FEiKU

"We connect directly to TradFi. And when I say 'directly to TradFi,' I don't mean crypto-native dealers that are sitting on a little bit of TradFi liquidity through a retail broker. I mean directly to the largest dealers that underpin traditional markets." - @variational_lvs

The Elysium trenches are opening 🍌 Banana Gun will support @Enter_Elysium from DAY ONE. Trade new launches and explore the fast lane for Hyperliquid. 40% of net trading revenue will fuel $KNTQ buybacks and burns. 🔥 Be early with Banana Gun. November 9th, 2026.

buy

5 ways to improve your OPSEC in a couple hours this weekend: - buy @Yubico’s Yubikeys to replace insecure 2FA - sign up for @optery to have your personal info removed from data broker sites (I also have a discount code for anyone who wants it) - set up a new Gmail that isn’t tied to your name or shared with anyone. Use this email for your banking, CEX accounts, password manager etc - get a virtual mailbox set up to receive packages and mail somewhere other than at home - set up a 2nd phone number just to have on accounts where you can’t get rid of SMS 2FA (like your Apple ID) Any one of these things will measurably improve your personal security and they all can get knocked out in a couple hours You could bookmark this and do one task each weekend through November and be in great shape. Don’t be overwhelmed, just get started!

GM - we just crossed 10K active users, processing over 30M memory nodes. Momentum

You cannot fathom the amount of stories told and developers interviewed for this fucking masterpiece. Incredible effort, insane lineup of investigators, beautifully shot. Fuck Kim Jong Un. 😘

Tech Stocks in Bear Market Territory: 1. AppLovin, $APP: -68% 2. Coinbase, $COIN: -62% 3. CoreWeave, $CRWV: -60% 4. Arm Holdings, $ARM: -55% 5. Western Digital, $WDC: -54% 6. Intel, $INTC: -54% 7. Oracle, $ORCL: -51% 8. SanDisk, $SNDK: -49% 9. Circle, $CRCL: -48% 10. ServiceNow, $NOW: -44% 11. Robinhood, $HOOD: -44% 12. Seagate, $STX: -42% 13. Marvell Technology, $MRVL: -39% 14. Super Micro Computer, $SMCI: -39% 15. Broadcom, $AVGO: -34% 16. Alphabet, $GOOGL: -31% 17. Adobe, $ADBE: -29% 18. Micron, $MU: -29% 19. IBM, $IBM: -23% 20. Meta, $META: -21% 21. Amazon, $AMZN: -21% The Nasdaq 100 is now down nearly -$5 trillion since October 6th.

BREAKING: Intel, $INTC, extends losses to -30% on the day, now on track for its biggest decline on record. Not even the Dot-Com bubble or 1970s saw a decline in $INTC like this.

Binance has begun recovering affected assets for users and continues to work with law enforcement, issuers, blockchain intelligence firms and industry partners to trace, freeze and recover additional funds. The company has already publicly committed to cover losses through company funds in the prior announcement. Binance has already reserved over $6.34B of company funds to cover this incident. $5B of these funds are already held in the exact token assets that were impacted. We are completing the purchase of the remaining amount by buying token assets through market channels and OTC channels. We are doing this to match the format of the remaining token assets and address any asset shortfalls. This step can take longer because some tokens may have low liquidity and OTC settlement also takes time. We will share more progress as soon as we can. These figures do not include frozen or protected assets, which remain subject to ongoing recovery and verification. Currently, $3bn has been frozen, with thanks to our industry partners. We are working with partners and law enforcement to recover the frozen assets.We will continue to use company resources to cover confirmed shortfall and will provide further verified updates as recovery efforts progress. Ultimately, all user funds will be verified publicly through our Proof of Reserves. We will weather this storm. Thank you for the support.

Strap in and consider this my official update on the kinetiq:native thesis, specifically regarding @Enter_Elysium. Best way to do this is to refute some arguments I've seen: 1. "L2's are parasitic" It's very lazy to compare Elysium to other L2s from the past. Robinhood Chain has generated a little over $50m in fees, of which $5m went to Arbitrum, and a whopping...$70k went to $ETH blob fees. HyperEVM hyperliquid:native fees are burnt, whereas sequencer fees on Elysium go to kinetiq:native buys and builders (more on this later), but HyperEVM fees only account less than 1% of Hyperliquid total revenue. Papertrade is actually much more directly parasitic to hyperliquid:native; HyperEVM fees are peanuts even if Elysium vamped them entirely. An under appreciated dynamic that a lot of people don't know is that HyperEVM USDC applies to AQAv2 hyperliquid:native revenue too, and USDC on Elysium will as well. Assuming the HyperEVM burns around $25k of hyperliquid:native a day, every additional $1b USDC that Elysium onboards in TVL would burn 4x that same amount due to AQAv2. For reference, Solana has ~$7.5bn USDC and Base has $5b. Robinhood chain is predominantly USDG, which they monetize on, and ETH obviously gets nothing from. Imagine if Base contributed to $175m (3.5% of $5b) of value accrual to $ETH via their USDC TVL...maybe my $5k/7k $ETH calls would actually hit then 🙃 Beyond this, the entire selling point of Elysium is that it sits adjacent to HyperCore. propAMM's are functionally impossible on HyperEVM now due to the 1s block time (amongst other reasons). Additionally, on the HyperEVM, you can only read Hypercore price, not order book depth. As a result, Solana does 25-50x the spot trading volume that Hypercore/HyperEVM handle. If Elysium can eat even a moderate chunk of on chain spot volume from Solana, especially in tokenized RWAs, the implications for corresponding hedging flows to Hyperliquid are enormous. Elysium explicity enables net new flow and TVL to Hyperliquid, both of which are very accretive to hyperliquid:native itself. I would not be surprised if Elysium directly contributes an additional low 9 figure ARR for hyperliquid:native in 2027. 2. "L2's are bad investments and down only tokens" As stated above, $ARB made about $5m so far from Robinhood Chain. Of that amount, a whopping...zero dollars made it to tokenholders. No buybacks, no burns, nothing. 50% of Elysium sequencer fees are directed at kinetiq:native buybacks. Even if you assume that Elysium only generates half the current sequencer fees of the current ghost town that is the HyperEVM, that'd still more than double their current revenue. Currently, kinetiq:native buybacks as a % of market cap are about 1.5%, compared to 4-5% for hyperliquid:native. If Elysium generates only half of the sequencer fees of the current HyperEVM ($5m/yr), they'd be retiring token off the market at the same rate that hyperliquid:native does relative to market cap. If Elysium can do closer to 50-75% of Base annualized sequencer fees ($30m), they'd be doing kinetiq:native buybacks at double the rate of hyperliquid:native as a % of market cap. This is completely negating a likely increase in kHYPE TVL and other revenue streams (which there are numerous), like from launchpads like @AscendLaunch. Ascend actually deserves their own section because they've commited to doing 30% of gross revenue as kinetiq:native buy/burns (50% to buys, 60% of that to burn). $PONS has generated $200m revenue in the last 2 months, but is currently only annualizing about $125m revenue, so we'll use a very conservative ~10% of the more conservative number. That'd add another $4m of kinetiq:native buybacks, which brings buyback yield/mcap well into the double digit %, over double hyperliquid:native. 3. "Why would there be activity on Elysium if there wasn't on the HyperEVM?" Probably because the HyperEVM operates at the speed of smoke signals and has 0 support from Hyperliquid. You have @Uniswap, @fomo, @Pumpfun etc all announcing integrations and deployments on Elysium day 1 after ignoring the HyperEVM all this time. @0xOmnia and the @Kinetiq_xyz team is putting on a master class in distribution, and you're seeing it play out this week. Jeff and company are focusing on building the best perps platform in the world, and that's great, but this hands off approach has come at the expense of any support or curation of an on chain ecosystem. That's left a massive gap that other chains have filled, but Elysium can bring all that activity back into the "house of all finance". Having a team that's fully dedicated to making this a reality will look nothing like the lack of attention the HyperEVM received. 4. "It'll be a flash in the pan memecoin chain and die out just like RHC activity has" This is more speculative and it's hard to say. Elysium could have an epic and unsustainable PvElysium memecoin season by inheriting some of the wealth effect from both hyperliquid:native and kinetiq:native. Obviously this would absolutely moon kinetiq:native from sequencer fees/Ascend revenue, but that's shortlived. Lively trenches aren't mutually exclusive with a real and innovative DeFi ecosystem though. As I mentioned before, Elysium will be uniquely able to plug in with, leverage, and read Hyperliquid orderbooks and liquidity. DeFi applications that couldn't be built anywhere else are made possible here. A performant general purpose blockchain adjacent to HyperCore is the natural home to propAMM and HFT arbitrage against HIP3, which incentivizes deeply liquid spot RWA markets, which enables much higher LTV lending, which enables unique structured products and DeFi primitives to be built. I do imagine that the trenches are built before more serious innovation comes about, but an important note here is that builders are getting 25% of sequencer fees as well. What builder wouldn't want to deploy on a new ecosystem, adjacent to the most successful app in crypto history, with a built in rev share agreement with the chain itself? Based on my conversations with Ascend and Montra, lots of serious teams want to build, not just memecoin deployers. TLDR: It's not that complicated guys. kinetiq:native is a $120m mcap token that has a very clear path to buyback % yields multiples higher than hyperliquid:native, with an unprecedented ecosystem flywheel. It's both beta to hyperliquid:native and enhances the hyperliquid:native bull case. It might be the most asymmetric bet in crypto right now, and it's not conditional on some long shot thesis, just that there will be a large on chain ecosystem for the most important app in crypto. Maybe it's a flop and a sell the news event on launch...or maybe it's all the best parts of Base/Hood sequencer fees combined with the revenue streams of $PUMP, $CAKE, solana:jtojtomepa8beP8AuQc6eXt5FriJwfFMwQx2v2f9mCL, ethereum:0x5a98fcbea516cf06857215779fd812ca3bef1b32 etc and heads towards billions of TVL and 9 figure annual revenue. If you pattern match too hard to "L2 bad" or "HyperEVM sucks", it's from a place of being too 🏳️‍🌈🐻-pilled and/or lazy research.

The wealth effect of kinetiq:native is about to begin, sparking an onchain movement similar to when Solana generated a wealth effect and started a multi-year onchain bull run. Some of the best times of trenching were during the Solana wealth effect era. When it had ran from $8 to $290 over 2 years, onchain flourished incredibly well and many traders were able to achieve generational wealth. We are seeing the same exact setup on kinetiq:native, and have built @AscendLaunch the most participant-aligned launchpad, built on Elysium, the value-accretive L2. For the first time, an L2 and its leading launchpad are aligned around growing ecosystem value rather than extracting it. We have positioned the premier launchpad as value-accretive to the entire Elysium ecosystem, from the foundation ($HYPE) to the Layer 2 (kinetiq:native) and finally to participants on our launchpad (traders, stakers, and builders). Rather than develop a launchpad token, we have chosen to adopt kinetiq:native as our protocol token, and have made major improvements to our tokenomics upping our KNTQ buybacks to 80% of protocol fees going into buying KNTQ, burning it, and deploying it strategically. This, paired with 50% of Elysium sequencer fees going to buying back and burning kinetiq:native makes the setup extremely asymmetrical. We believe that if kinetiq:native does well, so will onchain, which will mean that Ascend does well making our participants have an even stronger flywheel. KNTQ does well -> Elysium does well -> Ascend does well -> Traders, builders, stakers do well -> KNTQ does well. This is the flywheel and wealth effect we expect to see with kinetiq:native. The problem: Traditional launchpads extract liquidity through competing protocol tokens, fees that leave the ecosystem, and little sustained demand for launched tokens. Our solution: No protocol token. Instead, Ascend has adopted kinetiq:native as our protocol token. 90% of Ascend protocol fees buy back KNTQ (80%) and HYPE (20%). The remaining 10% is the team treasury. Staking: Users stake HYPE via kHYPE on Ascend, directing yield toward ecosystem token buybacks while earning four reward streams: HYPE, ecosystem tokens, KNTQ, and boosted DEX referral fees. 20% HYPE allocation: - 50% Staker rewards - 50% Protocol-owned staked HYPE on Ascend 80% KNTQ allocation: - 40% Burnt - 60% deployed strategically across ecosystem token buybacks, Ascend points program, protocol-owned KNTQ LP across Ascend token pools + kHYPE - Traders: No competing protocol token extracting liquidity from their positions. Ecosystem buybacks from protocol fees + staking yield. - Tokens: Recurring buybacks funded by protocol fees and staker yield. Supported LP depth from Ascend treasury. - Builders: No launchpad token competing for liquidity, grants, launches with dedicated buyback support through Ascended listings, and a growth path to HyperCore spot and HIP-3 perps facilitated by Kinetiq's HIP-3 Perps DEX, as well as rev share from Ascend via our Strategic Partnerships. - Stakers: Multiple reward streams while supporting ecosystem growth. Unlocking new capital: Rather than recycling the same liquidity across Solana, Base, and Robinhood, Ascend gives HYPE holders a way to deploy sidelined capital into new ecosystem launches. The Elysium advantage: While other L2s retain sequencer revenue, Elysium directs 50% toward KNTQ buybacks and 25% toward builders. Ascend commits 100% of its sequencer-fee allocation to grants for builders launching on Ascend, creating a powerful incentive to build on Elysium instead of competing ecosystems such as Base & Robinhood. The scale: At $5M/month in Elysium sequencer fees, a 10% allocation to Ascend would generate $500K/month in builder incentives, funding grants, HyperCore spot listings, AMM liquidity, etc. For reference, Robinhood generated $14M in sequencer fees in a 30-day period, while Base generated approximately $75m in a 1 year period. Further, the buyback effect of a top launchpad on HYPE, KNTQ, and ecosystem tokens are significant. In September, the 30d total of fees generated across top launchpads: PUMP ($165M), PONS ($132M), Flap ($41M), Stonkfun ($27M). At scale, Ascend would contribute mid 6-figures to low 7-figures of daily buybacks to HYPE & KNTQ. The vision: Make Ascend the obvious place to build, trade, and stake. Stakers are the backbone of Ascend, and will receive many benefits of the protocol's success with many rev shares in place. Builders are attracted by grants, sustained buyback support, a clear path to HyperCore spot and HIP-3 Perps through Kinetiq, and eventually becoming an Ascend Strategic Partner. Traders are attracted by PVE tokenomics where protocol activity strengthens the ecosystem instead of extracting from it. Together, these create a flywheel: better incentives attract better builders, better launches attract more traders, and more activity drives even greater buyback support and ecosystem growth.

trade[XYZ] launched its first market on Hyperliquid 381 days ago. Today, we are joining forces with ICE, parent company of the New York Stock Exchange, to bring perpetual futures on Hyperliquid to U.S. regulated markets. I don’t usually write long posts, but today merits reflection. For years, builders across this industry have worked to show that open, onchain markets could support price discovery, manage risk, and withstand stress to the standards of traditional market infrastructure, all while staying open when and where those markets aren’t. Our achievements stand on the shoulders of those builders. And today, the company that owns the New York Stock Exchange has chosen to build upon the work of every developer, trader, market maker, and user who took a chance on us and our markets. We share this moment with all of you. Markets are shaped by their participants. A new generation of investors trades from their phones, across asset classes, at any hour of any day. Until Hyperliquid, the right infrastructure for those markets didn’t exist. Building these markets was hard. It took novel approaches to pricing, funding, and risk, refined with real capital at stake, in markets that don’t close. It also meant earning the trust of the people trading on them. We’re honored that the community recognized that effort and responded in kind. That trust is what allowed us to grow our volumes to a ~$1 trillion annualized run rate in just over a year, to help pioneer new instruments like pre-IPO perps, and to earn the confidence of storied institutions like S&P Dow Jones Indices. That’s why ICE has chosen trade[XYZ] as its exclusive partner to bring 24/7 perps to the U.S. Shifts in technology have pushed markets toward greater transparency, better price discovery, and broader access: from the coffee house to the curb exchange, ticker tape to the telephone, the trading floor to digital exchanges. ICE helped write that last chapter. In 1997, Jeff Sprecher bought a small power-trading technology business for $1. ICE launched as an electronic energy marketplace in 2000, helped digitize major commodity markets, and acquired the NYSE in 2013. It has grown exponentially because of this appetite for innovation. That’s the partner we wanted: a partner that looks forward and embraces progress. Americans deserve access to the most innovative markets in the world, and the protections of U.S. regulation. With trade[XYZ] and ICE, subject to regulatory approvals, they’ll have both. The difference isn’t just access. Perps don’t expire, so traders never have to roll positions, and liquidity concentrates in a single deep market for each asset. Cross-margining enhances capital efficiency by letting one pool of collateral back positions across stocks, commodities, and crypto. Underpinning it all are atomic clearing and settlement, real-time risk management that enables continuous markets, and universally applied rules that anyone can verify. This is the next chapter we’ll write together. My responsibility, our responsibility, is to now build markets worthy of the confidence our partners and our users have placed in us. Our commitments will not waver: to fair and transparent markets, to diverse markets, to low costs of execution, and above all, to market integrity. All of this in pursuit of one thing: A universal exchange, open around the clock, coming to the United States. We’re proud to have deployed more than 100 markets on trade[XYZ]. But measured against the opportunity ahead, we’ve barely started. There is an enormous universe of assets we haven’t reached, alongside things people want to trade that have no established market at all. Wherever there is demand to trade an asset, we want trade[XYZ] to be where its price is discovered. Global stocks, commodities, bonds, pre-IPO companies, compute, new indices, digital assets, interest rates, equity baskets, volatility products, alt assets… Anything. Anytime. Anywhere. Ultimately, everything you own should work with everything you trade. Picture a headline breaking on Saturday night. You should be able to post tokenized shares as collateral, hedge your portfolio with an index perp, add exposure to oil, and take a view on a company that has not yet gone public. All in one account, all on one risk engine, before any traditional market opens. trade[XYZ] and Hyperliquid were built for this. I hope someone opens their first investment account years from now to find that trivial, and to wonder why their predecessors needed so many separate financial relationships. Getting there will take liquidity, reliability, trust, and prices people have reason to believe. It will take years. I’m prepared to spend them. Finally, a few thank yous. First to the XYZ team: For the tireless nights and for committing to this vision before it was obvious. To Jeff Sprecher and ICE, with special thanks to Michael Blaugrund and Trabue Bland who championed us throughout: You’re a world-class, technology-embracing team that proves innovation and scale are in fact not at odds. To Stan Druckenmiller: For your partnership and helping us turn the next page. To Hyperliquid Labs: For being the best partners we could ask for. You set an impossible standard, one we continually strive to meet. @chameleon_jeff, @iliensinc, @xulian_hl And most importantly, to our users: You traded these markets when no one thought it mattered. Guess what? It did.

most ppl would make more money and have way fewer headaches if they just took a longer view. but everything around us is pushing the other way. fast, fast, fast, rotate, don't miss it what being in a rush actually does, at least for me, is make me take more decisions. and every decision is one more chance to be wrong. and with the number of tokens coming out now and how easy it is to buy them, the surface area for that just keeps growing how i've tried to handle it, with mixed results so far this cycle: core spot holdings that i refuse to touch. i don't even really think about them until conditions i set ahead of time get met. that's the anchor of the port then a much smaller active book, whatever fits your risk, somewhere between zero and 20% of the port, for rotations, trades, the thing trending on the timeline. that's where the itch goes if i notice myself whittling the active book down, that's my signal. park it back in the main bag if it's working and i think it keeps going, or in the second or third best idea. then scale the active side way back. keep 5% or so live if i genuinely have to be in and out of stuff, and leave it there none of this is complicated. the hard part is remembering to stick with the plan when times get good.

I wanted to write a post this morning offering some honest thoughts on the whole "Pump fun is the enemy" discourse I've been seeing across the timeline. As someone who has been here full-time since late 2020, this isn't my first rodeo when it comes to watching CT collectively turn against the very infrastructure that defined a previous market cycle. In fact, I'd argue this is an almost predictable phenomenon that occurs at every major paradigm shift in crypto, particularly when we transition away from a dominant speculative asset class and towards whatever comes next. The platform that facilitated the previous meta inevitably becomes the focal point of frustration when the economics underpinning that meta begin to deteriorate. Most of you probably haven't been around long enough to remember, but we witnessed an almost identical situation with OpenSea during the transition away from NFTs in 2022–23. At that point, there was virtually nothing OpenSea could have done to satiate its existing user base. The NFT boom that it had largely facilitated was over, liquidity was evaporating, and the core participants who had previously made substantial amounts of money trading NFTs were suddenly finding it increasingly difficult to generate returns. Predictably, people started to get pissed off. OpenSea was suddenly extractive. OpenSea wasn't innovating. OpenSea wasn't doing enough for its users. OpenSea was responsible for the deterioration of the very market it had helped popularise. And while there were certainly legitimate criticisms to be made regarding its business model the broader reality was that NFTs were simply no longer the dominant speculative asset class. With the benefit of hindsight, it's difficult to imagine any realistic set of decisions OpenSea could have made that would have fundamentally reversed that trajectory. The writing was already on the wall. Yet, to this day, you'll still encounter people who genuinely believe OpenSea somehow "killed NFTs". Which, to me, is an absurd interpretation of how speculative markets function. No emerging asset class gets to enjoy an indefinite period of extraordinary returns, particularly once the opportunities that initially made it attractive become widely understood, commoditised and increasingly competitive. And I believe we're now witnessing an almost identical phenomenon with pump fun. Call it the OpenSea-ification of the trenches. We're experiencing the gradual exhaustion of capital-M memecoins as the de facto speculative asset class of this cycle, and the platform most closely associated with their proliferation has become the natural target for everyone's frustration. The uncomfortable reality is that most people, outside of a relatively small subset of sophisticated participants, simply aren't making meaningful money trading memes anymore. There are numerous reasons for this, but without getting lost in the weeds, the underlying dynamics are relatively straightforward. Liquidity is considerably more fragmented, the number of competing tokens and narratives has expanded dramatically, and the capital required to sustain the valuations we witnessed during the height of the mania simply isn't circulating through the market in the same way. At the same time, the average participant is competing against an increasingly sophisticated group of traders who have spent years refining their strategies, infrastructure and understanding of the trenches. This is an important point that I don't think gets nearly enough attention. Every speculative asset class eventually becomes a more solved game. The inefficiencies that initially created extraordinary opportunities are gradually arbitraged away. As more participants figure out how to play the game, the edge that once existed begins to disappear, and making money becomes increasingly difficult for the average trader. Consequently, the risk/reward profile deteriorates for the average participant. What was once an environment where relatively unsophisticated traders could generate extraordinary returns becomes one where those same participants are effectively competing against professionals. This isn't a unique failure of memecoins. It's how financial markets function. It happened with NFTs, and it's happening with memes. Which brings me to what I consider the fundamental misconception underpinning much of the current anti-pump discourse. There's this persistent belief that if only pump fun had implemented different incentives, distributed fees differently, worked with different KOLs, or simply never existed in the first place, we'd somehow be living in a memecoin utopia where everyone continued making money indefinitely. I find that argument deeply unconvincing. For one, it assumes pump fun exists in a vacuum, rather than within an intensely competitive market where alternative platforms would inevitably emerge to service the same underlying demand. Remove pump fun from the equation, and you don't magically remove the economic incentives that gave rise to it. You simply create an opportunity for another platform to occupy the same position. More importantly, it assumes that the structural deterioration in memecoin profitability is primarily a consequence of platform-level decisions rather than the natural maturation and saturation of the asset class itself. I don't believe that's the case. And to be clear, none of this is intended as an unconditional defence of pump fun. There are absolutely decisions worth criticising. But IMO the distinction I think people are missing is that... A platform can make suboptimal decisions without being responsible for the structural decline of the market it operates within. Even if pump fun had executed perfectly, two fundamental realities would remain unchanged. First, crypto has largely failed to attract sufficient new capital and participants to sustain the increasingly large speculative ecosystems we've built across successive cycles. Second, memecoin trading has become an increasingly competitive activity, where the average participant is now competing against a much more sophisticated and experienced subset of the market. Neither of these problems disappears because pump fun changes its fee structure or starts working with different influencers. And neither would disappear if pump fun ceased to exist tomorrow. Simply put, people are looking for a platform-level solution to what is fundamentally a market-level problem. I think that's the real source of the disconnect. When an asset class stops generating the returns people have become accustomed to, it's psychologically much easier to identify a villain than to accept that the opportunity itself has fundamentally changed. OpenSea became that villain for NFTs. Pump fun is becoming that villain for memecoins. And I suspect that when the next dominant speculative asset class eventually emerges, we'll watch this exact same cycle play out again. None of this means platforms should be immune from criticism or that participants shouldn't demand better incentives, transparency and alignment. They absolutely should. But there's a meaningful difference between holding a company accountable for its decisions and attributing the inevitable maturation of an entire speculative market to that company's existence. Until we start distinguishing between those two things, I think we're going to keep having the wrong conversation. And sure, call me a pump fun shill if you want, but many of you made life-changing gains during peak memecoin mania precisely because pump democratised launches. It's worth acknowledging that, just as it's worth recognising that the decline in liquidity and profitability isn't solely the fault of the launchpad that helped facilitate the boom. Ultimately, I think it's worth asking whether any single platform could have fundamentally changed where we find ourselves today, or whether this was always the natural trajectory of the market. Food for thought.

it should also make u realize that everyone has a worlds leading expert in virtually every domain in their pocket, but most ppl are too lazy to use them, let alone smart enough to ask the right questions. with ai smart ppl get smarter and dumb ppl get dumber. k-shaped economy.

Official Statement | Security Incident Update TL;DR: No private keys were compromised, unaffected wallets are safe, and all affected users will be fully reimbursed by Bloom. Following our investigation, we have identified the exact attack vector and confirmed the scope of the incident. The attack exploited a third-party module through a complex Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability. No private keys were accessed or compromised, and we have ruled out broader exposure of users' wallets. Incident Overview Affected: 49 wallet addresses belonging to 9 users. • Total losses: Approximately 9,408 SOL ($947,000). • Root cause: Exploited third-party module enabling an RCE vulnerability. • Refunds: Bloom will fully reimburse 100% of the stolen funds directly to secure wallets designated by the affected users. • We are also working to trace the stolen funds, explore recovery and freezing options, and identify the attacker. Our team has been developing software since 2018 and operating in crypto since 2021. We are an established team, committed to building for the long term and protecting the trust of our users. Security threats are an unfortunate reality of this industry, even with extensive precautions in place. Our commitment to user safety, transparency, and business continuity remains unchanged. The Bloom Team

Detailed BTC Top-Down Overview (notes in images) 1W

If you are mid to long term bullish, but derisking short term You are expressing the opinion that you will beat the market twice in the short term First time that you will derisk high enough and second time you will be able to buy back in low enough That's two additional short term trades you need to nail on top of your long term view

OVERTRADING October 10, 2025 i had what would become the single biggest one-day loss of my career i lost eight figures in minutes due to systemic failures on the biggest CEXs, and to this day, no one has taken accountability for what happened my losses made headlines and became one of the biggest stories to come out of that day but what many people don't know is what happened in the weeks and months that followed i lost several million more and i did it by making one of the biggest mistakes traders like me tend to make: OVERTRADING in hindsight, i would have been far better off shutting everything down for the next few months or even quarters i probably would have become a much better trader if i had simply stayed away from the computer for at least six months but a part of me was desperate for action a part of me wanted to make it all back a part of me wanted to prove that i still had what it takes and that i would get back on my feet i wanted to 'work' and sitting back, doing nothing, and staying away from the computer for a prolonged period didn't feel like work except that, for a trader, being AFK can sometimes be the most important work you do one of the biggest mistakes i made — and that many traders make — is assuming that skill, experience, and process are enough to consistently outperform the market they aren't believe it or not, successful trading is often a combination of skill, favorable market conditions, timing, and luck as a Christian, i attribute the 'luck' component to GOD's blessings and favor rather than sheer luck but the underlying principle remains the same: our biggest wins often come from combining a solid process with being in the right place at the right time sometimes, that means catching a single exceptional trade other times, it means being positioned during a streak of opportunities that emerge in quick succession because market conditions are overwhelmingly in your favor for example, you could have been a memecoin god simply by being active in the market during the explosive memecoin era of 2021, which produced $DOGE, $SHIB, $FLOKI, and several other billion-dollar runners many traders made life-changing money during that period but the same sophisticated processes that helped some of us make 7, 8, or even 9 figures during the bull market would have failed miserably in the bear market that followed in 2022 the same principle applies to the 2024–early 2025 era, which produced several multibillion-dollar runners like $WIF, $POPCAT, and $FARTCOIN and then the prolonged dearth of opportunities after $TRUMP leading to 10/10 and the almost one-year period following the point is simple: the edge that makes you money in one market environment won't necessarily make you money in another and one of the most important skills you can develop as a trader is recognizing when your edge is no longer there sometimes, the best trade is no trade at all sometimes, the smartest thing you can do is take a bow, step away, and wait for the next opportunity even if only temporarily it's almost impossible to consistently beat the market over a sufficiently long timeframe but as crypto traders, we have one significant advantage: we don't need to outperform the market every single day, week, or month to generate exceptional returns historically, crypto's bull phases have tended to occupy a disproportionate share of the cycle, with bear phases accounting for a smaller portion using one historical framework, the bull phase averages approximately 1,060 days, or 74% of the cycle, while the bear phase averages around 380 days, or 26% but if your definition of a bull run is narrower — i.e. a period of explosive momentum when $BTC trades above its 200-day moving average and much of the cycle's biggest price action occurs — then the window becomes significantly shorter under that framework, we're talking about approximately 237 days, or around 16% of the cycle these figures are estimates based on particular definitions of market phases, not universal constants but the broader lesson remains: you don't need to trade every market. you need to recognize the windows when your edge is strongest and capitalize on them for the rest of the time, there's nothing wrong with stepping away entirely or trading only with a tiny fraction of your portfolio that you can comfortably afford to lose preserving your capital, your mental clarity, and your ability to recognize the next major opportunity is far more important than forcing trades in unfavorable conditions because the goal isn't to be active all the time the goal is to be positioned when it matters most and to have the discipline to do nothing when it doesn't to conclude, i only wish i had followed this advice myself hopefully, i'll do a better job of applying it going forward, GOD WILLING