in related TVL. • @pendle_fi ( $PENDLE ): Yield tokenisation infrastructure connecting DeFi yield markets with growing RWA opportunities. • @Uniswap ( $UNI ): $3.9B TVL. A major liquidity venue where token value accrual remains a key research question. • @PancakeSwap ( $CAKE ): $2B TVL. A multichain DEX with significant trading activity. ➤ Real-world assets and institutional credit • @Ondo ( $ONDO ): Multi-billion-dollar tokenised Treasury and equity exposure. • @SkyEcosystem ( $SKY ): Stablecoin and lending infrastructure supported by RWA collateral and revenue generation. • @centrifuge ( $CFG ): On-chain private credit and structured financial products. • @ethena ( $ENA ): Synthetic dollar infrastructure built around delta-neutral strategies and derivatives markets. ➤ AI × Crypto and DePIN • @opentensor ( $TAO ): Decentralised machine learning and a subnet marketplace. • @rendernetwork ( solana:rndrizKT3MK1iimdxRdWabcF7Zg7AR5T4nud4EkHBof ): Distributed GPU infrastructure for rendering and AI workloads. • @akashnet ( $AKT ): Permissionless cloud and GPU marketplace with live revenue. • @grass ( $GRASS ): Decentralised data and bandwidth infrastructure for AI training. • @origin_trail ( $TRAC ): Decentralised knowledge graphs connecting verifiable data, AI and RWA. • @virtuals_io ( $VIRTUAL ): AI agent launchpad and economic infrastructure. • @NEARProtocol ( $NEAR ): Blockchain infrastructure with AI-focused positioning and agent execution ambitions. TVL alone doesn't tell me much about a token's valuation. I want to know how much revenue the protocol generates, how that revenue is growing, and whether any of it flows back to tokenholders. That's where things get interesting. A protocol can keep growing while its token lags behind. But unlocks, emissions or weak value accrual could explain that gap. The focus is on protocols where fundamental growth outpaces token valuation, without a clear reason for the gap.

avatar

I’ve looked at a lot of ways to earn yield onchain, and US housing credit is one of them. But getting exposure to it was impossible mostly because it’s been an institutional game. @NUVAFinance is changing that with HOME. It's a vault that gives eligible non-US users exposure to a managed portfolio of US home equity lines of credit (HELOCs) from Figure (Nasdaq: FIGR) and its partners, starting from 1 USDC. You get nvHOME, and the yield builds into its price, so there's nothing to claim. The numbers: ➜ 7.0% target policy rate, updated monthly ➜ First-loss buffer targeted at 5% of the vault cap ➜ Initial vault cap of $12M, with about $10M in at launch What I found most interesting is how the buffer gets funded. The loans yield roughly 9–9.8%. HOME holders are paid first at the policy rate, management fees come out next, and the rest goes into the first-loss buffer, which absorbs losses before nvHOME holders do. The buffer doesn't remove default or liquidity risk, and 7.0% is a target that can move with portfolio performance. Still, I'm curious how much demand shows up for this kind of credit once it's a few clicks away in a regular DeFi wallet. 🔗 If you want to check HOME's current rate and the vault details: https://t.co/y7ZarXdj1w