Oli.
Oli.
🍓Web3投研 🍑人工智能 🚀《干翻狗庄》系列工具作者
5Following
220followers
Feed
Feed
The head of NEAR Intents announced that approximately $3.8 million stolen has been fully returned. For affected users, this is certainly a relief and much more reassuring than just a compensation promise.
However, there was one sentence in the report that made me pause: the team said they will stop the investigation and reminded the other party to use the bug bounty channel in the future. Here, it is important to distinguish that stopping the pursuit of the attacker is not the same as stopping the technical review.
How the money was taken, why the vulnerability was not discovered earlier, and which interaction paths have been covered by the fix still need to be explained to users. This issue involved the interaction between Omni deposit and withdrawal infrastructure and the Intents contract. Recovering the stolen funds does not automatically prove that all similar issues have been eliminated.
I also dislike framing this outcome as "the hacker was ultimately kind." User funds should not rely on the attacker’s willingness to return them for protection. Taking the money and then returning it is very different from reporting the vulnerability according to the rules; such lighthearted promotion easily glosses over the risks involved in the process.
The best follow-up now is for the team to publish a verifiable incident report and fix explanation so users understand why they can trust the service again. The full recovery of funds is commendable, but security work still needs to be accounted for. I hope the next message clarifies what was fixed, rather than just announcing service restoration.
#NEAR生态协议被盗380万美元资金全额追回
Tesla produced 464,391 vehicles in the third quarter and delivered 486,532 vehicles. The difference between the two is 22,141 vehicles, meaning that more cars were delivered this quarter than were newly produced.
This difference aligns with the consumption of previously produced vehicles, but it alone cannot tell us the exact ending inventory, nor can it prove that inventory has decreased in all regions. Delivery involves a time lag between production and transportation, so simply subtracting the two numbers does not resolve the entire inventory issue.
I think the delivery exceeding expectations is worth celebrating, but the year-over-year decline of about 2.1% must also be acknowledged. It proves that the actual results were better than the market's previous estimates but does not yet prove that sales have returned to sustained growth.
A more specific question is what the average selling price corresponding to these deliveries is, and how much profit remains after selling the vehicles. The company also reminds in the announcement that delivery volume cannot be directly used as an indicator of quarterly financial results. Buyers have taken delivery, but shareholders' returns still depend on financial report calculations.
Additionally, energy storage deployment reached 13.7 GWh this quarter, which is worth continuing to track in the October 21 financial report, so as not to let the heat of vehicle deliveries overshadow it. I am willing to give credit for this achievement; as for how much profitability has improved, we will wait for price and cost data to come out before commenting. There is no need to count the unknown parts as positive now.
#特斯拉Q3交付超预期，股价一度涨约5%
Micron's revenue guidance for the next quarter is $61.5 billion, with a fluctuation of $1.5 billion up or down, higher than this quarter's revenue of about $54.2 billion. However, the GAAP gross margin guidance is about 85.95%, slightly lower than this quarter's 86.8%.
I think looking at these two lines together is more interesting than just shouting "storage demand exploded." The company expects revenue to continue growing but did not provide guidance for a simultaneous increase in gross margin. At least the management's own forecast does not paint all indicators as a continuously upward trend.
We can't directly conclude that the boom has peaked here. Product mix, costs, and production ramp-up pace can all affect gross margin, and the specific contributions require more disclosure. However, it reminds us that selling more and earning more per dollar of revenue should not be discussed interchangeably.
Micron's performance is indeed strong, and those bullish have plenty of reasons to be excited. My concern is that the market may have become accustomed to consecutive large beats and gradually treats exceptionally good quarters as the minimum expectation. By then, even if the company continues to grow, it may not satisfy the stock price.
For the next earnings report, I will compare it with this guidance to see if revenue growth can be realized while paying attention to the reasons behind changes in gross margin. Demand strength needs to be tracked, and the market's preemptive expectations must be assessed. Don't automatically translate the company's upward guidance into a buy with no volatility afterward.
#财报观察员：美光上调指引，存储需求继续走强
According to Bloomberg, Anthropic may start its IPO marketing as early as the week of November 9, aiming to go public before Thanksgiving. The schedule may still change, but rather than focusing on the exact day of the bell ringing, I am more interested in the issuance structure.
In an IPO, the company issues new shares to raise funds, while existing shareholders sell their shares—these are two different capital flows. The former increases the company's funds, while the latter mainly allows selling shareholders to obtain cash. News reports often lump them into one huge transaction amount, which can easily mislead readers into thinking all the money can be used to purchase computing power.
This does not mean there is anything wrong with existing shareholders cashing out. After years of investment, going public provides an exit opportunity, which is normal. But if we are discussing whether Anthropic can continue to support R&D and operations, we need to know how much the company ultimately receives, rather than just focusing on the total valuation and issuance size.
I am quite looking forward to Claude entering the public market, and I understand users want to participate in products they like. But when buying stocks, the issuance price, dilution, and shareholder rights must all be considered together. The product's usability cannot answer these terms.
Once the full issuance documents and final plan are clear, I will first look at how much is new shares versus existing shares, then examine the use of the raised funds. The bell-ringing day is certainly lively, but after the excitement, the amount of available funds in the company's account will affect what it can do next.
#Anthropic拟11月启动IPO，目标于感恩节前上市
On October 2nd, the yield on the U.S. 10-year Treasury closed at about 5.28%, and the 30-year at about 5.63%. The employment report was clearly weak, yet the cost of long-term borrowing did not drop significantly.
This divergence hits the housing market harder than it does market software. Mortgage rates do not mechanically follow a single policy expectation change; they are also influenced by the long-term bond market and loan pricing. Traders may feel the pressure to raise rates has eased, but prospective homebuyers might still see heavy monthly payments.
Households with existing low-interest loans may also be reluctant to move. Selling an old home and refinancing could increase interest burdens. Both potential buyers and sellers hesitate, so improved policy expectations rarely translate immediately into active transactions. This is a concrete way high long-term rates affect demand.
Therefore, I am reluctant to summarize financial conditions simply by whether the next rate hike will happen. Long-term corporate financing and household mortgage loans each have their own pricing, and what borrowers actually pay ultimately depends on whether those prices fall.
The same applies to crypto investors: macro news can cause prices to react first, but financing pressures in the economy may not yet be relieved. I consider whether long-term rates can continue to decline as another key observation point, and I won’t dismiss it just because of a weak employment report.
#非农降温难压美债收益率，长期利率压力仍在
This time, the SEC's custody proposal adds options for registered investment advisers and regulated funds: under certain circumstances, they can self-custody, and it also proposes allowing state trust companies to undertake related custody work. Note, this is still a proposal and cannot be taken as all institutions having unconditional approval.
I support giving institutions more choices. Some assets lack suitable custody services, and rigidly applying old rules can indeed cause investment strategies to get stuck in operational steps.
But once institutions manage clients' private keys themselves, many specific issues can no longer be pushed to third parties. Who has signing authority? How to revoke permissions after a responsible person leaves? Can backups truly restore? Can investment managers bypass others to transfer assets? These arrangements must withstand scrutiny and cannot rely solely on "our technology is strong."
Retail investors who manage their own wallets bear their own risks. Institutions that custody clients' money must also explain how authority and responsibility are separated. Technically being able to put coins into a wallet is still far from reliably managing client assets.
What excites me about this news is that institutions can finally design custody processes more aligned with on-chain assets while clarifying responsibilities. Regulators provide operational space, so internal controls must keep pace. When the formal rules and implementation plans come out, I will pay special attention to how independent audits are conducted, not just which institutions announce entry.
#SEC加密资产托管新规，拟放宽机构自托管限制
NVIDIA's stock price hits a new high again, with a market value of about $5.65 trillion on October 2. Seeing this scale, the first thing I think of is: some people believe they have diversified investments, only to find that several accounts are actually betting on the same thing.
One account buys a tech index, another buys a semiconductor fund, and then picks a few AI industry chain stocks. The product names differ, but the funds' dependence on AI capital expenditure may be increasingly similar. To know exactly how much overlap there is, just check the fund holdings; no need to guess based on feeling.
Market-cap weighted indexes give higher weight to big companies, which also means that even if investors are not actively chasing NVIDIA, their portfolios may still be influenced by it. When the company continues to grow, this overlap feels comfortable; but if one day the market starts doubting customer budgets, several investments that were thought to be diversified may suffer together.
I admit NVIDIA's business performance is strong, and its rise to this level has a solid operational foundation. But a company's excellence and a portfolio's suitability for oneself are two different issues. You can't assume that every tech asset you hold is safer just because the leader hits a new high again.
Rather than obsessing over whether $6 trillion is the limit, it's better to first check your holdings: if AI industry growth expectations are downgraded, how many assets will be affected simultaneously? This answer is more useful than guessing the next round number threshold.
#英伟达股价再创历史新高，市值逼近6万亿美元
The G7 plans to release up to 100 million barrels of crude oil and refined products within four months. Roughly averaging over 120 days, this equates to about 830,000 barrels per day. The actual arrangement will release some diesel earlier; this calculation is just to help us understand the scale and should not be taken as a daily execution plan.
Seeing "100 million barrels" can indeed be reassuring, but the market consumes fuel every day. To judge whether this measure is sufficient, the total volume needs to be converted into release speed and then compared with the supply gap. Focusing only on a large number can easily lead to overestimating how long it can sustain.
There is also an easily overlooked aspect this time: the G7 has committed to avoiding restrictions on energy exports among members. If reserves are released on one hand while each member shuts down exports on the other, the relief the global market receives could be significantly reduced. Whether inventories can smoothly reach areas with fuel shortages also affects prices.
I think this arrangement has value, especially in easing short-term fuel tightness, but it will not immediately turn energy costs optimistic. What happens after four months and when the consumed reserves will be replenished still need to be faced.
For traders, the inventory release announcement can quickly change sentiment; for transportation companies, pressure only truly eases when procurement bills actually decrease. What is worth tracking next is the actual volume released—don’t let the same "100 million barrels" headline repeatedly create a sense of novelty.
#美伊局势持续紧张，G7将释放最多1亿桶储备
The increase in total crypto market capitalization does not mean that the same amount of money has just entered the market. This misunderstanding is especially prone to arise when ETFs show outflows: on one hand, people say institutions have withdrawn, while on the other hand, the market cap has clearly increased, and both sides feel they hold ironclad evidence.
Market cap is calculated by multiplying the latest price by the circulating supply; when the price changes, the value of existing assets is revalued. ETF net flow statistics, however, track subscriptions and redemptions—these two tables answer completely different questions.
Dates must also be aligned. Farside shows that on September 30, BTC and ETH spot ETFs indeed had simultaneous net outflows; on October 1, BTC had already returned to net inflows, while ETH was still experiencing outflows. On October 2, some product data in the table was missing, so the temporary totals cannot be taken as final results, and old titles should not be used to draw conclusions for the latest trading day.
My requirements for this kind of capital flow news are actually quite low: first, clearly state the statistical date. If the date of the money is not even matched, starting to explain institutions' long-term beliefs is a bit premature.
The cooling of capital flow deserves attention, but to judge whether the market trend can continue, we still need to see if new buying can continuously absorb selling. An increase in market cap can describe the market becoming more expensive but cannot alone prove that more cash has been invested. Without clarifying this, it is easy to mistake price increases for a financial safety cushion.
#BTC、ETH现货ETF同步转流出，资金热度降温
Nonfarm payrolls in September increased by only 29,000, with the healthcare sector contributing 17,000 of those. Putting these two figures together, the feeling is colder than just looking at the unemployment rate: other industries fluctuate, and the remaining new jobs are already few.
The BLS also mentioned that the financial sector lost about 7,000 jobs, and most major industries saw little change in employment. I don't really like directly translating such reports as "bad news for the economy, good news for crypto." A slowdown in hiring primarily means it's harder to find jobs and households are more cautious about income expectations. Policy expectations might push assets up for a while, but whether ordinary people dare to increase consumption is another matter.
Healthcare demand is relatively stable; it can provide jobs but cannot prove that all industries are expanding. If employment growth continues to concentrate in a few sectors, even if the total nonfarm number improves, we need to look more closely at the composition.
This report makes me cautious but not to the point of calling a recession. For the crypto market, the excitement from a smaller rate hike and concerns about economic weakness may coexist. Those eager to leverage on good news should first think clearly: are they betting on looser policy or genuinely stronger demand? These two judgments may lead to different future trends.
#美国9月非农仅增2.9万，失业率升至4.2%