福禄寿炒币版
福禄寿炒币版
牛熊现货周期信仰者，一定能炒币致富！
47Following
5.1Kfollowers
Feed
Feed
The total supply of NEAR has increased from the initial 1 billion tokens to over 1.3 billion due to continuous issuance. Its maximum annual issuance rate was reduced from 5% to 2.5% in October 2025, and now the community has proposed gradually lowering it to 1.6% over 24 months, while also exploring the possibility of stopping issuance altogether and fixing the supply in the future. These proposals still require further governance and research to advance.
In the past, network security costs were paid through issuance, which diluted holders; in the future, the goal is to sustain operations through real business revenue. Issuing fewer tokens is easy; the challenge is whether revenue can sustainably cover security and development expenses, especially during market downturns. The true progress of NEAR's token economy lies in gradually reducing reliance on issuance without sacrificing security and decentralization. $NEAR
If the capital scale in this round is not large and you want to seek higher returns than BTC, I think you can allocate some leading altcoins, but the selection criteria must be stricter.
They should have real business, real revenue, and real token demand, preferably with buyback, burn, or fee distribution mechanisms, so that the project's development can truly translate into token value.
Abandon pure governance tokens that lack value capture and projects with large unlocking pressures in the future. For example, I am optimistic about ONDO and SUI, but continuous large unlocks mean greater supply pressure and uncertainty, so even the best projects need to consider token distribution.
I pay more attention to assets like HYPE, UNI, AAVE, and LINK: HYPE uses transaction fees to buy and burn HYPE; UNI has started protocol fee buyback and burn; AAVE continuously uses protocol revenue for buybacks; LINK has also begun converting enterprise and on-chain service revenue into LINK demand.
Altcoins don't necessarily have to choose the most attractive narratives, but rather assets where the project is more profitable and the token benefits more. They may not be the ones that rise the most, but in my view, this is the cream of the crop among leading altcoins. $BTC
Hackers attempted to transfer over $50 million through NEAR Intents, but only $166,000 succeeded, while another $503,000 was frozen during execution. The risk intelligence layer SHIELD played a key role behind the scenes, and the team voluntarily gave up the bounty for recovering stolen funds.
This incident makes me more optimistic about NEAR's development direction. Whether cross-chain solutions can enable fund flow depends on risk control, which determines if this infrastructure can be adopted by more institutions. Privacy protection and identifying known stolen funds can coexist; the key is that interception permissions, judgment rules, and appeal mechanisms are sufficiently transparent. For NEAR to undertake larger-scale financial business, it needs to build trust beyond execution efficiency, and this time it delivered a perfect answer. $NEAR
The U.S. Treasury just announced plans to repurchase long-term government bonds on Thursday, with a scale of $4 billion to $6 billion. This move helps alleviate selling pressure and suppress the impact of rising long-term interest rates on financing costs. This is positive news, but it does not mean the Federal Reserve is easing monetary policy.
Whether oil prices can continue to fall is the key variable for inflation improvement, and today Brent crude oil rose about 3% again. With energy prices remaining high, inflation will be hard to reduce, the Federal Reserve's easing space will be limited, and the Treasury's repurchase mainly serves as a temporary relief. The repurchase can buy time for the bond market, but whether the macro pressure on the U.S. stock market and Bitcoin can truly ease depends on subsequent changes in oil prices and inflation. I continue to maintain a half position in spot assets, patiently waiting for the market to provide direction.
The data for the Bitcoin spot ETF these past two days is indeed impressive, with a net inflow of $999 million on September 21 and another $715 million on the 22nd, totaling over $1.7 billion in two days. Some funds are waiting for the upward trend to be confirmed; only when the market picks up are they willing to buy, and the new buying pressure in turn supports the price.
The narrative around NEAR is becoming increasingly appealing. After partnering with Ondo, users can trade tokenized US stocks and ETFs on near.com using crypto assets from over 30 chains, with privacy protection included. Cross-chain, privacy, US stocks—they're starting to come together.
Looking ahead, if AI Agents can directly trade and manage assets for people, in my view, what NEAR aims to do is become the financial gateway that meets these demands. The more I see, the less I want to take profits from my NEAR holdings. $NEAR
Almost all KOLs who make long-term market predictions and provide specific price points have been repeatedly proven wrong by the market. Ultimately, investing relies on independent judgment, clear trading logic, and a comprehensive position management and risk control system. Predictions can only serve as a reference; the key to long-term survival is the ability to handle judgment errors.
I'm quite happy that Bitcoin has risen to $85,000; if it goes up another $10,000 to $95,000, I'll break even. As for how the market will move next, I can't really predict it. The macro environment remains pessimistic, and liquidity hasn't shown significant improvement, but no matter how the market moves, good position management can handle it.
A follower copying NEAR asked if they should take profits after doubling. Currently, I only hold half a position in spot overall, with NEAR making up a very small portion. Plus, I am optimistic about its long-term development, so I don't plan to take profits for now. But this is based on my own position size and holding period; others don't have to follow this. Whether to take profits shouldn't be based solely on how much you've earned, but also on whether your position is too large, how much drawdown you can tolerate, and whether your original buying logic has changed. Good position management beats stubbornly trying to predict the market. $NEAR
Revisiting Uniswap: Is the opportunity just beginning after UNI is empowered?
UNI is my unresolved regret for 2026. I was fully aware of its changes and expectations, yet I was washed out by the market. Many people now, upon hearing "altcoins," immediately react by staying away. This disappointment is understandable: some coins can drop 90%, and then drop another 90%; project teams keep changing their narratives, but holders never see returns from business growth. However, researching a project cannot remain stuck in the previous cycle forever. Uniswap is a case worth re-examining: the protocol has been continuously upgrading, and the relationship between UNI and protocol revenue has undergone substantial changes. In the past, the most frustrating part for UNI holders was the missing link between product success and token returns. Users trade on the platform, liquidity providers earn fees, and protocol usage grows, but simply holding UNI does not automatically share in these revenues. Uniswap can be a great product, but UNI does not necessarily become a good investment because of that. To understand today's changes, we need to divide its development over the years into two lines: one is the continuous improvement of the trading product, and the other is that the token's economic mechanism has finally started to catch up. UNI was issued in 2020, mainly serving governance functions. Holders can participate in protocol governance, including deciding whether to enable the fee switch, but having control over the switch does not mean receiving income. The v3 introduced in 2021 brought concentrated liquidity, allowing funds to be focused within specified price ranges, improving capital efficiency. This enhanced Uniswap's competitiveness but did not automatically solve how UNI benefits from it.
Is ARB $10 just hype, or a real valuation reset?
Standard Chartered recently painted a big pie for ARB: $0.5 in 2026, $1.5 in 2027, $3.5 in 2028, and $10 in 2030. I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. With a total ARB supply of 10 billion, $10 means close to $100 billion in FDV. This is no longer just a valuation explained by Arbitrum's well-developed status; it requires it to truly become a key infrastructure for global financial on-chain deployment. But after reading the report, I realized it's not just empty hype; the core is actually betting on one thing: can Robinhood Chain be replicated? Robinhood Chain launched on Arbitrum in July this year. Its main significance is not adding a chain to Arbitrum, but rather the first time it has fully implemented Arbitrum's business model. External institutions use Arbitrum's technology stack to issue their own chains, with 10% of net protocol revenue flowing back into the Arbitrum ecosystem. Currently, more than 30 Arbitrum chains are operating under this model. Standard Chartered estimates based on the revenue rate in early September that Robinhood Chain alone could bring Arbitrum about $5 million in AEP revenue. Compared to before Robinhood Chain's launch, Arbitrum's monthly revenue has increased several times. So the real question is not how much Robinhood can make for Arbitrum,