Oli.
Oli.
🍓Web3投研 🍑人工智能 🚀《干翻狗庄》系列工具作者
5Following
220followers
Feed
Feed
After the NEAR Intents attack, the team stated that they have identified the attacker, provided a 48-hour window to return the funds, and promised full compensation to affected users. The preliminary disclosed loss is about $3.8 million. The information is more complete than when the incident first occurred, but identifying the attacker, recovering the funds, and completing compensation are still at different stages.
Currently disclosed issues involve the interaction between Omni deposit and withdrawal infrastructure and the Intents contract, which cannot be directly expanded to mean the entire NEAR underlying network was compromised. Pinpointing the problematic link helps assess the risk; however, for affected users, the most urgent concern is when their funds will be restored.
I support the team’s initial commitment to compensation, as this at least gives users a responsible party to hold accountable. But after the commitment, the scope of compensation and execution timeline need to be clarified. Whether the attacker cooperates should not be a reason for users to wait indefinitely.
This incident also made me reconsider the convenience of cross-chain products. The more the front end integrates operations smoothly, the easier it is for us to forget which systems a single transaction actually passes through. Users see one confirmation, but the backend may involve multiple interaction steps; security assessments cannot stop at familiar brands alone.
It is a bit early to debate whether the coin price has fallen too far. When services will resume, how the repair report explains the problem, and whether compensation has been received are all more effective at restoring trust than shouting at the attacker. Hopefully, the next update will provide clear execution results.
#NEAR生态协议遭攻击致币价下跌近10%
OpenAI plans to raise at least $30 billion at a valuation of about $1.4 trillion, with discussions still in the early stages. Yesterday everyone was calculating the valuation; today I want to look at the sources of funding.
Reuters reported in September that SoftBank launched dollar and euro bond financing, planning to use part of the funds to invest in OpenAI. This does not mean that this round of financing will necessarily follow the same arrangement, but it reminds us that investors in AI companies may also need to raise money from the capital markets.
This adds another layer of cost to investment decisions. The company itself must prove that the business is worth investing in, while investors have to bear their own financing costs. If long-term interest rates remain high, even if AI is still promising, one must calculate how much interest will be paid during the waiting period for returns.
I am a bit cautious about this detail. Seeing large institutions willing to invest makes it easy to think that funds are sufficiently abundant; but subscription willingness, fund arrival, and investors' subsequent financing arrangements all have their own constraints. The brand is big and will not make borrowing costs disappear.
This also makes me more curious to know whether, after the new capital injection, the speed at which the business generates cash can keep up with expenditures. Capital can help a company get through the expansion period but cannot permanently replace operating returns.
I recognize the potential of AI products, but the larger the industry chain, the more necessary it is to include the sources of funds in the discussion. Simply looking at the amount of financing can easily lead to seeing only that investment is increasing, without seeing who is bearing the long-term costs of these investments.
#OpenAI拟1.4万亿美元估值融资300亿美元
Atkins has included crypto asset fundraising rules, custody, and on-chain transactions in the regulatory agenda, and I support continuing to advance this. But this time I want to look at it from the investors' exit perspective: once fundraising channels become smoother, can the money invested be withdrawn under the conditions previously understood?
The fact that a token can be transferred between wallets does not alone indicate there is sufficient buying demand. Even if transfers are allowed by rules, investors may still fail to find willing buyers. Issuance channels and secondary market trading are two things that need to be developed separately.
I hope future rules and product descriptions will state these matters more plainly. Whether holders face transfer restrictions and whether early exits are arranged should be visible before subscription. Specific guidance has not yet been published, so we cannot pre-judge future provisions.
On-chain tools can indeed reduce certain issuance and record-keeping costs, but if purchasing becomes very easy while exit conditions require digging through a lot of information, it is not friendly to ordinary investors. The smoother the process, the easier it is to overlook long-term commitments in just a few clicks.
My expectation for on-chain fundraising is to make it easier for suitable projects to find funding and for contributors to clearly understand what they are accepting. Making the subscription page look good is not difficult; the real challenge is how to handle the product when it is not well received. I hope this part will not be hidden again in fine print that no one wants to read.
#SEC主席Atkins称将推进链上募资规则明确化
Micron raised its guidance, and storage demand continues to strengthen. The market is again discussing how high AI can push memory demand. This time, I am more concerned about cash flow: the official financial report shows that operating cash flow for the fourth fiscal quarter was about $43.97 billion, and adjusted free cash flow was about $33.2 billion.
Revenue growth indicates customers are willing to buy, but cash flow lets us look one step further: how much money operating activities actually brought in, and how much remains after deducting net capital expenditures. For companies that need to continuously invest in equipment, this distinction is significant.
I am somewhat positive about Micron's performance this time. AI investments are finally showing concrete results in suppliers' cash recovery, making discussions more solid than just demand forecasts. However, operating cash flow can also be affected by working capital and collection arrangements, so one quarter cannot be directly extrapolated to every future quarter.
The old problem in the storage industry remains: when prices are good and profits are high, expansion is often most tempting; when new supply comes out, customer demand may change again. Fortunately, companies with ample cash have more options and can decide the pace of investment without relying on external financing for every project.
Next, I hope to see how this cash is allocated and how much return can still be retained after new capacity is put into operation. Record profits are certainly exciting, but what truly reassures me is that the company can still keep money on its books after expansion. This is more sustainable than simply raising next quarter's revenue forecast.
#财报观察员：美光上调指引，存储需求继续走强
The US-Iran situation keeps energy supply risks in focus, but today we shouldn't just fixate on negotiation headlines. On October 2, the G7 agreed to release about 100 million barrels of diesel and crude oil from emergency reserves. A new question arises: to what extent can these stocks alleviate the current supply pressure?
I think the reserve release deserves attention. It adds a batch of supply that can be deployed to the market, especially diesel, which is related to freight and production; the tension will be transmitted through transportation costs. Ordinary consumers may not watch Brent crude prices daily, but they bear the costs when shopping and traveling.
However, inventories can fill the gap but cannot do so indefinitely. The reserve release is mainly to buy time; whether subsequent transportation and normal supply can recover still needs to be seen. Taking the planned total release as a sign that the supply problem is already solved would be too optimistic.
This time, we also need to pay attention to the release speed and product structure. Crude oil and diesel cannot fully substitute each other; whether the urgently needed products arrive on time will affect the policy's effectiveness. After announcing the total volume, actual delivery has just begun.
I don't like to simplify such news into oil prices definitely rising or falling. Conflict risks and reserve releases can simultaneously affect prices, and their impact durations differ. What is more worth tracking now is whether emergency supplies have truly eased the tightness of refined oil. A slightly lower transportation bill is more tangible than the win-lose judgments in the news.
#美伊升级风险再升，布油重回100美元
Bloomberg reports that Anthropic may start its IPO marketing as early as the week of November 9, aiming to begin trading before Thanksgiving. This is still a plan revealed by insiders, and the date has not been finalized, but if it happens, the valuation discussion of the AI company will have a more direct public market reference.
Previously, what we saw were mostly financing offers and transaction targets. After going public, buyers and sellers express their opinions with funds every day, and analysts can continuously compare the company's operational performance with its price. This process may not be gentle, but it is useful for the industry.
I look forward to its listing, but I am also a bit worried that everyone will treat it as the unified valuation standard for all AI assets. Anthropic's customer structure and computing power arrangements have their own characteristics. If it trades well, it does not automatically prove that another model company is worth the same multiple; if it falls, it cannot negate all AI demand together.
What is really interesting is that the public market will require the company to continuously answer questions. After increased investment last quarter, did customers pay more next quarter? When growth slows, is there room to adjust costs? These questions must be answered repeatedly, not just once during financing.
For those who like Claude, the product being easy to use is certainly worth supporting. But user experience and the price of buying stock must be judged separately. By then, I want to see the official disclosures and issuance terms more; I won’t let the listing calendar create anxiety about missing opportunities for myself.
#Anthropic拟11月启动IPO，目标于感恩节前上市
After the non-farm payrolls were released last night, U.S. Treasury yields first fell, then rose again. Reuters reported that the 10-year yield returned to about 5.26% during the session. This concerns me more than simply seeing yields hit new highs: the market has already received a weaker employment report, yet bonds have not maintained their rise.
This indicates that one less rate hike is not enough to reassure investors to hold long-term bonds for now. Concerns about inflation and financing conditions in the coming years will not be easily dispelled by a single month’s employment data.
This also explains why stocks can rise due to lower rate hike expectations, while the pressure on borrowers does not ease simultaneously. Stocks adjust expectations first, but companies preparing to finance must face actual quotes from banks and bond markets, and these two can be out of sync.
I feel somewhat uneasy about this market. The risk appetite on screen has returned, which easily leads people to think financial conditions have loosened; but if financing costs remain high, expansion plans still need to be recalculated. Especially for companies relying on continuous borrowing to maintain investment, they cannot declare pressure relieved just because stock prices rise.
What I want to see next is whether yields can continue to move down after subsequent data releases, rather than falling intraday only to be pushed back up. Policy expectations have improved, but evidence is still needed for financing conditions to improve. Mixing these two things together can lead to overestimating how easily this rebound can proceed.
#美债收益率频创新高，长期利率压力未缓解
Looking at ETF capital flows, the date must always be considered together with the amount. On September 30, BTC and ETH spot ETFs did indeed experience simultaneous outflows, but Farside's complete records show that on October 1, BTC had already recovered with a net inflow of about $103 million, while ETH continued to see outflows. The table for October 2 still has products not updated, so partial totals cannot yet be taken as the final result.
What makes me cautious this time is how easily we turn a single capital snapshot into a story of ongoing events. Today we say institutions are retreating, tomorrow we say they are returning, but the actual capital may just be fluctuating back and forth, while the explanations remain very certain every day.
I prefer to treat ETF data as a record with a time range. It can answer how much net subscription occurred on a certain day; it cannot answer how long this money is intended to be held or whether it is the same group of people buying and selling. No matter how beautiful the chart, it cannot testify for missing information.
BTC's recovery of inflows and ETH's continued outflows also indicate that the two cannot be summarized by a single "institutional attitude." Fund clients buy different assets and may not be making the same kind of allocation.
It's fine to talk about capital cooling off now, but the duration must be clearly stated. Especially when data is not yet fully reported, prematurely announcing a direction often only leads to having to make supplementary explanations later. Rather than focusing on trending topics to label the market, I would rather wait for a more complete daily report.
#BTC、ETH现货ETF同步转流出，资金热度降温
Nonfarm payrolls increased by only 29,000 in September, and the unemployment rate rose to 4.2%. This report certainly puts a damper on further rate hikes, but to directly declare that the U.S. economy has collapsed seems too hasty.
There is a detail in the BLS report that is easy to overlook: the unemployment rate has been fluctuating within a relatively narrow range since March, and the labor force participation rate has not changed significantly. Weak job growth is still quite distant from a sudden surge in unemployment. It now seems more like companies lack the motivation to expand hiring, and the economy is not yet bad enough to force them into widespread layoffs.
This situation is actually quite awkward for the market. Everyone hopes for weaker data to reduce Fed rate hikes; but if the data is too weak, corporate income and consumption will suffer. The outcome we want—cooling employment without really hurting the economy—is not an easy balance to achieve.
My assessment of this data is that more solid reasons are needed to continue raising rates, but it’s too early to celebrate rate cuts. If inflation refuses to fall and employment remains weak, policy will become much more difficult than it is now.
Crypto prices can first trade on the expectation of fewer rate hikes, but don’t treat all bad economic news as good news for yourself. Behind the employment report are income and consumption, which will sooner or later affect risk assets. Skipping one rate hike for now is a relief; entering a loosening cycle immediately is not something we can say yet.
#美国9月非农仅增2.9万，失业率升至4.2%
🟢 Oli Daily Brief｜2026.10.03
Weak employment did not directly lead to a one-sided rally. BTC briefly surged to $87,000 after the non-farm payrolls release, then retreated back to around $84,600. The market is no longer trading simply on the premise of “poor employment = easing is good,” but has started to consider another question: Is the U.S. economy cooling faster than expected? Meanwhile, ETF funds continue to clearly favor BTC, ETH funds are still flowing out, and stablecoin supply continues to increase. The current market looks more like: high-level oscillation + BTC dominance + localized capital rotation, rather than a full-on risk-on. 📊 BTC holds $84,000, ETH remains weak As of 09:47 HKT: BTC: $84,626, 24h +0.08% ETH: $2,680.81, 24h -0.70% SOL: $119.35, 24h +0.60% Total crypto market cap: $2.893 trillion, 24h -3.14% BTC dominance: 58.69% Fear and Greed Index: 67 — Greed Previous value was 72. The most obvious change today is not BTC price, but that market sentiment is cooling. BTC is near flat, SOL slightly up, but ETH down, with total market cap performing weaker, while BTC dominance remains high. This means funds have not fully left crypto but are clearly more concentrated in the more liquid top assets. Market structure remains: BTC >