ShizukaKazu

#夏日创作营 Gold: FOMC + PCE triple whammy, choppy action first next week
Conclusion: Next week (7/27-7/31), gold is likely to trade with a neutral-to-sideways bias.
Reasons (two):
— U.S. stock tech keeps falling, but gold doesn’t catch up. Last night, SOXX semiconductor ETF -4.40%, Nasdaq 100 -1.15%. New York gold was only slightly up, because the 10-year real U.S. Treasury yield rose from 2.35% to 2.43%—real rates stayed pinned high. Safe-haven demand couldn’t open new positions.
— Next week brings the rate decision + GDP + PCE triple event. On 7/29 the Fed meeting, and on 7/30 the same day the initial read of Q2 GDP and the June PCE are released. Intraday, gold could rise first then fall, or fall first then rise—sideways action first, then direction selection.
A few reasons to expect choppiness next week
What was already verified: Tech down ≠ gold up.
On 7/24 Nasdaq 100 -1.15%, SOXX semiconductor ETF -4.40%, SanDisk -10.79%, Micron -6.99%, but New York gold was only up slightly by 0.08%.
The core is that the 10-year real U.S. Treasury yield this week climbed from 2.35% to 2.43%, and nominal yield rose from 4.60% to 4.69%. Real rates moved higher, raising gold’s opportunity cost—safe-haven buyers couldn’t build positions.
Geopolitical risk premium has been repeatedly “consumed”; this week’s V move already paid the bill.
On 7/22, Middle East tensions pushed gold to $4,171, but on 7/23 hope for U.S.-Iran talks reignited, crude oil briefly fell more than 5%, and gold gave back $80 in a single day. For the whole week, gold is up 0.81%, which doesn’t look like much—but intraday high-low range volatility is close to 4.6%. “The biggest intraday rally doesn’t equal the weekly gain.” The same story could replay next week.
Next week’s 7/29 rate decision + 7/30 GDP + PCE triple whammy could flip twice within the day.
The Fed’s 7/28-29 FOMC statement will be released at 2:00 a.m. Beijing time on 7/30, followed immediately by Powell’s press conference. The same day, U.S. Q2 GDP advance and June PCE land simultaneously in the U.S. at 8:30 a.m. Eastern (8:30 p.m. Beijing time on 7/30). Markets will trade the rate decision in the early hours and the data later at night. Gold is very likely to be “up then down” or “down then up”—a one-time trend is unlikely.
Signals to focus on next week
Whether Powell’s wording turns dovish and whether he leaves room for future rate cuts. This meeting had no new dot plot; the suspense in the rate outcome itself isn’t big. The key is how Powell evaluates how oil prices affect inflation, and whether he brings up tariffs again. If he leaves an opening for rate cuts, gold could surge toward 4,150-4,180. If he keeps emphasizing inflation stickiness, gold is prone to pull back toward around 4,000.
7/30 U.S. Q2 GDP advance + June PCE year-over-year.
Both data points hit at the same time—one of the easiest setups for “flip twice intraday” events. Weak GDP + PCE below expectations = rate-cut expectations heat up again, gold rallies. GDP and PCE both strong = real yields keep rising, gold faces pressure and pulls back toward 3,955. One strong and one weak = sideways consolidation.
Can silver hold above 60, and will crude oil break above 100 again.
This week, silver fell from 60.03 to 58.49, down a cumulative -2.5%. The gold-silver linkage is still repairing. New York crude returned to around $90.5 on Friday. If Middle East issues create fresh variables next week and silver comes back above 60, only then could the gold-silver linkage drive gold’s second leg higher; otherwise, if crude keeps sliding, the geopolitical risk premium for gold can’t be propped up.
Direction for the next 1-2 weeks
4055 (7/24 close) vs 4,171 (this week’s intraday high)—the bulls have already lost the 4,171 level this week. Next week’s key support is 4,000-4,050 (this week’s pullback area + integer level). A valid breakdown would accelerate the pullback toward 3,955 (last week’s key defense line).
Resistance overhead is 4,135-4,170 (this week’s trapped supply and pressure zone). Only after firmly holding above 4,170 would there be conditions to retest and challenge above $4,200 again.
Choppiness-range mindset first: After 7/30’s GDP+PCE come out next week, switch to a trend-following strategy. This week’s price action didn’t break the range—stay stable first, then take a bet; no leverage.
This article is for sharing viewpoints only and does not constitute any investment advice.

#夏日创作营 Quantum computing shock is coming—could Bitcoin’s dominance be shaken? Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson offers key insights
The crypto market’s landscape has never been static. Recently, Cardano (ADA) founder Charles Hoskinson made public remarks, delivering a highly thought-provoking judgment about Bitcoin’s future development, which has sparked wide discussion across the entire crypto community.
In his view, the security risks brought by the maturation of quantum computing technology will become a major test for Bitcoin’s governance system. Quantum computers have far greater computing power than conventional devices; once deployed, the existing Bitcoin encryption mechanisms would face decryption risks directly. At that time, the network would need to complete large-scale upgrades at the underlying layer to withstand this technical crisis. But Bitcoin’s biggest shortcoming is precisely that it is extremely difficult to upgrade and adjust.
Hoskinson described BTC’s current state as “frozen in time.” The community consensus is fragmented, and every protocol change requires coordination among multiple parties—miners, token holders, and the development team—resulting in very low progress efficiency. If, when facing quantum threats, the entire network cannot quickly reach a unified upgrade plan, Bitcoin could very possibly lose its throne as the world’s top cryptocurrency.
These comments are not empty venting—there is industry history behind them from the early days of public-chain development. The founder noted that in the early years, many participants disliked Bitcoin’s rigid nature and lack of flexibility for iteration, so they chose to start anew. Ethereum’s emergence was directly tied to this industry disappointment. Newer public chains like Ethereum and Cardano reserved governance mechanisms for rapid iteration from the underlying design stage, leaving them with more room to adjust when facing new technical risks.
After the news went out, discussions in the crypto world have already split into two camps. Bitcoin supporters believe the community had already laid out anti-quantum solutions in advance; the long-term consensus is solid enough that it won’t be easily replaced. Meanwhile, altcoin investors seized on this viewpoint, betting on flexible public chains and expecting market upside dividends.
From an objective perspective, Hoskinson’s remarks essentially point to the core competitive logic of the public-chain track: besides price and market value, the network’s ability to self-reform is what truly determines long-term survival. The security challenges of the quantum era are just a microcosm; in the future, all kinds of new technologies and new demands will continuously test the governance efficiency of every public chain. For ordinary crypto participants, this signal is worth noting: the market valuation logic is quietly shifting. Relying solely on the historical halo of established coins is no longer an absolutely safe choice. Public chains that have efficient iteration and robust anti-risk mechanisms are more likely to gain long-term favor from capital. Of course, large-scale commercialization of quantum computing still has a long cycle, and the Bitcoin community has also been developing corresponding protection measures. In the short term, the landscape won’t be easily rewritten. But in long-term track competition, a new chapter has already begun. $BTC ‌

#夏日创作营 July 25, 2026 Core News Flash
1 Bitcoin ETF inflows end their seven-day streak! $225 million outflow in a single day!
On July 23, US spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded a net outflow of $225.2 million, ending the momentum of nearly $1 billion in inflows over the previous seven consecutive trading days. According to SoSoValue data, BlackRock’s IBIT accounted for $202.5 million of the outflow, representing 90% of that day’s total outflow. Fidelity FBTC, Bitwise BITB, ARK ARKB, and others also saw outflows, while only Morgan Stanley MSBT recorded an inflow of $5 million against the trend. Total net asset value of the ETFs fell to $78.82 billion. In the same period, Ethereum ETFs saw net inflows for the fifth consecutive day, totaling $26.32 million; Fidelity FETH led with $14.93 million in inflows, highlighting a structural rotation of institutional funds between the two assets. The Crypto Fear & Greed Index dropped 3 points to 28, hitting a new intra-month low.
Market impact assessment: Negative (institutional profit-taking + rising geopolitical risk; near-term liquidity pressure)
Affected assets: BTC, ETH, spot BTC ETF concept
2 Iran situation escalates + oil prices break $100! July rate-hike odds surge to 40%.
US-Iran military conflict entered its fifth month. Trump accused Tehran of supporting the Houthis’ attacks on Saudi vessels, and geopolitical tensions continued to intensify. Brent crude again broke above $100 per barrel, the first time since early June. The S&P 500 fell 1.2% and the Nasdaq dropped 2.2%. The “Magnificent Seven” saw a combined single-day market cap evaporation of $797B. According to analyst Rain’s monitoring, the probability of a Federal Reserve rate hike in July jumped from about 12% a week earlier to nearly 40%, and US Treasury yields touched a 18-month high. The 30-year Treasury yield is nearing the key level of 5.25%; sustained breakthroughs will weigh on risk-asset valuations. BTC briefly fell below $65,000 to $64,600, sitting below the “death cross.”
Market impact assessment: Negative (triple pressure from geopolitical risk + high rates + oil prices; risk assets under broad strain)
Affected assets: BTC, ETH, SOL, risk assets across the market
3 Clarity Act faces a crisis deadline by August! Fierce standoff over bipartisan ethics provisions.
Senate Majority Leader Thune acknowledged that the Digital Assets Market Clarity Act (CLARITY Act) will most likely not pass before the August 7 recess. The Republican 616-page revised version added a federal ban on crypto assets for government officials (including the president), but a “sunset clause” sets it to expire on January 20, 2029, after Trump leaves office—prompting a sharp criticism from Democratic Sen. Gallego as “not a serious effort.” Polymarket’s probability is only 38–39%. On the positive side, the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund dropped its opposition stance. Charles Schwab (managing $1.3 trillion in assets) publicly endorsed the bill as a “critical catalyst.” If the bill is delayed until September, the midterm election will significantly narrow the legislative window.
Market impact assessment: Neutral-to-negative (near-term regulatory uncertainty continues; a long-term compliance framework still looks possible)
Affected assets: BTC, ETH, across the market
4 EU sanctions 14 crypto platforms including HTX! Trading ban takes effect in August
The EU’s 21st round of sanctions on Russia will place 14 crypto service providers on the trading-ban list, including HTX.
Under EU Council Regulation (EU)2026/1848, three services associated with the A7 cross-border payment network will be prohibited from trading starting August 13, while the other 11 (including HTX) take effect starting August 23. The sanctioned platforms are located in six countries including Georgia, Panama, and the UAE. The new rules also create a country-level crypto ban mechanism: if a country systematically tolerates crypto services that evade EU sanctions, a ban can be imposed on all crypto platforms nationwide in that country. Existing customers must, within 3 months, apply to member-state regulators for permission to withdraw funds.
Market impact assessment: Neutral-to-negative (crackdown on Russia’s crypto channels, but wider mainstream platforms increase compliance uncertainty)
Affected assets: HTX, crypto compliance sector
5 ETH staking ratio hits a historical high of 34%! But the yield falls to a new low of 2.62%.
According to CryptoQuant data, total Ethereum staked amount reached 41.04 million ETH, accounting for 34% of total supply, with a value of about $77.7 billion—each setting historical records. However, the staking yield fell from 3.05% to 2.62%, the lowest level in history, while the issuance rate rose from 0.757% to 0.842%. The high staking ratio reduces ETH’s freely circulating supply, but liquid staking tokens and unstaking withdrawals still create potential sell pressure. ETH is currently quoted at $1,859; near-term support is $1,800. It needs to reclaim $1,950 to open up room for a rebound.
Market impact assessment: Neutral-to-positive (supply contraction is a long-term positive, but declining yield weakens staking attractiveness)
Affected assets: ETH, Lido, staking sector

#夏日创作营 Bitcoin surged and then retreated to around $64,000. Recent price action analysis: this week, Bitcoin fell from above $67,000 to $63,700; as of July 25, the latest quoted price is about $64,000. This article reviews the background of this fluctuation from the macro, policy, funding, and technical perspectives, and makes an objective projection of possible future directions.
I. Market Review: After a High, a Rapid Drop This week’s Bitcoin price action shows a pattern of first rising then falling: early in the week, it gradually climbed from around $64,800, and at one point during the day it came close to $67,000. After touching $65,705 in the early hours of Friday, the price fell to $63,666 within about 7 hours, a drop of about 3%. The current price is consolidating narrowly around $64,000. Along with this pullback, the whole market saw about $312 million in leveraged positions liquidated, including about $87 million worth of long positions liquidated in Bitcoin.
II. Main Factors Behind the Pullback
1. U.S. Treasury yields rise, increasing macro pressure. Recently, the yield on the two-year U.S. Treasury rose to 4.31%, clearly above the Federal Reserve’s target range for the policy rate. Expectations for a rate hike in September have warmed up, and news that the Trump administration plans to impose tariffs on multiple trade partners also pushed up inflation expectations. These factors together weighed on the performance of risk assets, including Bitcoin.
2. Pushback on digital asset regulation bill. The CLARITY digital asset bill, previously viewed by the market as a key positive, hit disagreements in bipartisan negotiations. The market assigns a probability of about 35% that it will ultimately pass. Major disputes center on regulatory loopholes and the allocation of enforcement authority. With Congress approaching its August recess, the likelihood of this bill being implemented within the year is lower, meaning regulatory uncertainty will likely remain in the near term.
3. Longs reduce positions voluntarily; leverage cascade. From trading volume, this drop was not dominated by fresh short positioning—short-side成交量 on the four-hour timeframe actually shrank. The downside was more driven by longs actively closing positions and taking profits. Notably, around $64,000 on bn exchange, buy limit orders appeared, providing some liquidity support.
III. Technical Analysis
On technical indicators, the KDJ turned downward; the MACD bullish momentum weakened somewhat; and at the daily level, the price-volume relationship shows an initial divergence, suggesting that spot buying pressure is relatively weak—current prices are being driven more by the derivatives market. Liquidation pressure levels based on Coinglass data: if price rises above $67,303, the cumulative liquidation pressure on the shorts at major exchanges is about $1.54B; if price falls below $61,193, the cumulative liquidation pressure on the longs is about $1.01B. This means that once price breaks in either of the above directions, it could trigger a short-term acceleration move.
IV. Two Possible Paths for the Next Phase
Scenario 1: Continue to probe lower. If the four-hour K-line close confirms a drop below $64,000, the short-term upward structure could be damaged. Downside targets to watch in order: around $63,350 (liquidity area); $62,335 (the 0.618 Fibonacci retracement level and an order block). If $62,000 is lost, price may further test the mid-term support zone of $59,356–$62,492. Some more cautious views hold that if the core support zone is effectively breached, a further move down into lower ranges cannot be ruled out in the medium term.
Scenario 2: Stabilization and rebound. If the four-hour K-line reclaims the $64,600–$65,000 area, the recent breakdown could be seen as a false breakout. Then price may retest around $66,200. If it can further break above $67,303, it could trigger short covering and push price higher. Some traders also believe the Bitcoin cycle is still accelerating, and this cycle may still set new highs before the next halving, but this judgment needs more fundamental support.
V. Current Market Characteristics and Summary
The current Bitcoin market shows these characteristics:
Volatility is low: one-year realized volatility is about 42%, close to relatively low levels in recent years. A low-volatility environment often implies a directional breakout may follow.
Market sentiment is cautious: the Fear and Greed Index is in the Fear zone, and market participants’ risk appetite is relatively low.
Overall pattern: from a medium- to long-term perspective, the market is more likely to continue with a wide-range consolidation pattern, and a trending move still needs to wait for clearer macro or policy signals.
Overall, $64,000 is a key battleground level in the short term for bulls and bears. The subsequent direction will depend on changes in U.S. Treasury yields, regulatory policy progress, and the liquidation competition in the derivatives market. At the current stage, it matters more to watch gains and losses around key zones than to predict a one-way direction.
The above content is compiled based on publicly available market information for reference only and does not constitute any investment advice.

#夏日创作营 Bitcoin’s sluggish decline shows no sign of stopping—why has the extreme washout holding volume increased under the dominance of the bears?
I. Macro and market backdrop: capital outflow vs. contradictory headlines
The core reason lies in a volatile macro environment and the exhaustion of incremental capital:
Geopolitical headlines sending mixed signals: taking US political developments as an example, Congress releases inconsistent signals in a bill regarding powers for military action against Iran, and in addition, the situation-ending ceasefire agreement was rejected. The macro layer is filled with extreme uncertainty, causing both bulls and bears to hesitate.
Incremental capital being withdrawn: the overall capital base in the crypto market is currently relatively weak, with a large amount of liquidity being pulled into the US stock market. Without continuous inflows of OTC funds, it’s unrealistic to blindly expect a major upside one-way rebound.
Market sentiment hits a freezing point: due to prolonged narrow-range up-and-down wash trading, retail investors feel extremely uncomfortable. The Fear and Greed index across the whole network has officially fallen into an “extreme fear” phase around 20.
II. Price-volume analysis: the “undercurrent” behind the increase in open positions
On the chart, there’s a critically important contradiction—while the price keeps probing lower, the total open positions clearly rise during rebounds.
There is indeed bid support at the lows: when the price broke down and touched the 64,600 low, the market didn’t collapse quickly. Instead, alongside the synchronized increase in open positions, there was a rebound, indicating that some capital actively bought and absorbed at the low level.
Bulls are extremely passive: the most unfavorable detail for bulls is that although new positions appeared at the low and were retained, the trades didn’t transform into strong upward momentum. The high failed to effectively break through the prior selloff breakout zone. This means the newly added chips lack sustained upward attack power, and the market structure is still dominated by the bears.
III. Multi-timeframe technicals
Judging from moving averages, the Bollinger Bands, and momentum indicators, each timeframe shows different suppression and support characteristics:
1-hour – 4-hour lines (short-term under pressure): the 5-day and 7-day moving averages have already been fully broken down, and short-term rebound momentum has weakened rapidly. The 4-hour level is currently running along the lower Bollinger Band. The strong resistance concentration is at 65,200 – 65,500. If it cannot break upward effectively, the outlook is more likely to continue breaking down than to just trade sideways in place.
Daily timeframe (extreme compression and mid-term protection at the floor): the daily chart printed a bearish candle, and the price’s center of gravity keeps shifting downward. The Bollinger Bands’ upper and lower rails are in a severe “extreme compression” phase, with price tightly trapped in the narrow range of 64,300 to 65,500. Usually, when such long space keeps tightening, it signals that a new round of major one-way breakout is about to arrive. The 20-day moving average (around 64,300) is still providing a mid-term support floor that has held for three weeks.
Weekly timeframe (weak repair within a downtrend): from a bigger perspective, after the prior quick blow-off top at the high, it quickly fell back, swallowing the earlier upswing gains. Currently, the weekly chart is only a very weak rebound within the broader trend’s downward path, without changing the overarching pressure structure.
Core momentum indicators:
MACD: short-term is in a golden-cross repair below the zero axis, but the expansion in volume is limited. The 4-hour line still maintains a dead-cross configuration, and the counterattack structure has yet to materialize.
DMI – RSI: the DMI indicator shows bears dominate (bearish advantage). Meanwhile, the RSI also failed to return above the 50 strength/weakness dividing line across key timeframes, proving that bulls are passive across the board.
IV. Support and resistance levels
Strong resistance: 65,800, the extreme rebound pressure zone—a disaster area bulls cannot cross.
First resistance: 65,200 – 65,500, the intraday battleground between bulls and bears. If the 4-hour close can stand above this level, it can be viewed as a continuation of weak repair; if it meets resistance, the rebound is immediately considered over.
First support: 64,600 – 64,700, the core short-term defense area. The overlap zone of the prior low probe and the closing area—once broken, the rebound fails and downside risk increases.
Strong support: 64,100 – 64,300, the final mid-term line of defense. Corresponding to the daily and 4-hour channel support—if there’s a breakdown with a wick insertion, focus on whether price can quickly reclaim this level.
Respect the market and manage risk reasonably
In such an extreme sideways washout and a chop market where bulls and bears repeatedly get double-killed, trying to guess the top or bottom subjectively often brings unnecessary stop-loss burden. In the face of market uncertainty, traders should maintain a sense of敬畏之心 (respect/awe) and face normal pullbacks within the trading system. At this stage, staying in cash with a light position or strictly following the key boundaries—short at the top and long at the bottom—with stop-losses in place is the way to preserve strength during a washout and wait for the arrival of the bigger trend. $BTC ‌

#夏日创作营 The dollar, gold, oil, and US stocks all surged together; the yen plunged to a new 40-year low. Why is this so weird?
Over this period, global financial markets have experienced something that no economist can really explain. Gold is up, oil is up, copper is up, US stocks are up, and the dollar is also up. Five assets that should be fighting each other are holding hands and rising together. The only one being dragged along and rubbed on the ground is the yen. The USD/JPY directly hit 163, the lowest level in nearly 40 years since 1986.
Wall Street analysts stayed up all night flipping through reports, trying to use various models to explain this abnormal phenomenon, but no matter how they fit the pieces, nothing matches. In fact, it doesn’t need to be that complicated. This isn’t “market failure.” It’s a collective reflection of a geopolitical drama playing out in financial markets. Behind every candlestick is a geo-story unfolding.
First: The Strait of Hormuz is being locked down.
On July 8, Trump announced—before the whole world at the NATO summit—that the US-Iran memorandum had been “terminated.” Immediately afterward, the US military carried out airstrikes on Iran for multiple consecutive nights, with targets ranging from coastal missile positions all the way inland to power plants and bridges. The goal was very clear—all of it concentrated on Iran’s control nodes over the Strait of Hormuz.
Military experts agree on the interpretation: this is not punitive strikes; it’s the systematic stripping of Iran’s ability to exercise military control over the strait.
Iran’s response came faster than anyone could imagine. On July 19, Iran’s Fars News Agency, citing sources within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, said the navigational throughput of the Strait of Hormuz has fallen to zero. This chokepoint, responsible for transporting about one-fifth of the world’s oil, was squeezed shut by Iran. Under normal conditions, oil-exporting countries along the Persian Gulf ship out more than 20 million barrels of crude per day on average. Now, crude oil exports from Iraq, Kuwait, and Iran have been cut by more than 60%. The strait’s average daily passage fell from more than 20 vessels before July 15 to single digits directly on July 16.
The United States wasn’t idle either. On July 14, the US announced the resumption of its maritime blockade against Iran, covering all Iranian ports and coastal areas, without distinguishing by the flag under which vessels sail. You lock the strait, I lock the ports. Two major powers simultaneously showed a “throat-locking” stance on a waterway that is only a few dozen kilometers wide. This isn’t war—it’s mutually choking each other’s necks. Whoever loosens first loses.
Second: The Strait of Malacca—the second lock is already hung up.
If you think being locked at Hormuz is already deadly, the next development may keep you from sleeping even more. On July 20, Yemen’s Houthi forces announced a “maritime blockade” against Saudi Arabia, effective immediately. The Houthis’ spokesperson said very directly: “We’re responding to a blockade with a blockade.”
They targeted the Strait of Malacca. This strait connects the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean, the shortest maritime route between Europe and Asia. For energy exports from Gulf countries such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, and Bahrain, besides passing through the Strait of Hormuz, another major route is the Red Sea via the Strait of Malacca into the Indian Ocean. Now that Hormuz is locked by Iran and Malacca is threatened by the Houthis, pressure hits two chokepoints at once.
This isn’t a coincidence. Who stands behind the Houthis? Iran. Who stands behind Iran? The entire axis of resistance. You poke me at one point; I choke your neck at both straits at the same time.
Hormuz plus Malacca—two of the world’s major energy chokepoints are under simultaneous strain. This isn’t a situation where one plus one equals two; it’s a chain reaction where one plus one equals three or even four. Shipping companies begin rerouting vessels to sail around the Cape of Good Hope. Each voyage adds more than ten days, and insurance costs directly double. These costs ultimately show up in oil prices, in consumer prices, and in the life bills of every ordinary person.
Third: Why did the yen become the worst one?
The yen broke below 163, hitting a new 40-year low.
Do you know when the yen was at this level last time? 1986. That year, right after the Plaza Accord was signed, Japan was being pressured by the United States to appreciate the yen. Forty years later, the yen returned to the starting point—but this time it wasn’t forced appreciation; it was forced depreciation.
The yen’s collapse has three layers of reasons, and each layer is tied to geopolitics.
First layer: the US-Japan interest rate differential. Japan’s central bank just raised rates in June to 1%, the highest level in 31 years. But the Fed’s rate is still above 4%. Money flows from Japan to the US—if the yen doesn’t fall, what would it do?
Second layer: the oil price shock. Japan relies on imports for nearly all its energy. A surge in oil prices directly raises import costs, worsens the trade balance, and naturally puts pressure on the yen. But the root of the oil price surge isn’t supply and demand—it’s the Strait of Hormuz.
Third layer: policy failure. From April to May this year, Japan’s Ministry of Finance deployed a record 11.73 trillion yen to intervene in the market, but the effect only lasted a few weeks. The market has become completely immune to verbal warnings—you say your piece, and I keep selling.
The intersection of these three forces is geopolitics. The US fights in the Middle East; Japan pays the bill in Asia. The Fed keeps rates high; the Bank of Japan is forced to raise rates but doesn’t dare to go too hard. If it raises too much, Japan’s already fragile economy can’t take it. If it doesn’t, the yen keeps falling into worthlessness. The Japanese government is trapped in the middle—no matter how it chooses, it’s wrong. This is the cost of following the US as an ally—you have obligations, but no say.
You could say that this “synchronized asset rally” is, with every note, the sound of geopolitical gunfire behind it.
Gold is rising because Hormuz is being locked;
Oil is rising because two major energy chokepoints are under pressure at the same time;
The dollar is rising because the US is frantically projecting presence in the Middle East;
The yen is falling because Japan is bleeding on behalf of this conflict.
The essence of this “big concert” is that the US is fighting a consuming war it can’t win at the Strait of Hormuz, while Iran locks the world’s energy chokepoints at both straits—so Japan ends up paying for someone else’s war.

#夏日创作营 SpaceX: a dream or a nightmare!
Iron Man was still human after all—not a god. The essence of business isn’t creating myths, it’s manufacturing value. SpaceX’s stock price volatility is precisely proof of that.
When the market cooled down from IPO frenzy and returned to rationality, investors began scrutinizing every expense, every launch, and the operational data of every satellite—under a magnifying glass.
On June 12, its first day of trading, the close price of SpaceX’s $86 billion—its biggest IPO in history—was $160.9, up more than 19% from the $150 offer price. After listing, the stock surged 50% within three days,
On June 16, it hit a historical high of $225.6, corresponding to a total market cap of $2.66 trillion. For a period it even surpassed Amazon to enter the global top five for listed-company market value, and Musk became the first trillionaire on earth.
However, starting June 22, Space X plunged 16.4% in a single day, wiping out $400 billion in market value—marking the second-largest one-day contraction in U.S. stock market history;
On July 7, after being added to the Nasdaq 100 index, it fell 6.83% on its first trading day, dropping below the $150 opening price;
On July 15, it first fell below the $135 issue price intraday and closed down for four consecutive trading days;
On July 16, the “Starship” was forced to terminate the launch due to an engine malfunction;
On July 21, after the Falcon 9 rocket was ignited, the launch was urgently aborted. In just one month, SpaceX’s stock price was cut in half from its $225 peak; its market cap evaporated by more than $1 trillion. Musk’s net worth fell from $1.45 trillion to $760 billion. As of the time of writing, Space X has just crawled out of a streak of seven consecutive declines—its lowest price has already touched $119.68. The “trillionaire” title for Iron Man Musk lasted less than two weeks, and the story of the tattooed Asian girl holding the SpaceX rocket ignition button only carried it for a month too. From the world’s first space IPO to a breach of issue price—he finished in one month the road others take for a year!
A month ago, the company was still the “chosen one” of global capital markets, the “light of humanity.” Musk wasn’t only a dreamer who could get humans to Mars in five years and explore the starry seas in ten; he was also a wealth creator who made the net worth of thousands of early employees exceed one million dollars. But Musk’s most impressive part was never simply sending people to Mars—it was taking a money-burning, smoke-belching space business and force-branding it into a deal that could be listed, raise funds, and make employees get rich along with it. If you only listen to press conferences and watch PPT slides, it feels like another leap in human civilization—Musk would be like Magellan, opening a new route between humanity and outer space. But once you dig into the ledgers—looking at equity, supply chains, and the underlying logic—you find a painfully stark truth: SpaceX isn’t selling the dream of the stars and the starry seas. It’s selling scarce narratives—selling monopolistic positions—selling the world’s relentless intoxication with the “Musk myth.” You think you bought a ticket to Mars, a dream to board for the future, but actually you only bought a portion of fuel to make the company’s valuation soar. And this fuel is burning away at a speed visible to the naked eye.
Because SpaceX’s business model is, at its core, a meticulously designed “narrative arbitrage.” Next, let’s break down step by step how SpaceX’s “narrative arbitrage” works.
In February 2026, it incorporated loss-making xAI and the X platform into SpaceX and conducted the acquisition entirely in stock. It redefined traditional aerospace companies as “the world’s first space-grade general-purpose AI infrastructure provider,” and replaced the single rocket-launch valuation model with a closed-loop story of “orbital data centers” and “Starlink network + xAI computing power.” It forcibly positioned itself against AI giants like Nvidia rather than traditional industrial stocks, expanding valuation upside. At the same time, this merger and acquisition transferred the $17.5 billion junk debt of xAI and the X platform to SpaceX’s balance sheet via a $20 billion bridge loan, and it was agreed that SpaceX would repay it six months after going public; this is like wrapping a bunch of hot potatoes in gold leaf labeled “space AI” and stuffing them into the mouths of investors that were already participating in—and about to participate in—investment.
In early May to June 2026, SpaceX successively signed long-term AI computing contracts with Anthropic (a monthly $1.25 billion) and Google (about $0.92 billion per month), locking in total recurring revenue of more than $2.1 billion per month. By disclosing these big deals on the eve of the IPO, the essence was using the AI story to underwrite a high valuation.
Although its AI business (xAI) was still in severe loss at the time (loss of $2.5 billion in 2026 Q1), these contracts made the market believe in its profit outlook, supporting an IPO valuation as high as $1.77 trillion. The prospectus claimed a potential market size of $26.5 trillion (mainly driven by imagination of AI and computing). It emphasized that after Starship was fully reused, costs would drop by two orders of magnitude—creating the illusion of a “guaranteed surge.”
On June 4, 2026: it kicked off the roadshow, designed “hunger marketing” to create scarcity of stock, and planned to issue about 556 million shares at $135 per share, raising $75 billion. On the one hand, the IPO only offered 4.2% of total shares outstanding, manufacturing scarcity; on the other hand, it opened subscription of tradable shares to retail investors, allocating 20% of the seats, using “retail frenzy” and a structure of “low float + high sentiment” to trigger a rush, pushing up the first-day share price.
On June 12, 2026: it officially listed, and the stock price skyrocketed. After listing on Nasdaq, its first-day share price rose by about 20%; then over several subsequent trading days it kept climbing, with market cap once nearly reaching $3 trillion. The price-to-sales ratio (P/S) exceeded 100x; the extremely low float ratio (4.2%) and heavy retail buying (net purchases of $405 million in the first five trading days) together magnified stock volatility, achieving the effect of manipulating market value.
On June 14, 2026: media interpreted the prospectus details, disclosing that Musk, through a multi-class equity structure (Class B shares: 1 share equals 10 votes) and an “extreme challenge” incentive plan, controlled about 82.4% of SpaceX’s voting power via A- and B-class share structures, which was diluted to about 82.3% after the IPO. This “one share, ten votes” super-voting architecture allowed Musk to enjoy the capital market premium while being almost completely unconstrained by any external checks. The cost, however, was this: when the company needs continuous financing, issuing bonds, and mergers and acquisitions, the market becomes increasingly cautious about the governance structure of “one person decides everything.”
On June 16, 2026, SpaceX announced that it would acquire Anysphere, the parent company of AI programming tool Cursor, via an all-stock transaction. The implied valuation for Cursor was $60 billion. The deal was expected to be completed in the third quarter of 2026. Anysphere would become a wholly owned subsidiary of SpaceX as a surviving company. (In April 2026, both sides had already announced a model training collaboration, giving SpaceX an option to acquire, which it exercised after the IPO.) At this point, the stock price reached a peak intraday of $225.64, providing a hefty amount of “chips” for the transaction. This kind of operation—“buying strategic assets with peak stock prices”—is essentially a high-stakes gamble: the bet is that boosting the business map can keep the myth going; the bet is that building a bubble on top of a bubble will continue to work.
On June 23, 2026: SpaceX announced it would issue about $20 billion of investment-grade bonds to repay the bridge loan for the earlier xAI acquisition. After the news was released, the stock price evaporated about $600 billion over three days, the largest drop since listing—this was the combo of selling at high prices and cashing out, then financing by issuing bonds to repay.
(1) After listing, use the soaring share price and credit rating (investment grade) to issue bonds at extremely low cost, repaying the short-term high-interest loans used for the xAI acquisition and optimizing the debt structure;
(2) Although Musk personally did not directly reduce his holdings, by financing through the bond issuance, it effectively used market funds to “pay the bill” for the previous acquisitions—achieving disguised cashing out.
The market began voting with its feet: investors realized the company had taken on large new debt again within less than two weeks of listing, and the profit outlook for its AI business was unclear (xAI losses exceeded $6 billion in 2025), triggering a sell-off wave. Market confidence wavered. SpaceX’s stock price fell from the $225.64 peak all the way toward around $180, with nearly $1 trillion wiped out in market value.
Wall Street analysts began questioning Musk’s “financial reshuffling tactics”: issuing bonds at inflated valuations, swapping bonds for assets, and then using those assets to tell stories to maintain valuations.
Next, on July 7, 2026: after being added to the Nasdaq 100 index, it fell 6.83% on the first trading day, dropping below the $150 opening price; on July 15, it first fell below the $135 issue price intraday and closed down for four consecutive trading days;
On July 16, the “Starship” was forced to terminate the launch due to an engine malfunction;
On July 21, after the Falcon 9 rocket was ignited, the launch was urgently aborted. After several setbacks, SpaceX’s stock price was already down about 15% below the issue price, and its market cap had shrunk by more than 40% from its peak.
The market started summarizing that week with a “triple blow”: the index-inclusion effect faded, launch missions ran into repeated setbacks, and losses in the AI business kept expanding. More fatally, investors began doubting SpaceX’s core narrative—whether it is truly a “space exploration company,” or “Musk’s capital instrument.”
When the narrative of “space exploration” gets covered by doubts about “financial reshuffling,” the market’s valuation logic for SpaceX shifts from “dream premium” to “risk discount.” And this roller coaster ride from peak to trough reveals the essence of the capital market: when the story is no longer believed, the skeleton that supports the bubble collapses.
When the story is no longer believed, the bubble loses the skeleton that supports it. According to estimates by financial analysis firm S3 Partners, currently about 206 million shares of SpaceX are being shorted, representing about 32% of the company’s publicly tradable float. The nominal short position size is about $25 billion. Compared with about 185 million shares (29% of float) from last week, it increased. Compared with about 40 million shares estimated about a month ago (about 5% to 7% of float), it has surged significantly.
Facing rising short positions, Musk responded on social media: “Investors who short SpaceX will ultimately suffer losses.” “For institutions that have maintained heavily short positions long-term, their survival probability is extremely low.” He also said, “I’ve said that if we achieve our goals, SpaceX’s value will surpass the entire Earth—this is beyond doubt.” Of course, the prerequisite is that “if” can be achieved. The issue Musk now needs to address is that SpaceX will release its first quarterly earnings report since listing after the close of U.S. stock trading on August 4, and starting August 6, shares worth up to $116 billion in restricted stock will be unlocked. Once early investors cash out, retail investors will be forced to take the bag. And the upcoming earnings report will also be the first time investors get a detailed look at the company’s operating situation—becoming a key test for the next round of bull-bear game.
Of course, SpaceX’s story is far from over. Up in the sky, Starlink is still growing; on the ground, Starship is still in test flights; Mars’s soil is still calling; and the AI bubble has not yet burst. But the capital market has already voted with its share price: fix the problems in front of you first, then discuss the stars and the starry seas.
In fact, for all corporate executives, decision-makers, and investors, SpaceX’s IPO break is a $1 trillion-worth lesson in value. From IPO to listing, every step was a perfect business plan book meticulously calculated and packaged. Each step accurately drained the wallets of different investors, and Musk remains the world’s richest man, still the most disruptive entrepreneur. It’s just that this time, the market reminded him: in front of capital, maybe no one can always talk only stories and never facts. $SPCX ‌

🌍 Gate’s “Global Finance Double Concerto” is officially live!
Trade global stocks, anticipate financial hotspots, and share rewards from two leaderboards totaling 200,000 USDT.
1️⃣ Trade U.S. stocks, Hong Kong stocks, and Korean stocks to target the weekly stock trading leaderboard
2️⃣ Participate in earnings reports, CPI, index and stock price predictions to target the Polymarket prediction weekly leaderboard
3️⃣ On both leaderboards, up to 20,000 USDT can be unlocked weekly for each; rewards are stackable
4️⃣ Extra rewards for first trades by new users, VIP sign-ups, and event sharing
⏰ Event period: July 24, 2026 18:00 - August 28, 2026 18:00 (UTC+8)
👉 Join now: https://www.gate.com/competition/Trade-Predict/s1

#美国对60个经济体加征关税 Against “Forced Labor,” Trump Rolls Out a New Global Tariff Framework
The U.S. Trade Representative says the related tariffs will cover 99.4% of U.S. trade｜《Caijing》Special Contributor Jin Yan; Edited by Su Qi in Washington｜The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) issued an announcement on July 23 local time, saying that under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act, it will impose tariffs of 10% to 12.5% on imports from 60 countries and regions in the name of so-called “forced labor,” to replace the global import tariffs that are set to expire. Earlier this March, the USTR launched investigations into the 60 economies on the instructions of President Donald Trump, because those countries failed to establish and effectively enforce rules banning the import of goods produced with forced labor.
The Trump administration is continuing its aggressive trade protectionist approach. It has proposed a 12.5% tariff on imports from countries including 🇨🇳, Brazil, South Korea, Switzerland, and the UK, while goods from the EU, Canada, and Mexico would face a 10% import duty. The new tariffs will take effect at 12:00 a.m. Eastern Time on July 24, with exemptions for oil, natural gas, and food.
Bloomberg Economics Research predicts that the new measures will only raise the U.S. effective tariff rate from 10.7% to 11.2%, but the expansion of industry tariffs could trigger ripple effects. Goods covered by independent national security tariffs on steel, aluminum, automobiles, and parts will not be affected by the new tariffs. Certain food and agricultural import products, fertilizer, and energy products will also be exempted.
Olu Sonola, head of economic research at Fitch Ratings, told 《Caijing》 that the new tariffs announced on July 23 are less shocking than just “some noise.” It is not a repeat of “Tariff Liberation Day.” Forced-labor measures are widely expected; they have not brought any meaningfully unexpected surprises, and they preserve exemptions for about a quarter of imported products. This would keep the effective tariff rate below 10%, largely maintaining the recent status quo, with little effect on changing the outlook for growth or inflation. Overcapacity tariffs may still appear and would be layered on top of the measures from July 23. If their scope is broad enough to push the tariff rate back to 2025 levels, uncertainty would rise sharply, and the hit to growth and inflation would become harder to remove—especially if energy prices remain high for the long term.

#布伦特原油重返100美元 “Double Gorges resonance” consequences: Oil prices surge to $100
Yesterday, after Yemen’s Houthi forces launched attacks on two Saudi oil tankers in the Strait of Mandeb, global energy markets fell into panic, with Brent crude rising rapidly to more than $100 per barrel.
Since Trump announced on July 7 that the U.S. would resume combat against Iran, this month’s cumulative increase in crude oil prices has reached 40%. U.S. President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Rubio both expressed disappointment with the Houthis’ actions, saying they were dragged in by Iran.
Trump posted on his social platform “Truth Social,” saying, “Iran will face severe military strikes—and, of course, the Houthis themselves will not escape punishment. I’m very disappointed in them.” Rubio said to reporters in the Philippines that day that it was wrong for the Houthis to threaten Red Sea shipping and fight in the Middle East on Iran’s behalf: “They were fooled by the Iranians.” In the early stages of the war with Iran, the Houthis were basically on standby and were also viewed by outsiders as another ace in Iran’s hands, not likely to be used lightly unless absolutely necessary.
The Houthis said the attacked tankers were the “Enseria” and “Lila.” Maritime monitoring firm Kpler lists these two ships as Saudi vessels. However, Rubio said that one of the ships that was hit was flying a 🇨🇳 flag at the time. Rubio’s emphasis obviously serves a purpose—it aims to apply additional pressure from 🇨🇳 on Iran and its proxies.
“Double Gorges resonance” further worsened the global oil supply chain. Earlier, Ukraine carried out large-scale attacks on Russian refineries, plunging the global oil market into chaos; shortages of diesel and gasoline have been even more severe.
UN Secretary-General Guterres warned that the Middle East situation “is getting out of control,” that “it’s time to take a step back,” and that “all sides’ fighting must stop.” He emphasized that freedom of navigation must be restored—“diplomacy is the only way out.”
But now the UN’s role is minimal, and how much weight do Guterres’ words carry? Trump said he is considering what would be the largest-scale bombing of Iran to date, and that he may make a final decision soon. Trump also said in a recent post that the U.S. would use “Iranian funds it holds” to compensate for losses to ships and cargo. He wrote: “From now on, any losses caused to ships and cargo will be paid for with Iranian funds owned and controlled by the United States.” According to reports, at least $100 billion in assets has been frozen by the United States and its Gulf states.
When the U.S. and Iran signed the “Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding” on June 17, Iran had expected the U.S. to quickly agree to unfreeze in stages the $24B it holds in Qatar. But that hope quickly collapsed.
In response to Trump’s latest threats, RezaeI, a military adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei, said Trump has shifted from “madman” to “desperate person.” He added that U.S. attacks on pilgrims and attacks on Iran’s infrastructure are a display of desperation and helplessness—this is Trump’s fatal mistake.
Re-imposing a blockade on the Strait of Hormuz is a double-edged sword. After the Houthis announced a blockade of the Strait of Mandeb, the spillover effect quickly formed, and its impact on global oil prices has been immediate. Iran’s chief negotiator and parliamentary speaker Kalibaf mocked the U.S.’s latest military strategy: “They want to punish Iran, but end up punishing themselves because of a three-digit oil price.” Although the latest assessments by the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency both believe that the bombing the U.S. is carrying out is unlikely to change Iran’s position.
But Trump is caught in a difficult spot and is still considering launching an even larger strike against Iran in order to save the ego of “Dumb King.” Last month, Trump said he would not consider resuming the war with Iran unless U.S. soldiers suffered casualties. But Trump broke his word: on July 7 he ordered the resumption of the war with Iran, and the latest deaths of four U.S. servicemen all occurred after that point in time. With results becoming the cause and causes becoming the result, Trump is hard to extricate himself from the war cycle. In a speech at yesterday’s U.S. Environmental Protection Agency event, Trump stressed that he has no interest in resuming negotiations with Iran, and that Iran has not been ready to negotiate so far. Iran still needs to be hit a few more times before it will behave.
However, Trump is changeable—who could possibly read his mind? Yesterday, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia just signed a nuclear energy cooperation agreement; today Trump changed course. A White House spokesperson emphasized that if Saudi Arabia does not sign the “Abraham Accords” (note: establishing diplomatic relations with Israel), the nuclear cooperation agreement would be void. The “Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding” signed last month soon became a piece of scrap paper, and the 30-year U.S.-Saudi nuclear energy cooperation agreement signed yesterday was also temporarily attached with conditions and may become scrap paper as well—this is the U.S.’s national credit score right now. Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Defense revised the latest death toll for the Iran war. It said that the death toll since July 7 cannot be put in the same basket with the Iran war that began on February 28; that war ended on April 7.
In the author’s view, this is nothing more than a word game. It cannot change the fact that the Iran war has not truly ended. Behind the numbers of the dead are tragedies for each family. Only if the U.S. and Iran return to the negotiating table can tragedies be avoided—and only then can the world economy avoid becoming a “hostage” to a Middle East war. #夏日创作营

#夏日创作营 From the presidential crypto token-issuance ban to new stablecoin regulations, the CLARITY Act rewrites the crypto industry’s regulatory landscape
On July 22, 2026, the Republican Party in the U.S. Senate released the latest revised draft of the “CLARITY Digital Assets Market Structure Act.” This 616-page document draws a red line directly against public officials issuing tokens for profit, and it also sets an entirely new rulebook for the whole crypto industry—both near-term market volatility and long-term industry reshuffling will begin from here.
The fuse for the bill is the massive profits from Trump’s personal crypto business. Previously disclosed documents show that his 2025 crypto-related income totaled $1.2–$1.4 billion. On one hand, he rolled out accommodating crypto policies; on the other, he reaped gains by collecting revenues from personal tokens. The conflict between public power and private interests sparked controversy across the U.S., and a ban on token issuance by public officials was the binding provision forged through negotiation between the two parties.
Under the new rules, while serving in office, the president, members of Congress, federal judges, and their spouses may not issue or endorse any digital assets for profit; the platform also cannot list such officials’ tokens. Only ordinary investors are allowed to hold them, and large-scale buying and selling must be fully disclosed.
What’s notable is that this ban includes a sunset clause expiring in 2029, which aligns exactly with the end of the current presidential term—and has become the key point of contention strongly opposed by Democrats.
Stablecoin rules are also directly disrupting the crypto industry’s existing business models: idle stablecoin balances may not passively accrue interest; only rewards tied to operational actions such as trading and staking are allowed under the rules.
Right now, earning interest on stored USDC and USDT is a core source of DeFi revenue. Once the provisions take effect, profits in the related sectors will shrink sharply, and a contest over the $1 trillion+ capital flows—toward banks and crypto platforms—will formally begin.
At the same time, the bill preserves industry-protection clauses: decentralized developers and self-custody of crypto assets are protected by law. When an exchange goes bankrupt, users’ assets are forcibly segregated, and it also fills in details on anti–money laundering and criminal investigations for crypto, balancing regulation with industry innovation.
However, implementing the bill will be difficult. The Senate needs 60 votes to move it forward. Current market forecasts put the probability of passage by year-end at only 42%. August 7, when Congress recesses, is the last window—if missed, legislation will be delayed at least until 2027.
For the crypto industry, regardless of whether the bill ultimately takes effect, the signal is already clear: the political token track is effectively constrained, the stablecoin yield logic is being rebuilt, and regulatory boundaries for decentralized assets such as BTC and ETH are being explicitly defined. Near-term legislative uncertainty will keep suppressing market sentiment, and once the long-term compliance framework lands, the entry threshold for institutional capital will drop. The industry will accelerate the elimination of non-compliant projects, and the advantage of top compliant platforms will keep widening.

#夏日创作营 Trump’s Iran Threat: Oil Prices Break $100—How Will This War Affect Bitcoin and Stablecoins?
The war hasn’t yet received the final order, but oil prices, freight costs, stablecoins, and Bitcoin have already started taking notes.
On July 23, the Houthis claimed they attacked two Saudi oil tankers in the Red Sea. The two vessels caught fire, and there were no reports of casualties for the time being. Trump later said that if similar attacks happen again, the United States would hold Iran responsible and impose “major military penalties” on Iran and the Houthis.
That same day, Brent crude closed at $100.69 per barrel, up about 7% on the day—by far the clearest asset price reaction since the event.
U.S. stock markets were also under pressure at the same time: the S&P 500 fell 1.2%, and the Nasdaq Composite fell 2.2%.
Trump also told Axios that he is considering a “large-scale attack” against Iran, but has not made a final decision. Strictly speaking, this is not a new war order, but a conditional military threat.
For the market, however, whether missiles take off has to wait for confirmation from the military—while the risk premium does not.
After the tankers caught fire, ship owners calculate the costs of rerouting, insurers adjust their rates, traders prepare more cash, and fund managers reassess inflation and interest rates. The war is still only in the news feed, but the bill has already entered everyone’s balance sheet. This is not an ordinary current-affairs story about policy—it’s an asset story. It affects not just oil, shipping, U.S. Treasuries, and inflation, but also drags back into reality the Web3 narratives that the industry has discussed for years: whether Bitcoin is truly digital gold, whether RWA can handle real-world assets, and whether stablecoins are speculative chips or financial infrastructure.
1. Day one tests liquidity; one month later tests “digital gold”
Based on intraday publicly available prices, BTC was about $66,077 at 00:00 UTC on July 23, then fell to about $64,914 at 16:00 UTC, and returned to about $65,033 at 00:00 UTC on July 24. The first stage after the news hit the market looked more like a roughly 1.6% pullback in risk assets; afterwards it stabilized, which is not enough to prove “digital gold” has already exited its independent trend.
The Bitcoin community has told a story for many years: that BTC can become digital gold. Its total supply is limited and not issued by any single country. It can be transferred globally, so it should be able to take on the value-storing function during wars, inflation, and declining monetary credit.
The biggest problem with this story is that reality often doesn’t set the questions like the whitepaper. When the Russia-Ukraine war broke out in 2022, Bitcoin didn’t behave like gold—it behaved more like an all-weather trading instrument with higher leverage, like a technology stock. When U.S. stocks fell, it fell too; when dollar liquidity tightened, it dropped faster. When the market needs cash, it doesn’t debate Satoshi’s monetary philosophy first—it sells the most sellable asset with the longest trading time. BTC happens to fit that condition. But Bitcoin in 2026 is no longer Bitcoin in 2022. Spot ETFs have already brought it into the traditional financial system. However, ETFs make it easier for institutions to buy, and also easier for them to sell during risk events. Bitcoin has gained a seat in mainstream asset portfolios, and therefore has been written into mainstream institutions’ risk-control models.
If oil prices remain above $100, what the market worries about first won’t be Web3 narratives—it will be inflation rising again.
High oil prices may prolong high interest rates, pushing up the dollar and U.S. Treasury yields. High-volatility assets will face valuation pressure. Even with a fixed BTC supply, it can’t escape this chain of macro transmission.
So a single candlestick is not enough to judge whether “digital gold” exists. Day one tests liquidity; a week later tests repair ability. If the conflict continues for a month—or longer—the test becomes whether it can absorb demand from capital controls, native-currency depreciation, and safe-haven allocations. If oil rises, Nasdaq faces pressure, and BTC gradually exits a relatively independent range, then “digital gold” can claim some real-world support. Conversely, if every military escalation turns it back into a high-leverage tech stock, then the label is still just the best marketing copy for a bull market. 2026 isn’t its graduation ceremony—it’s its strictest retake so far.
Observation window: liquidity on day one, repair ability after a week, and only after a month does it earn the right to discuss safe-haven attributes.
2. War isn’t an ad for oil RWA—it’s a stress test.
After oil breaks $100, the Web3 industry can easily spin another story: as oil prices rise, commodities draw attention, and therefore oil RWA will get an opportunity—every barrel of crude oil in the future can be tokenized. This narrative sounds complete, but the biggest flaw is that it thinks oil is too much like Bitcoin. One Bitcoin has no quality difference across Beijing, New York, and Dubai. But one barrel of crude oil has origins, density, sulfur content, delivery dates, and transport routes.
Even if on-chain tokens represent a barrel of real oil, someone still has to be responsible for storage, quality inspection, insurance, and delivery. Blockchains can transfer title evidence, but they can’t turn a tanker stuck outside the strait into a ship at the port; they can shorten settlement time, but they can’t shorten the voyage around the Cape of Good Hope.
What has the best chance of going on-chain first isn’t the oil itself, but the ring of financial rights around it: letters of credit, warehouse receipts, insurance policies, trade finance, and accounts receivable.
If blockchain helps the market confirm cargo ownership faster and release accounts receivable financing earlier, it can indeed reduce documentation, verification, and settlement frictions—but it cannot reduce the physical risks created by war. The more realistic, and darker, applications happen in a sanctions environment.
In 2025, the U.S. Department of the Treasury sanctioned a network involving individuals and companies in Iran, Hong Kong, and the UAE, accusing it of helping process cryptocurrency funds worth more than $100 million originating from Iranian oil sales. This shows that crypto assets have entered the real capital pipeline of part of the oil trade. But first it is a shadow financial network of sanctions and counter-sanctions; only second does it become the efficient global market that the RWA industry imagines.
One sentence: what goes on-chain first isn’t oil, but the warehouse receipts, accounts receivable, insurance documents, and settlement rights around oil.
3. Stablecoins aren’t a shelter—but they might be a temporary floating bridge.
If BTC carries the asset narrative and RWA carries the trade narrative, then stablecoins face a more concrete survival problem. After the Red Sea route is blocked, more ships may reroute around the Cape of Good Hope. That adds not only another line on the map, but also more fuel, insurance, crew wages, inventory cycles, and capital lock-up. Large multinational corporations can digest these costs with inventories and credit lines, but smaller traders don’t have such a thick buffer. If a batch of goods arrives two weeks late, it may mean the customer delays payment; delayed payments from customers may then mean the next batch of goods can’t be purchased. In the end, war doesn’t appear on their books under the name of “geopolitical risk”—it becomes a late payment, a penalty interest charge, or a broken cash flow.
Traditional cross-border settlement exposes weaknesses easily in this environment. Banks have business hours, remittances go through correspondent banks, and sensitive-region transactions face longer compliance reviews. Traders may not trust decentralization; they just need a dollar channel that can transfer on weekends and confirm receipt within minutes.
Stablecoin on-chain supply can be aggregated directly, but “supply changes” do not equal “cross-border usage,” and they do not equal “war-related capital flows.”
DefiLlama’s snapshots of USDT circulating supply aggregated by contracts across each chain show that on July 22 it was about $184.16B, on July 23 about $184.12B. On the event day it decreased by about $43.5 million, a very small change. By July 24 the endpoint was about $183.04B, but that day hadn’t ended yet—an incomplete snapshot—so you can’t declare that there were billion-dollar-scale redemptions. To judge whether funds moved from exchanges to self-custody wallets, you also need address labels and exchange net flow data.
After the Russia-Ukraine war began in 2022, crypto trading volume in related markets increased. The Ukrainian government and civil society organizations also received BTC, ETH, and stablecoin donations through public addresses. Users may not care whether the coin price will rise next week; what they care about is whether relatives can transfer money in after bank branches shut, and whether rescue organizations can buy medicines and equipment in time.
But stablecoins are not a financial refuge that never closes. USDT and USDC run on public chains, but the minting power is held by centralized companies. Issuers can freeze addresses, exchanges can restrict accounts, and on-chain analytics firms can trace capital flows. Stablecoins can bypass bank business hours, but they can’t naturally bypass the sanctions regime.
Here lies the most real contradiction in Web3. Ordinary families may use stablecoins to preserve purchasing power; small and mid-sized merchants may use them to pay for goods; sanctioned organizations may also use them to settle oil or procure supplies. Code can record where a transfer came from and where it went, but it won’t automatically tell us what was bought—food, oil, drone parts, or plane tickets for a family leaving the war zone. Stablecoins have not eliminated power in traditional finance—they’ve just rearranged where the power sits.
The bank counter disappears, but issuers, exchanges, and on-chain analytics companies stand behind a new counter. It’s not an island fully detached from the state; it’s more like a temporary floating bridge set up on the wartime sea. Many people need it to cross the river, but whether the bridge is open—and who gets through—still depends on decisions made by others.
4. The traditional world and the on-chain world are keeping two different sets of books
This conflict is generating two ledgers at the same time. Traditional finance records oil prices, military spending, shipping insurance, inflation, fiscal deficits, and corporate profits. The on-chain world records wallet migrations, sanctioned addresses, perpetual contract liquidations, prediction market probabilities, and BTC’s risk expression when traditional markets are closed.
Traditional ledgers often take months or even years before telling the public what happened, through government budgets, corporate financial reports, and congressional hearings.
On-chain ledgers can leave traces of capital movement within minutes. But seeing transfers doesn’t mean you understand the war. Blockchains can prove which addresses a piece of money passed through, but they can’t explain whether it bought food or weapons.
Rising oil prices don’t mean oil RWA wins. More capital controls don’t mean stablecoins enter a bull market. Military upgrades don’t automatically mean BTC becomes digital gold.
Writing someone else’s war into your own investment opportunity can definitely get attention—but it’s too easy. The real test Web3 faces isn’t whether it can create a new narrative from the war. It’s whether it can provide a still-usable channel for capital when traditional systems fail—and whether it can admit that sanctions, freezing, and power issues exist within that channel.
In 2021, the Web3 industry liked to call blockchain a safe-haven asset, as if simply writing assets on-chain would automatically free them from the influence of states, banks, and war.
The 2022 bear market made that fantasy look ugly: BTC would fall with U.S. stocks, DeFi would undergo concentrated liquidations, stablecoins would de-peg, and cross-chain bridges might be emptied by hackers.
The 2026 Iran-U.S. conflict gave this proposition a chance to be retested. What needs to be tested isn’t how much ETH went up, isn’t which public chain has higher TPS, and isn’t which DeFi protocol rode the war to create a beautiful TVL curve. The real thing being tested is whether on-chain finance can provide a still-usable capital channel when shipping lanes are blocked, oil breaks $100, bank reviews slow down, and the local currency continues to depreciate.
Web3 has not made war decentralized. It has only made a portion of the capital flows in war move faster, become more public, and be easier to trade.
On July 23, two oil tankers caught fire in the Red Sea. Traditional markets recorded oil prices, freight costs, insurance premiums, and inflation; the on-chain world recorded wallet migrations, stablecoin transfers, leverage liquidations, and capital fleeing. War creates a lot of bills. Some people send them to the gas station, some to the supermarket, some into fund NAVs, and some write them into a block that won’t disappear easily.
After oil breaks $100, of course someone will record this entry. The real question is: who explains this bill, and finally who pays for it.

#夏日创作营 Will the CLARITY bill stall? Bitcoin faces short-term pressure as the market releases signals on the screen 📶
The core logic behind why Bitcoin has recently stabilized after choppy trading mainly comes from bullish expectations that the U.S. CLARITY bill will be implemented. However, the bill’s progress has suddenly hit obstacles and fallen into a deadlock in bipartisan negotiations, with market estimates placing the final passage probability at only 35%. As policy expectations cool down quickly, market sentiment weakens directly, and BTC faces clear short-term pressure.
Previously, the market widely expected the bill to be rolled out, believing it could unify U.S. crypto regulatory rules and open channels for institutional capital to enter—key fundamental support for this round of the rally. But now, the Democrats are refusing to cooperate, negotiations have completely stalled, and two major core disputes cannot be resolved: first, the bill has regulatory loopholes—it does not restrict crypto asset trading by relatives of public officials, creating privilege risk; second, enforcement authority would be assigned to the Justice Department appointed by the President, creating an obvious conflict of interest, and its compliance has been heavily questioned.
The time window is also nearing its end. The U.S. Congress will be on recess in August. Given the current stalemate, the bill is basically unlikely to be implemented within the year. If the bill fails to move forward, the ambiguous state of U.S. regulation will likely persist, and the compliance expectations the market has been counting on will be completely dashed, with industry uncertainty rising again. Against the backdrop of countries around the world accelerating efforts to improve crypto regulation, the U.S. stalling will also miss the industry’s development window.
In terms of the order book: during this pullback, trading volume has clearly shrunk. In the four-hour timeframe, short-side volume has fallen by nearly half, suggesting this is not short sellers actively smashing the market.
Price declines are more driven by long positions actively exiting and profit-taking. On the daily chart, a preliminary divergence between volume and price is starting to show: spot buying pressure has weakened, and the current move relies more on derivatives-driven capital. A bearish pattern is gradually taking shape in the short term. The likely rebound high is around 66,900. If the rebound returns to around 66,500 and long-side momentum shows signs of exhaustion again, watch for opportunities from the short side’s contest.
From a medium-to-long-term perspective, the market will most likely maintain broad range-bound volatility. The bear market is in its late stage, but that does not mean a bull run will start quickly—there’s no need to be overly aggressive in bullish positioning. $BTC ‌

#夏日创作营 Oil prices breaking above 100 is just the start!? Is there still a way for gold bulls?
Today’s focus
After news broke that the Houthis attacked two Saudi oil tankers in the Red Sea, Trump responded forcefully on Thursday, vowing that if the Houthis launch similar attacks again, the U.S. will hold Iran responsible and impose “significant military penalties” on Iran and its allies. This statement signals another upgrade in U.S. policy toward Iran. Previously, U.S. airstrikes were mainly limited to military targets within Iran and facilities related to the Strait of Hormuz, while the wording “significant military penalties” suggests the scope of strikes may be greatly expanded—going forward, it is not ruled out that actions could involve Iran’s domestic energy infrastructure, command-and-control systems, and even ground military operations.
Crude oil
Concerns that disruptions in transportation will further widen quickly intensified, driving global oil prices to record one of the most violent rallies since the outbreak of war. Brent crude jumped by about 7%, breaking above $100 per barrel for the first time since May, and closed at $101.97; U.S. crude rose 6.8% to $92.36, setting the highest closing price since June 4. With this war now entering its fifth month, it is spreading from the Gulf region to the Red Sea, Jordan, and Kuwait, and fears of a global economic recession have accordingly intensified. From the daily chart structure, WTI crude has recently surged quickly after breaking above its prior consolidation range; the moving-average system has turned back to a bullish alignment, and the medium-term trend has clearly improved. Currently, price is hovering near $91.50. Key resistance overhead to watch is the $92–$95 area; if price further breaks above $95, the market may open up room to test the $100 psychological level. Key support below is first around $87, followed by the $84 area; if price breaks below $84, the short-term strong structure could be damaged.
Gold
Spot gold saw a sharp selloff on Thursday. After touching a two-week high, it quickly pulled back and ultimately closed down more than 2%, at $4,049.26 per ounce. This decline was driven first by a dual squeeze from both technical factors and exchange rates—the U.S. Dollar Index rose 0.32% to 101.44 on the day, posting its largest single-day gain in nearly a month, while the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield also climbed to a level more than a year high. But the deeper logic is that the situation in the Middle East suddenly deteriorated: oil prices surging reinforced inflation expectations, putting additional pressure on gold ahead of the Fed meeting next week.
From the trading screen, yesterday’s gold price formed a standard “rally then pull back” pattern after rising sharply. The strength from the prior period could not be sustained into the Asian and European sessions; overall it went into a pressured, consolidating-to-weak phase, and bullish rebounds lacked momentum. In the U.S. session, bearish momentum concentrated and the price probed further downward, with the close ending near the day’s lows. The day’s trading range was 4040–4140, a 100-point swing. The daily chart closed with a large bearish candle; it effectively broke below short-term moving-average support and continuously knocked through multiple key supports including 4108, 4090, and 4070—meaning the earlier rally structure has been fully reversed.
Looking across cycles, the daily chart broke below the 12EMA, and the medium-term trend has shifted from strong to weak. The 4-hour chart shows consecutive large bearish declines, with the bearish alignment taking shape. On the 1-hour chart, price has continued to be suppressed by the 12EMA; bullish and bearish cycles form bearish resonance across different timeframes, making the weak pattern clear. Previously, gold rebounded from 3960; this current pullback is a technical, deep correction after the upswing. Price has already retraced back to the 0.618 key support level of the 3960–4163 upswing range, and this is the first time since the current up move began that a deep weakening signal has appeared. Although there is still a need for an oversold rebound and repair in the short term, the overall bearish trend structure has not changed.
Intraday strategy is mainly to follow the trend and remain slightly bearish. Overhead, watch the 4075–4090 resistance zone; this area aggregates moving-average pressure and resistance from the prior support-to-resistance conversion, so rebounds there may be used to bet on further downside. Below, 4000–4020 is the core intraday support zone, serving as the short-term line between strength and weakness; if the pullback holds and stabilizes, a small position can be used to bet on a rebound and repair. Most likely, today will feature weak consolidation and a range “dip,” with higher cost-effectiveness on both ends. Positions should not blindly chase trades at the middle price levels.
FX
The U.S. Dollar Index rose 0.32% to 101.54 on Thursday. It intensified inflation concerns and boosted expectations for Fed rate hikes—the market expects the probability of a rate hike next week to rise from 11.8% one week ago to 35.8%, and the probability of a rate hike in September to rise from 52.4% to 81.4%.
U.S. stocks
U.S. stocks fell across the board on Thursday. The Dow Jones fell 0.97% to 51,711.65, the S&P 500 fell 1.21% to 7,408.30, and the Nasdaq plunged 2.15% to 25,137.69. The main reasons were worries in the market about huge spending on artificial intelligence triggered by earnings reports from tech giants, along with Brent crude futures first breaking above $100 per barrel since May and U.S. crude breaking above $92, which intensified inflation concerns and pushed bond yields higher. $XAUUSD ‌

#夏日创作营 Read this one article to understand why gold, crude oil, and the US dollar are all rising together behind the truth
Over the past two days, in macro terms, we’ve actually seen a rare phenomenon: gold, crude oil, and the US dollar are all rising together. You have to know that for most of this year—since the US-Iran conflict at the beginning of March—crude oil and gold have basically been like a seesaw.
The logic is: geopolitics escalates into war, the Strait of Hormuz is shut, oil prices rise, inflation rises, and gold falls.
But these past two days, the US-Iran conflict has become tense again. The United States carried out airstrikes on Iran for 12 straight days, and oil prices surged instantly to above $90. Normally, gold should fall. But strangely, while crude oil is rising, gold this time is rising along with crude oil too—giving everyone the feeling that gold’s safe-haven appeal is back. So, is everything really back?
First, the answer: this gold “rise in tandem” is indeed for hedging. But it’s not hedging against the risk from geopolitics; what it’s really hedging is debt risk. What this reflects is the market’s current concern about a credit crisis among sovereign states worldwide. To explain this clearly, you need to bring “US Treasuries” into the conversation.
In recent times, the price of US Treasuries has been steadily falling, and US Treasury yields have been surging. You should know that there’s a widely recognized indicator in the market for whether US Treasuries have risk—such as when the yield on 30-year US Treasuries stands above 5%. Or when the yield on 10-year US Treasuries reaches above 4.5%. The market will interpret either situation as US Treasury prices having fallen too much, and if left unaddressed, liquidity risk may follow. Simply put, those two indicators are basically warning signals.
So what’s the situation now? The warning lights are basically flashing non-stop. The yield on 30-year US Treasuries has stayed above 5% for 12 straight days. In 2024 so far, there have been 27 trading days where the 30-year Treasury yield was above 5%. You have to know that this is the longest continuous stretch in the nearly 20 years since the 2007 financial crisis.
Last year, during the China-US trade war and tariff war, yields on US Treasuries also spiked unusually. But every time last year when the 10-year Treasury yield hit 4.5% or was about to get there, Trump would Taco. But this year, Treasury yields have been surging like this, and Trump is still unmoved—carrying on as usual, wanting to strike whenever he wants. So, is it that Trump doesn’t want to?
No. The main reason is that the initiative in this war doesn’t even lie in Trump’s hands. He may want to Taco, but he simply can’t Taco. Today, the Strait of Hormuz is essentially a full-on “chicken game.” Whoever blinks first will have to give ground at the negotiating table afterward.
So right now, both sides are busy trying to see who can be tougher. Today you blow up my ship, tomorrow I’ll blow up your bridge. Today you blow up my bridge, tomorrow I’ll blow up your data center. That’s why Trump can’t Taco. This also means US Treasuries have to “stand firm on their own.” But the key is that if US Treasuries try to stand firm purely on their own, they can’t hold out. On one side, the bond issuance volume is still rising—for example, the US government keeps issuing new debt. US AI companies also keep issuing bonds to raise funds. But on the other side, the pool is limited, and the Federal Reserve is unwilling to cut rates, so money is being drained bit by bit. That’s why people worry about the sustainability of the bond market. The bond credit crisis is born this way.
When facing the credit crisis of US Treasuries, the question everyone asks is: are there any assets that aren’t tied to the creditworthiness of any sovereign state? After looking around, the only one left standing is gold. That’s why gold has been rising recently.
So the current rise in crude oil reflects concern about energy. Gold’s rise reflects concern about the credit crisis. When they rise together, it’s essentially “macro events happening to resonate at the same time,” creating a combined impact.
So someone might ask: what happens next?
Most likely, there will be differentiation.
Because whether it’s the US dollar, US Treasuries, or crude oil and gold, their rise and fall basically follow the same logic chain: war breaks out, oil prices are high, inflation surges, which lifts rate-hike expectations, leading to a stronger dollar, which pushes up US Treasury yields; the US Treasury credit crisis becomes too high, which leads to gold rising.
But war is full of variables. You have to know that Trump is forced to fight.
On one hand, the previous ceasefire memorandum didn’t define who the Strait of Hormuz belongs to or is managed by—this is the focus of later negotiations. If war happens now, it becomes bargaining leverage later.
On the other hand, if the US were to compromise easily without fighting, it would damage America’s overall strategic interests and voice in the Middle East. Even the hawks in the US stock market would think Trump is too soft. So yes, it should be fought—but it won’t be fought so fiercely that it costs America its entire fortunes and lives.
You can’t allow fighting to break US Treasuries and cause a systemic financial crisis in the US—otherwise it would be not worth it.
So how do you judge when it’s going to fight and when it won’t? It’s simple: look at oil prices. Around 70, it “calls for war.” Around 100, it “TACO.” So when oil prices are low, Trump goes all out. But when oil prices rise and inflation surges, it not only affects the midterm election, but also triggers concerns about internal financial risks as Treasury yields spike.
Therefore, a ceasefire and talks can happen at any time. And once the ceasefire happens, oil prices will fall.
Then will gold fall as well?
First, the answer: in the short term, it may; but in the medium to long term, it may not.
You have to know that the new Fed chair, Kevin Warsh, since taking office, has already achieved multiple goals through “rate hikes using words”:
1. In the short term, it temporarily raised US Treasuries, which in turn pushed up the US dollar.
2. It suppressed the bubble in US stocks, triggering deleveraging across global stock markets. But once it continues to show such toughness, the marginal effects may start to diminish.
So at the end-of-month Fed meeting, changes are likely. If the market finds hints of rate cuts from Kevin Warsh’s comments at the meeting, the US dollar index should retreat, and gold would likely rebound more easily. But if you really want gold to move more solidly, you need to wait until news of actual Fed rate cuts is firmly in place. $XAUUSD ‌

#英特尔Q2营收创15年最快增速 Intel Q2 earnings breakdown: Revenue up 25%, turning losses into profits—how to think about Intel after its comeback
First, one fact that nobody would have dared believe a year ago: over the past 12 months, Intel’s stock price has risen by more than 300%.
A year ago, this company was Wall Street’s most textbook “value trap”—falling behind on process nodes versus TSMC by two generations, its foundry business losing more than $10 billion in a single year, steadily getting eaten away in the server market by AMD, and being completely left in the dust by Nvidia in the AI wave. The market almost treated it as an old company waiting to be broken up, acquired, or slowly die. Then it came back to life.
Intel Q2 2026 earnings: Revenue was $16.13 billion, up 25% year over year, marking the strongest single-quarter growth rate in nearly 15 years; adjusted earnings per share were $0.42, well above expectations; Non-GAAP net profit was $2.2 billion, turning losses into profits. After the report, the stock price briefly surged more than 13% in after-hours trading.
A company that was in the ICU last year suddenly delivered a steep upward growth curve. What exactly happened in between? And more importantly: is this a genuine turnaround from real hardship, or a hype game propped up by a 120x trailing P/E? To answer that, you need to first understand three things: the business, the government, and valuation.
1. Three business lines moving up at the same time
Intel’s good quarter wasn’t propped up by just one line—it was all three lines moving higher simultaneously. Data Center and AI (DCAI) was the biggest surprise. Revenue hit $6.3 billion, up 59% year over year. This is the brightest number in the entire report.
In recent years, Intel’s server CPUs have been continually pushed to the ground by AMD’s EPYC, with market share steadily slipping. But the AI wave brought an unexpected tailwind: for every AI data center, besides filling it with Nvidia GPUs, you also need a lot of CPUs to handle host scheduling, data preprocessing, and general computing. As AI compute demand explodes, so does the CPU demand that supports it. Intel’s Xeon line is perfectly positioned to benefit from this “AI companion demand.”
Client Computing Group (CCG) stabilized the base business. Revenue was $8.9 billion, up 13% year over year. This is Intel’s traditional core business—processors for PCs and laptops. The AI PC upgrade cycle, combined with an overall rebound in the PC market, pushed this segment—once considered “no growth”—back into double-digit growth.
Intel Foundry (foundry services) is the narrative core. Revenue was $5.8 billion, up 31% year over year. This is the most critical—and hardest—piece of Intel’s entire comeback story. Gross margin improved to 41.8%. This number indicates that Intel isn’t only growing revenue—the quality of profitability is being repaired in a tangible way.
2. 18A: the make-or-break process node
Understanding Intel’s future is impossible without one codename: 18A. This is Intel’s 1.8-nanometer-class advanced process node—the ace it’s trying to catch up to TSMC with, and even surpass.
Over the past decade, Intel has fallen behind in process technology—7nm had delays, 10nm got pushed back—while TSMC turned the most advanced manufacturing into the world’s only choice for leading AI chips.
18A is Intel’s key battle in its “return to form.” And the latest progress is striking: 18A’s yield has climbed to about 85%. Yield is the lifeline of advanced process nodes. For comparison, TSMC’s most advanced 2nm (N2) yield is about 65%, and Samsung’s SF2 is about 40%. If Intel’s reported 85% yield data is real and can be ramped into stable mass production, it means that—on this process generation—Intel finally has the capital to go head-to-head with TSMC for the first time.
More importantly, demand-side customers are starting to place real orders. Intel management raised its 2026 capital expenditure plan from $18 billion to $20 billion, and expects 2027 spending to “significantly increase.” When a company dares to spend more, it usually means there are concrete customer commitments behind it. Market rumors and public information indicate that Google, Apple, and the Musk ecosystem (SpaceX, xAI, Tesla) are in talks with Intel for foundry services or have already signed.
If Intel can truly become a “second TSMC on U.S. soil,” the imagination space for this story is enormous. Every U.S. tech company worried about Taiwan Strait risks and seeking to de-risk its supply chain needs an advanced foundry facility outside of TSMC, located in the United States—and currently, the only company with a real shot at playing that role is Intel.
3. The most special shareholder: the U.S. government
In Intel’s story, there’s a variable no other chip company has: its second-largest shareholder is the U.S. government.
In August 2025, the Trump administration announced it would convert the subsidies Intel received under the Biden-era “CHIPS Act” into an equity investment. At a price of $20.47 per share, the U.S. government invested $8.9 billion to buy 433.3 million shares, taking about 10% of Intel.
This is an extremely rare event in U.S. commercial history. The federal government directly became a major shareholder of a public technology company. Even though this is “passive ownership” (no board seats, no governance interference), its symbolic significance is huge.
It means two things.
First, Intel now has “national team” backing. When the U.S. government sits on a company’s shareholder register, the ability to win government orders, defense chip orders, and to capture industrial policy tilt is something no competitor can match. If the U.S. wants to rebuild domestic semiconductor manufacturing capacity, Intel is the selected “chosen child.” This political capital is Intel’s hardest ace in its turnaround-from-difficulty narrative.
Second, it also brings controversy and risk. Government ownership triggers intense debate about “national intervention in private enterprises,” and some lawmakers have publicly questioned the deal. As a shareholder, will the government influence Intel’s business decisions in the future? Could Intel be forced into uneconomical investments due to political factors? These questions remain unresolved.
In addition, Nvidia also made a strategic investment of $5 billion to buy into Intel—an intriguing signal. Former rivals have now become investors. Nvidia needs a production capacity backup beyond TSMC; Intel needs Nvidia’s orders and backing. The two parties quickly aligned. With one company held by both the U.S. government and Nvidia, Intel has unique political and industry support in the global semiconductor sector.
4. Competitive positioning: where does Intel actually stand?
To assess Intel clearly, you must place it back into the real competitive landscape. On AI GPUs, Intel is still absent. This is its biggest weakness.
The core of AI compute is GPUs, and this market is dominated overwhelmingly by Nvidia (70%–80%). AMD is the second. Intel’s Gaudi AI accelerators basically have no meaningful presence. On the most core and most profitable “cake” of AI, Intel currently can’t get a seat at the table. What Intel is benefiting from is “AI companion demand” (CPU), not “AI core demand” (GPU).
This positioning difference sets its ceiling.
In server CPUs, Intel is on the defensive-counterattack path. Versus AMD’s EPYC, Intel’s Xeon finally halted share losses over the past two years, driven by the overall expansion of AI data centers, delivering 59% growth. But AMD remains a strong opponent—this is a hard, head-to-head fight.
In foundry services, Intel is chasing TSMC. This is Intel’s heaviest bet and also the most imaginative direction. TSMC remains the absolute king (over 72% share in global leading-edge process nodes). But with Intel’s 18A yield breakthrough, plus the triple narrative of “U.S. domestic + government backing + supply chain de-risking,” Intel has, for the first time, a chance to take a small piece of meat from TSMC’s mouth.
Note: a “small piece.” In the near term, Intel can’t shake TSMC’s position. But a 0-to-1 breakthrough in itself is enough to support a period of valuation expansion.
In PCs, Intel is a defender. The AI PC upgrade cycle gave it some breathing room, but the PC market is mature—providing stable cash flow without delivering high growth. In one sentence, Intel’s ecosystem position is this: it is missing from the AI core battleground (GPUs), but it has found its place in the AI companion battleground (CPUs) and the infrastructure battleground (domestic foundry services). And with government backing, it has gained political capital that others can’t.
5. Valuation: 120x PE—are you buying fantasy or the future?
Now for the most painful part: valuation.
Over the past year Intel’s stock has surged more than 300%, and its market cap has topped $600 billion. The current P/E ratio is over 120x.
What does a 120x PE mean? For a company like TSMC, with a 45% net profit margin, global monopoly in leading-edge process nodes, and CoWoS packaging, its PE is only around 30x. Intel using a 120x valuation indicates that the market isn’t really buying what Intel is earning today—it’s pricing in a full set of fantasies for the next three to five years: the foundry becoming broadly profitable, taking back share from TSMC, and becoming a national pillar of U.S. semiconductor manufacturing.
This valuation does have a logic. The hallmark of “turnaround stocks” is that when the market believes “the worst is already behind us and the turning point has arrived,” it front-loads multi-year good expectations all at once into the stock price.
Intel’s 300%+ surge this year is the extreme expression of this “expectation re-pricing.” But a 120x PE also implies extreme fragility. It has priced in too many good things upfront. If any link breaks—18A mass production underperforms, big-customer orders fail to materialize, the foundry once again falls back into losses, or AMD launches a counterattack in servers—valuation could unwind sharply. There’s no margin for error at this price.
The Q2 earnings report jumped 13% after hours, showing the market is still willing to keep buying into this story—for now.
Third-quarter guidance is also strong (revenue $15.8–$16.8 billion, adjusted EPS $0.38), both above expectations. Near-term momentum is upward. But momentum and valuation are two different things. Momentum can push the stock price higher, while valuation determines how bad the drop can be once the narrative cracks.
6. My view on Intel
Start with the conclusion: this is a real turnaround from genuine hardship, but the current stock price has already priced in most of the turnaround benefits.
As for the authenticity of the turnaround—I lean toward believing it.
Three business lines moving up together, gross margin repair, turning losses into profits, 18A yield breaking through 85%, Intel’s double entry by both the government and Nvidia, and big-customer orders landing one after another—these are not financial window dressing. They reflect real fundamental improvements.
Intel’s worst days are very likely behind it. After CEO Lip-Bu Tan took over, a series of focused actions on process nodes and foundry services are starting to pay off.
On valuation—stay cautious. A 120x PE and a 300% gain in one year mean this stock has already moved from a “severely undervalued value stock” to a “fully priced—and even a bit overheated—growth story.” At this level, you’re no longer buying a “cheap good company,” you’re buying an “expensive good story.” Whether the story can be delivered requires step-by-step verification over the next two or three years—and each step has the risk of failure.
If you don’t already hold it, this isn’t a comfortable entry point. Chasing a 120x PE turnaround stock is an action with a poor risk-reward profile.
A more rational approach is to wait for a pullback triggered by some short-term negative catalyst (for example, a quarter’s guidance missing expectations, or a foundry customer slipping away). After market sentiment cools and some of the valuation gets digested, then enter in batches. Don’t rush in when it has already risen 300% in a year and everyone is discussing it.
If you already hold the stock and are sitting on solid profits, you could consider taking some profits to bring down your cost basis, then continue holding the remaining position to participate in this turnaround story. That locks in realized gains while not fully missing the future upside implied by the narrative.
The three variables that matter most going forward:
First, whether 18A’s mass production ramp and yield can be stabilized at high levels—this is the technical prerequisite for the foundry story to stand.
Second, whether foundry big-customer orders can move from “signed” to “ramped volume.” Names like Google, Apple, and Nvidia ultimately need to show up in real revenue numbers to count.
Third, whether the foundry business can reach breakeven around 2027—this is the financial endpoint that turns the turnaround narrative from “imagination” into “reality.”
Intel’s revival is real. But the market has paid a high price for this revival already. It’s a good company now, but it may not be a good price. The most profitable phase of a turnaround is buying when nobody cares and the market is desperate—that phase, a year ago, was already behind us. People entering now aren’t betting on “will it survive,” but on “can it deliver the larger future implied by a 120x PE.” Those are two completely different levels of difficulty. #夏日创作营

#直通IPO第二期JerseyMikes Gate IPO Direct — Round 2 is here 🔥🔥🔥
Jersey Mike's
(JMKE), a submarine-sandwich chain brand with over 3,300 locations, is controlled by Blackstone Group. Based on the indicative subscription price of $21–$25 per share, it supports participation with USDT or GUSD. The shares allocated successfully will be directly distributed to your Gate stock account, with no lock-up period—100% unlocked.
After the first round of SpaceX, this is the second time that regular users can directly use USDT to participate in a US stock IPO
subscription. Subscriptions open on July 27 at 10:00.
Jersey Mike's ($JMKE) is here! A dining giant with over 3,300 stores across North America is about to launch on Gate IPO Direct.
🔹 Indicative subscription price: $21–$25 per share
🔹 Supports $USDT & $GUSD multi-currency participation
🔹 Subscribe with $GUSD to earn a 3.8% holding return
🔹 Review the project introduction, subscription rules, and risk warnings in advance to be ready for subscription
📅 Indicative subscription window: July 27 10:00 - July 29 10:00 (UTC+8)
Check immediately: https://www.gate.com/ipos?tab=ipo-access
More details: https://www.gate.com/announcements/article/100826

#夏日创作营 The impact on the market after the U.S. crypto market structure bill (Clarity Act) is passed!
First, we need to clarify what the U.S. crypto market structure bill (Digital Asset Market Clarity Act) is actually for, before we can know which industries and which assets will benefit.
1. Redefine the regulatory scope of the SEC and CFTC
Securities and tokenized securities will continue to be regulated by the SEC. Network tokens, digital commodities, and their spot trading markets that meet the conditions will mainly be handed to the CFTC. The Senate version also adds the concepts of “network tokens” and “ancillary assets,” allowing projects to prove, through disclosure and certification procedures, that the tokens no longer depend on the project team’s ongoing operations—moving step by step from securities regulation to digital commodity regulation.
This part is definitely beneficial for some “altcoins,” especially public-chain projects, which can go from being inherently regulated by the SEC to being regulated by the CFTC. But for a purely “token-issuing” project, does that matter?
2. Provide a legal route for token fundraising
Project teams can obtain a waiver under the new Regulation Crypto (crypto asset regulatory rules framework). The maximum funding per year is $50 million, with a four-year cumulative cap of $200 million in principle, and it also requires submitting initial and semi-annual disclosures. This will greatly reduce the risk that, when U.S. projects raise funds through token financing, the SEC will determine it to be an illegal securities offering.
The benefit here is a legitimate “ICO” for the project, and whether the project team will pump the price doesn’t really have any fundamental benefit either. For token launch platforms, there’s also not much benefit, because compliant ICO companies will most likely conduct launches on compliant launch platforms.
3. Establish a regulatory framework for U.S. spot crypto exchanges
Digital commodity exchanges, brokers, and market makers need to register with the CFTC, and be required to implement customer asset segregation, conflict-of-interest management, market surveillance, information disclosure, anti-money laundering, and sanctions compliance. When digital commodities held by customers are subject to an exchange bankruptcy, they will also be explicitly recognized as customer property, reducing the risk of another FTX-style mixing of assets.
This is beneficial for compliant U.S. trading platforms like Coinb and Robinhood, but the actual impact on Coinb is very low. Coinb’s compliance is already sufficient; everything that needed to be registered has been registered. Also, Coinb is a publicly listed company, and the market cares even more about performance. So you could say that, on the compliance front, Coinb is already at the top among crypto exchanges in the U.S. Of course, it’s beneficial for platforms like Coinb and Robinhood to launch new businesses—for example, tokenized securities—because it indeed expands the scope. And for other exchanges that are preparing to enter the U.S., or exchange branches that are operating in the U.S., the difficulty has increased.
4. DeFi developers, people running self-custody and non-custodial infrastructure who only develop software, run nodes, validate transactions, or provide non-custodial services will not automatically be deemed securities brokers or funds transmitters just because their code is used by others. Federal agencies also may not generally prohibit individuals from using self-custody wallets. However, teams that can freeze users, control protocols, and have special permissions may still be viewed as centralized controllers, and would need to assume AML, sanctions, and financial institution obligations.
This sounds like a benefit for DeFi, but in reality, if it’s purely DeFi or decentralized wallets, it’s still fine. But if a DeFi project on-chain involves protocols that may have money-laundering risk—like Tornado Cash earlier, and many privacy protocols—it will still be taken seriously. Also, you could say this “benefit” is something that wasn’t really considered before, and now it probably still won’t be considered. Back then it was risk, and now the risk is greater. Would it become a reason for DeFi projects to pump?
5. Stablecoin yield is restricted
At the moment, the biggest controversy in the market is this clause. Exchanges and service providers may not simply pay passive yield similar to bank deposit interest just because users hold stablecoins. But rewards that come from actual payments, trading, or activities are still allowed. Stablecoin issuance regulation is mainly handled by the already passed GENIUS Act (Clarity Act). CLARITY (Clarity Act) focuses more on how stablecoins are used on trading platforms and across the overall market structure.
Many friends think the biggest benefit after the Clarity Act passes is stablecoins—like $CRCL or $USD1 . But in fact, based on current progress, the Clarity Act imposes limitations on stablecoin development, especially for interest-bearing or subsidy schemes that were likely not allowed to continue after the Clarity Act passes. In other words, Coinb’s 3.5% interest to USDC, and USD1’s airdrop of $WLFI to users—fundamentally, both are prohibited by the Clarity Act. This is not a benefit for stablecoin development. While it saves some capital, it may limit market expansion. Of course, if stablecoins and exchanges can find more suitable subsidy schemes and route around the Clarity Act, there is still a chance.
So personally, I think if the Clarity Act includes restrictions on stablecoin subsidies, you won’t find reasons for a boost to Circle. If it’s only about compliance, honestly, Circle is already sufficiently compliant in the U.S. The problems it faces are the same as Coinb’s: for a listed company, the market cares mostly about performance.
6. Banks can participate more clearly in blockchain business
Banks, bank holding companies, and credit unions can conduct blockchain payments, custody, lending, and trading within existing business permissions, while also enabling combination margin between securities, futures, and digital commodity accounts.
Banks may collateralize certain cryptocurrencies or tokenized securities for loans and lending. This is definitely a positive for certain parts, and for some bank stocks it should be good as well—but which ones will benefit from yield, it’s hard to say for sure.
So overall, U.S. compliant exchanges are the most affected in terms of business expansion— the more compliance advantages they have, the easier it will be for them to enter new tracks quickly. So if the Clarity Act is passed, I think it would give $COIN relatively bigger advantages. But for certain decentralized exchanges, it may cause trouble. Custody, RWA, and tokenized infrastructure are positive on a medium- to long-term basis; especially in areas related to tokenized securities.
However, with the compliance of major exchanges’ U.S. listed stocks, on-chain RWA demand or on-chain demand for U.S. listed stocks will gradually be compressed. Next, there will be some help for public-chain categories—at the very least, they won’t be called out and attacked by the SEC. But public chains are more like listed companies. It’s not the case that if the SEC stops regulating them, they will definitely be able to pump. The best example is $ETH : spot ETFs have passed, and the SEC has acknowledged that they are not securities. But now they’re still kind of stuck in limbo—so the policy may have a push effect, yet how long that effect can last is still not something to be optimistic about.
Then DeFi, wallets, and developer infrastructure can also benefit. But personally, I feel it’s more targeted at developers than at any specific field or project. Especially for DeFi projects, whether they pump still depends on the dog-parkers.
As for stablecoins, I believe that when it’s passed, it may let $CRCL get pulled up a bit—but that would be purely emotion-driven. In reality, if there’s no change to the restrictions on stablecoin subsidies, I think the Clarity Act is actually negative for stablecoins.

#夏日创作营 3 mid- and small-cap narrative-potential altcoins (sharing only the track logic, not an investment recommendation)
1、KAS (Kaspa) has a medium market cap. Its PoW + BlockDAG innovation consensus gives it clear advantages in transfer speed, and the miner ecosystem keeps expanding; the halving narrative and hashrate are continually reaching new highs.
Risks: No fully developed smart contract ecosystem yet; the narrative is single-theme and highly dependent on miner sentiment.
2、ONDO (Ondo Finance) is a core asset in the RWA (real-world assets) tokenization track, connecting traditional bond markets with on-chain capital, with steadily rising institutional interest.
Logic: With expectations of Fed rate cuts, demand for on-chain fixed-income products will continue to grow, making this a track favored by institutional capital.
3、SUI is a next-generation Move public chain with parallel transaction processing, showing standout TPS performance. Its gaming and NFT ecosystem continues to expand; the number of developers is steadily increasing, and it has received additional capital investment multiple times.
Risks: The public chain sector is extremely oversaturated and requires continuous ecosystem rollout to deliver expectations.