MissTokyo

BitFuFu Added 66 BTC. It Just Kept Its Mining.

BitFuFu says it now holds 1,454 BTC, worth about $108 million. The tweet says it added 66 BTC to its treasury in Q3. Quick correction: that increase is for October. The company's October update, filed November 6, shows 1,454 BTC against 1,388 BTC at the end of September.$BTCUSDT Now the "through mining" part. In October, BitFuFu self-mined 67 BTC, and its holdings rose 66. So it looks like it kept almost everything it mined. It doesn't look like it bought any. That's my read. The update shows holdings and production, not trades. That matters. "Adding to treasury" is a different thing from buying Bitcoin the way Strategy did last week, when it bought 811 BTC with $65.5 million. A few details cut against the headline. - Production fell. It dropped about 18% in October to 137 BTC, as network difficulty rose 11.8%. And 70 of those 137 BTC came from cloud mining, which belongs to customers. The "held" figure excludes cloud customers' BTC.$BTCUSDC - "Held" has included pledged coins. In earlier releases, the figure included BTC pledged for loans. February showed 476 BTC pledged. I couldn't see the current pledged amount, so I can't tell how much of the 1,454 is free to sell. - The business is shrinking. Q2 revenue was $42.8 million, down 62.9% from a year earlier. For scale, 1,454 BTC is about 0.17% of Strategy's holdings (my math). To be fair, holding mined coins in a falling market is a real choice, and the CEO calls it a continued accumulation strategy. What I'd watch: the next monthly update. If holdings grow by more than its self-mining output, that points to purchases or other sources. If holdings just track production, it's retention, not accumulation. And I'd want the pledged number. #WSOT2026 #NovUSCPIWatch #WSOTPicktoEarn10U #USPayrollsAndRateDecisionsDriveMacroWeek

Solana Stocks Hit $1.28B. Who's Trading Them?

Solana's tokenized equity supply hit a record $1.28 billion, per @SolanaFloor. The coverage I saw doesn't name its data source.$SOLUSDT In September, supply peaked at $684 million. So it's up roughly 87% in two months, if both figures use the same measure (my math, not confirmed). The drivers are easy to see. The SEC announced an innovation exemption in mid-September, and supply jumped 47% in three weeks that month. Solana now lists a record 2,077 tokenized equity products. Up to 63% of trades happen after US market hours. But look at who's trading. Daily tokenized-stock volume on Solana hit $657 million on November 2. Just under June's record of $683 million. Backpack Securities handled $598 million of it, about 91% (my math). Ondo, Securitize and xStocks combined did $59 million. Record supply. Near-record volume. One intermediary carrying most of the flow. Here's what I keep coming back to. One day's volume of $657 million is about half of the $1.28 billion supply. My math, and the two figures come from different sources, so it's rough. That's a lot of turnover for something we call holdings. Same lesson as RLUSD and euro stablecoins. Volume isn't balance. There is a new reason to hold, though. On November 4, Backpack and Kamino announced tokenized US equities as loan collateral. And it pairs with last week's NYSE story. Solana is where tokenized stocks trade, about 95% of on-chain volume per rwa.xyz. The NYSE picked Avalanche to settle them. Different jobs. I'm watching whether supply keeps rising when daily volume cools, and whether Backpack's share falls as other issuers grow. If supply falls with volume, it was trading, not holding. #WSOT2026 #NovUSCPIWatch #WSOTPicktoEarn10U #USPayrollsAndRateDecisionsDriveMacroWeek #OilVolatilityTracksIranPeaceTalks

NYSE Picked Avalanche. Did It Pick AVAX?

Ava Labs says Avalanche will be the "core ledger technology" for the clearing firm behind an upcoming NYSE-affiliated tokenized securities platform. 24/7 trading, clearing and settlement.$AVAXUSDT AVAX jumped as much as 10% on Monday. Top gainer among the 100 biggest coins. Big step for Avalanche. But I read the fine print. It's the clearing firm's ledger, not the venue. Trading runs on NYSE's own matching engine. The platform will support equities issued on multiple blockchains. NYSE's Dennis Lee says it's picking the right technology for each job. It's pending approval. The WSJ says it could launch by the end of 2026. No date is confirmed. It's about control. Ava Labs' CEO talks about "dedicated infrastructure" and predictable costs. Lee says the ledger must let NYSE control who takes part. Some coverage reads that as a permissioned Avalanche chain, not the public one. I haven't seen that confirmed. And that's the AVAX question. A dedicated chain can run on Avalanche's technology without creating much demand for the token. None of the coverage says how much AVAX it would need. For scale: AVAX's roughly 8% rise is about $300 million of market value in a day (my math, from a $3.95 billion cap). For a platform that hasn't launched. Avalanche itself is modest. About $633 million in DeFi TVL. About $1.3 billion in stablecoins. Ethereum holds roughly $140 billion in stablecoins, per Grayscale. Avalanche's is about 1% of that (my math). So NYSE didn't pick the busiest chain. It picked the one that fit its requirements. That's my read. To be fair, ICE spent about a year testing Avalanche. That's a real endorsement of the technology. I'm watching the technical specs. If the ledger is a dedicated Avalanche chain that needs AVAX and shows real settlement volume, token demand is real. If it's permissioned infrastructure with no token link, it's a win for Ava Labs. Not necessarily for AVAX holders. #WSOT2026 #NovUSCPIWatch #WSOTPicktoEarn10U #USPayrollsAndRateDecisionsDriveMacroWeek #OilVolatilityTracksIranPeaceTalks

BitMine Is 40,000 ETH From 5%. Then What?

BitMine now holds 6,070,092 ETH. That's 4.97% of supply, per its November 9 release, with data as of November 8. It added 9,587 ETH last week, about $21 million at $2,234 (my math). And 5,227,037 ETH is staked, worth $11.7 billion.$ETHUSDT The finish line is close. 5% of 122.2 million ETH is about 6.11 million. So it's roughly 40,000 ETH away (my math). At about 9,600 a week, that's around four weeks. Then what? At Token2049 in late October, Tom Lee said weekly buying would stop at 5%. The new release only says BitMine is 99% of the way there and has bought every week since June 30, 2025. It doesn't say what happens after. Two details I'd read carefully. First, Lee cites Vitalik's Devcon line, "ETH is a store of value, ETH is money," as a seismic shift. He calls ETH "trusted collateral," not a cash-flow token like HYPE or LIT. But the same release leads with $309 million in annualized staking rewards. Different kind of yield. It comes from issuance, not protocol revenue. Still yield. Second, the staked count is exactly the same as two weeks ago. BitMine bought about 18,000 more ETH since. And staked ETH isn't "collateral" in the usual sense. It's locked up, securing the network. So "5.2 million staked backs the collateral thesis" blends two different ideas. That's my read. For scale: about $21 million a week, against the $365 million that left US spot Ether ETFs last week. Roughly 6% (my math, not like-for-like). To be fair, BitMine has bought every single week for 15 months and holds about 5% of all ETH. That's a large, patient holder. I'm watching the first weekly update after it crosses 5%. If the buying continues, the target was a milestone, not a stop. If it halts, ETH's biggest regular buyer steps back, and ETF flows become the main demand signal. #WSOT2026 #NovUSCPIWatch #WSOTPicktoEarn10U #USPayrollsAndRateDecisionsDriveMacroWeek #OilVolatilityTracksIranPeaceTalks

Euro Stablecoins Hit A Record. It's Still 0.3%.

Euro stablecoin supply just hit a record €751 million, per DefiLlama. That's past the February 2022 peak of €637 million. Circle's EURC and Société Générale's EURCV hold 83% of it. Real record. But I'd keep three things next to it. One: the number isn't as precise as it sounds. DefiLlama says €751 million. eurostablecoins.xyz showed about €807 million on October 28. So think "somewhere between €750 and €800 million." And it isn't brand new. The market passed its 2022 peak earlier this year. Two: the size. Euro stablecoins are about 0.3% of the roughly $300 billion stablecoin market. The euro is one of the most used currencies on earth. Almost none of that lives on-chain. Three: why it grew. Mostly rules, not retail. MiCA pushed unlicensed coins and venues out, and the transition period ended June 30. About 98% of supply is MiCA-compliant e-money tokens. Banks account for roughly 29%. Who has it: Circle's EURC is about 57% to 58% of supply. Ethereum holds roughly 70% of all euro stablecoins. One more detail I keep coming back to. EURC moved €12.95 billion in 30 days against about €453 million of supply. That's 28.6 times (eurostablecoins.xyz). Same lesson as RLUSD: transfer volume isn't the same as people holding euros on-chain. To be fair, growth of about 54% in a year is real. And a regulated, bank-issued option is the whole point. I'm watching supply, not records. A new high every month in a 0.3% market says little. Passing €1 billion, or a bigger bank launch, would say more. #WSOT2026 #NovUSCPIWatch #WSOTPicktoEarn10U #USPayrollsAndRateDecisionsDriveMacroWeek #OilVolatilityTracksIranPeaceTalks

A $1.2M Bitcoin Buy By An $8.6M Company

"Public company buys the dip." That's the headline. Super League Enterprise (Nasdaq: SLE) says it bought 16 BTC between November 4 and 9, at an average of about $76,892. Roughly $1.23 million (my math). So I looked at who's buying. Its market cap is only about $8.6 million. The stock is down roughly 70% in a year. This one purchase equals about 14% of the company's market value (my math). Then the wording. The filing calls it part of "exploring Bitcoin as a treasury asset alongside cash." That's careful language. Not a declared strategy. It had earlier acquired 4 BTC. The coverage I saw gives no total holdings and no future plans. And there's a merger. Shareholders approved a deal with Metaplanet. SLE will be renamed Superplanet, Metaplanet's US-listed Bitcoin treasury platform. So the buying may be as much about that deal as about the dip. That's my read. The filing doesn't say. For scale: 16 BTC is about 2% of the 811 BTC Strategy reported on November 2. And about 0.3% of Friday's $403 million IBIT outflow (my math). To be fair, it isn't nothing. A nano-cap moving cash into Bitcoin is real exposure for its shareholders. But "treasury" at this size means a bet on a company worth $8.6 million.$BTCUSDT I'm watching three things. The merger closing. Whether Superplanet files a bigger purchase. And how it pays for it. If the next filing shows hundreds of BTC, that's a strategy. If it stays in the tens, it's a headline. #WSOT2026 #NovUSCPIWatch #WSOTPicktoEarn10U #USPayrollsAndRateDecisionsDriveMacroWeek #OilVolatilityTracksIranPeaceTalks

Vitalik Says Don't Mourn A Small Burn. It's 3%.

Vitalik: "We should not feel sad if fee burn is <10% of breakeven indefinitely; the value of ETH comes from elsewhere." Breakeven means the burn offsets new issuance. So I checked how far today's burn is from that line. It's already below it.$ETHUSDT Per ultrasound.money data, as quoted by CryptoTicker on November 8: - Last 24 hours: 10 ETH burned against about 2,980 net new. Roughly 0.3% of issuance. - Last 7 days: 288 ETH burned. About 1.4%. - Last 30 days: 2,697 ETH burned. About 3.0%. So "<10% of breakeven" isn't some distant scenario. It's today's number, with room to spare. Why? The base fee sits at a fraction of a gwei. For the burn to match issuance, it would need to be roughly 12 to 14 gwei. Layer 2s pulled most activity off mainnet. The result: supply is growing about 0.86% a year (30-day annualized). Roughly 842,000 more ETH since December 31. Which makes his framing less of a pivot and more of an admission. It's describing how things already are. It also moves the weight onto what he calls "elsewhere": decentralization, censorship resistance and security. To be fair, the burn is still real in total. About 4.6 million ETH since 2021. And it could return if fees rise. He isn't asking to remove it. My take: this is a statement about how to value ETH, not a prediction about fees. I'm watching ultrasound.money's 30-day figure. If it climbs from 3% toward even 10% of issuance, his "indefinitely" gets tested. If it sits near 3% through the next busy stretch, the burn story is closed. #WSOT2026 #NovUSCPIWatch #WSOTPicktoEarn10U #USPayrollsAndRateDecisionsDriveMacroWeek #OilVolatilityTracksIranPeaceTalks

CPI Or The 17 Fed Speakers? My Pick, And Why

This week's calendar: CPI Tuesday. OPEC's report Wednesday. Jobless claims and existing home sales Thursday. PPI Friday. Plus 17 Fed speaker events. The question going around: which hits crypto harder? My pick: CPI. The speakers decide if it sticks. Why CPI first It's one number, at 8:30 a.m. ET Tuesday, with room for a surprise. Consensus is +0.3% headline and +0.2% core. December hike odds already sit around 75% to 81%. A print near consensus won't move that much. A surprise will. And crypto isn't walking in calm. Bitcoin is under its 50-week average after a fifth straight losing week. ETFs lost $1.28 billion last week. About $1.1 billion got liquidated over the weekend. A fragile setup amplifies a surprise. That's my read. Why "17 speakers" sounds bigger than it is It's 17 events, not 17 voices. Bowman alone speaks several times. Several of the busiest, Goolsbee, Barkin and Schmid, aren't voting members in 2026. Waller, Bowman, Barr and Logan are. Timing matters too. Monday's remarks mostly react to last week's jobs beat. Tuesday through Thursday, after CPI, are the ones that count. Where speakers win If CPI surprises. A hot core print, then voters leaning toward a December hike, could extend the move. A cool print and cautious voices could reverse it. Oil feeds the inflation story too, which is why OPEC's report is on the list. A side input, though. I'm watching two things. How Bitcoin reacts in the first hour after CPI. And whether Tuesday through Thursday's speakers confirm that reaction or fade it. The levels: $75,500, the 50-week average, on the upside. About $73,150, the 200-day, on the downside.$BTCUSDT #WSOT2026 #NovUSCPIWatch #WSOTPicktoEarn10U #USPayrollsAndRateDecisionsDriveMacroWeek #OilVolatilityTracksIranPeaceTalks

Sunday's BTC Dump: Manipulation, Or Thin Books?

"Someone dumped BTC and ETH in seconds right before the weekly close." That's the viral version. It uses the move to argue for the Clarity Act. I checked what I could. The facts hold up. On Sunday, November 8, Bitcoin fell from just over $75,600 to $73,477 on Coinbase in about an hour. Its lowest since August 21. It was back near $74,750 by midnight.$BTCUSDT The weekly close landed at $74,968. That's 0.7% under the 50-week average, about $75,490. About $1.12 billion in positions got liquidated in 24 hours, per CoinGlass. $913 million were longs. ETH took $448 million of it, nearly double Bitcoin's $272 million. Here's what I couldn't find. One seller. No coverage names an entity or an order that did it. "Looks like manipulation" is a suspicion, not a finding. Now the simpler explanation I'd check first. The 50-week line was only about 0.7% from where Bitcoin was already trading. It didn't take a big hit to break it. This was also Bitcoin's fifth straight losing week, after ETFs lost $1.28 billion the week before. Thin weekend books, plus stops and liquidations stacked at known levels, can do this without anyone planning it. The low also stopped about 0.4% above the 200-day average, near $73,150 (my math). To be fair, the pattern is real. Cointelegraph documented a 5% "Sunday slam" in late November 2025. No obvious news catalyst. $539 million liquidated. Repeated weekend spikes are fair to question. A pattern alone doesn't prove intent. As for the Clarity Act: it stalled in the Senate in September, on a 49 to 50 procedural vote, and it's mostly market-structure rules. What drives cascades like this is leverage. The CFTC's proposed, optional exchange framework targets leveraged retail trading. That's closer to the problem. What would convince me: big market sells traced to one entity before the move, the same venue or actor repeating, or a regulator's findings. I'm watching the next weekly close. If Bitcoin is still under $75,500, the 200-day near $73,150 is the next line. #WSOT2026 #NovUSCPIWatch #WSOTPicktoEarn10U #USPayrollsAndRateDecisionsDriveMacroWeek #OilVolatilityTracksIranPeaceTalks

RLUSD Volume Up 9x. What Is It Counting?

Token Relations says RLUSD's monthly transfer volume on the XRP Ledger went from $2.2 billion in January to $20.1 billion in October. About 9x. In October, XRPL even passed Ethereum: $20.1 billion to $15.4 billion. 57% of RLUSD's transfer volume, on 42% of its supply.$XRPUSDT Real growth. But the leap from "volume" to "adoption and demand" is where I'd slow down. What does the number count? Every movement, not just payments. That's Token Relations' own note. Then there's the Bitquery finding. 110 wallets sent 99.6% of RLUSD-coded payments between September 19 and October 18. About 7.8 million payments, worth roughly $7,700 in total. A tenth of a cent each, routed to three collector addresses. In the same 30 days, payments of at least 1 RLUSD moved $7.33 billion gross. So real value moved too. And the trackers don't agree. Token Relations: $20.1 billion in one month. Blockworks: $14.09 billion for all of Q3. Bitquery: $7.33 billion over 30 days, for payments of at least 1 RLUSD. Different definitions. Not like-for-like. Supply tells a quieter story. RLUSD on XRPL was about $1 billion at the end of Q3, up about 50% in the quarter, per Blockworks. $20.1 billion of transfers on roughly $1 billion of supply is about 20 turns a month (my math). That looks more like trading and routing than people parking dollars. To be fair, 50% quarterly supply growth is real. RLUSD is also over 90% of XRPL's stablecoins. And more RLUSD activity doesn't guarantee more XRP demand. Blockworks said as much. I'm watching supply, not volume. If RLUSD supply on XRPL keeps climbing toward $2 billion, the adoption story is real. If volume stays high while supply sits near $1 billion, it's mostly churn. $NEARUSDT #WSOT2026 #NovUSCPIWatch #WSOTPicktoEarn10U #USPayrollsAndRateDecisionsDriveMacroWeek #OilVolatilityTracksIranPeaceTalks

Bitcoin Lost Its 50-Week Line. Is That A Warning?

Bitcoin closed the week ending November 8 at $74,968. That's just under its 50-week average, about $75,500. It ends seven straight weekly closes above the line, since the reclaim on September 20. Galaxy's Alex Thorn says not to panic. The last two times Bitcoin lost this average after a bear-market bottom, in 2011 to 2012 and 2019 to 2020, it never made a lower weekly closing low.$BTCUSDT Fair. But I'd read the fine print. - It's a small sample. two cases. - It depends on June being the bottom. Galaxy's own chart also shows two closes above the average, in December 2021 and March 2022, that came before that cycle's real low. In real time, a reclaim after a bottom and a bear-market rally can look identical. That's the part I can't resolve. - It's weekly closes, not intraday lows. Thorn also gives his own tests. Bitcoin should reclaim the average within a month. And the June low, about $59,500 on Galaxy's chart, has to hold. Other trackers show intraday lows nearer $58,000. Same June low from my midterm-pattern post. The distances, from the $74,968 close (my math): - About 0.7% to reclaim the 50-week line. - The 200-week average at $67,746 sits about 10% below. - The June low is about 21% below. To be fair, this isn't a new call. Galaxy's October 30 note already said "We believe the bottom is in," and called positioning light. And the line that just broke is Thorn's own signal. That makes it a clean test. I'm watching for a weekly close back above roughly $75,500 by December 6, my reading of "within a month." If it happens, the pattern holds. If Bitcoin is still below it by then, Thorn's own technical case weakens, and the 200-week average becomes the next level. #WSOT2026 #NovUSCPIWatch #WSOTPicktoEarn10U #USPayrollsAndRateDecisionsDriveMacroWeek #OilVolatilityTracksIranPeaceTalks

BofA Sees Chips Recovering In 2027. Not Tomorrow.

Bank of America sees a possible recovery in chip stocks in early 2027. Its three supports: clearer U.S. policy, buybacks and valuations. Read the note, though. It's more careful than the headline.$NVDAXUSDT It says investors may need to wait for earnings estimate cuts before the sector finds a durable bottom. Its history lesson: chip stocks usually fall six to nine months before earnings turn. Then they recover once the estimate cuts are priced in. And it expects the indiscriminate selling to run its course by early 2027. Not before. The bull case is real. The Philadelphia Semiconductor Index is already down 37% from its recent peak. Past downturns averaged 32%. Chips trade at 13.7 times forward earnings, a 22% discount to the S&P 500's 17.7. Now the catch. That 13.7 uses today's estimates. The same ones BofA says may get cut. As an illustration (my math), if estimates fell 10%, the multiple would be about 15.2 and the discount about 14%. The buyback support has names and dates. Lam Research has a $25 billion program. Nvidia's repurchases are ongoing. Micron starts December 9. For Nvidia, buybacks haven't stopped the slide yet. It fell 9.2% on November 5. Friday's 3.9% bounce leaves it about 5.6% lower over the two days (my math). An authorization is permission. It isn't a floor. BofA also lists tightening, high yields and high energy prices as obstacles. My take: BofA is giving a timeline, not a floor. I'm watching estimate revisions. If chip earnings estimates get cut and the stocks hold up, the "durable bottom" is close. If estimates get cut and the stocks keep falling, 13.7 isn't as cheap as it looks. #WSOT2026 #NovUSCPIWatch #WSOTPicktoEarn10U #USPayrollsAndRateDecisionsDriveMacroWeek #OilVolatilityTracksIranPeaceTalks

Vitalik Kept The Burn. He Ditched The Story.

Vitalik posted Sunday: ETH should lean on being a store of value, not a "fee-burning token." Headlines say he's moving away from the burn. Read closer. He wants to keep EIP-1559 and its burn. What he's retiring is the idea that the burn is what holds ETH's value up.$ETHUSDT His reasons, per the coverage: - The burn story "never was as strong as it seemed." Burns in 2021 to 2023 came largely from activity inside crypto, mostly speculation. That activity shrinks when ETH falls. A feedback loop. - Chasing bigger burns means pushing fees up. That fights affordability and decentralization. His scale check: backing a roughly $270 billion market cap would take about 700,000 ETH a year in protocol-level funds, per PANews and ChainThink. Their summaries frame the details differently. - Store of value fits what Ethereum does best.Decentralization and CROPS: censorship resistance, open source, privacy and security. He also said there's no need for discouragement if burns stay below 10% of break-even long term. Break-even means burn offsetting issuance. Quick data check. ETH is near $2,240. In quiet periods, issuance outpaces burn. Layer 2 growth has cut mainnet burns. So the burn story was already fading in the numbers. Vitalik is describing it more than changing it. It also fits last week's Grayscale ranking. Ethereum leads in stablecoins and tokenized assets. But that usage doesn't reach ETH holders through the burn. The token case lives somewhere else. To be fair, "store of value" is a story too. It needs a track record. Here's my test. If ETH really works as a store of value, holders should stay through weak-fee stretches. Right now, US spot Ether ETFs are on a sixth straight week of outflows, by my count. I'm watching two things: any proposal that touches the burn or issuance, and ETF flows. #WSOT2026 #NovUSCPIWatch #WSOTPicktoEarn10U #USPayrollsAndRateDecisionsDriveMacroWeek #OilVolatilityTracksIranPeaceTalks

Alphabet's $74.5B SpaceX Stake Moves Its Earnings

Alphabet owns about 555 million SpaceX shares. At Friday's $134.27 close, that's roughly $74.5 billion. That's about 83 times the $900 million Google put in back in 2015. But that's today's stake value divided by the original check, not an investment return. It ignores dilution and later purchases (my math). Its latest 13F shows it added about 3.85 million shares in Q3.$SPCXXUSDT "When SpaceX moves, Google's stake moves with it." True. But here's what the tweet skips: it doesn't just sit on a screen. It hits Alphabet's income statement. Look at three dates. - June 30: 551.2 million shares at $170.86. About $94.2 billion. - September 30: 555 million shares. About $83.7 billion. - November 6: about $74.5 billion. That's roughly $19.7 billion gone in about four months (my math). And it landed in the earnings. In Q3, Alphabet's CFO said other income and expenses was negative $8.2 billion, "due primarily to unrealized loss" on SpaceX. In Q2, it went the other way. About $94 billion of SpaceX paper gains helped push other income to $98 billion. Every $10 move in SPCX is worth about $5.55 billion. Now Q4. SPCX sat near $150.9 on September 30, implied by the 13F value. It closed at $134.27 on Friday. If prices hold, that's about $9.2 billion of paper loss (my math, pre-tax). And SpaceX is about 95% of Alphabet's reported 13F equity portfolio. To be fair, none of it is realized. Alphabet hasn't sold, and most of its value still comes from search and cloud. This is a swing factor in reported earnings, not in cash. Alphabet's next earnings swing may depend on a company it doesn't control. I'm watching SPCX's December 31 close: above about $151 points to a Q4 gain on that line, below it another loss. #WSOT2026 #NovUSCPIWatch #WSOTPicktoEarn10U #USPayrollsAndRateDecisionsDriveMacroWeek #OilVolatilityTracksIranPeaceTalks

IBIT Lost $1.44B In Six Days. Just IBIT?

BlackRock's IBIT has lost money six sessions in a row, October 30 through November 6. Total: $1.44 billion. Across all US spot Bitcoin ETFs, the same stretch cost $1.92 billion.$BTCUSDT Last time, I said I'd watch one thing: do the outflows spread beyond IBIT? Two days gave me two different answers. - Thursday: they spread. Fidelity's FBTC lost $199.9 million, nearly double IBIT's $105 million. - Friday: they didn't. IBIT lost $403 million of the $411.9 million total. FBTC gained $42.8 million. For the whole week of November 2 to 6, IBIT was about 94% of the net outflow. $1.21 billion of $1.28 billion. Every other fund combined lost just $72.2 million, per Farside. Wednesday was the category's only positive day. IBIT still lost money. Scale check. IBIT holds about $60.3 billion, so $1.44 billion is roughly 2.4% of the fund (my math). Heavy. Not a run. Here's one rough clue about who's leaving. IBIT's net assets are $60.3 billion. Its cumulative net inflows are $65.1 billion. That's about 7% under (my math). Not a cost-basis calculation. But it hints the average IBIT buyer is a bit underwater. And 2026 is now in the red. Cumulative inflows across all funds slid from about $57.6 billion before October 30 to $55.7 billion. By my math, this year's net flows sit around negative $0.9 billion. One caveat. IBIT is a passive trust. Its outflows are shareholders' decisions. Not a bearish call by BlackRock. My take: this looks more like selling concentrated in one fund than a market-wide exit. But Thursday showed it can broaden. I'm watching for IBIT's first inflow day. If it arrives while the other funds hold steady, the concentrated selling is fading. If FBTC and ARKB join in again, it's broader. #WSOT2026 #NovUSCPIWatch #WSOTPicktoEarn10U #USPayrollsAndRateDecisionsDriveMacroWeek #OilVolatilityTracksIranPeaceTalks

Whales Flipped Short At $80K. Bitcoin's Down 5%.

Hyperliquid whales flipped net short on Bitcoin about two weeks ago, per Glassnode. Bitcoin was near $80,000 then. It's around $75,800 now, roughly 5% lower (my math). So far, the shorts have been right.$BTCUSDT That's the part the headlines skip. It's not just "whales are short." It's "whales are short, and it's worked." But the details are less clean. The biggest single short, about $178.5 million, opened near $76,390 (CryptoBriefing). Bitcoin is sitting right around that line. That position is near breakeven, not a big winner. Glassnode doesn't say whether these are directional bets or hedges against coins held elsewhere. Cointelegraph noted that gap in its write-up of the update. I can't tell either. The same group longed the bottom, per Glassnode. Right on timing twice is a reason to watch them. It isn't a reason to follow them. One more oddity. Four whale wallets closed their HYPE longs entirely after the token hit $97, banking about $5 million between them. Selling Hyperliquid's own token while shorting Bitcoin on Hyperliquid. And on October 27, Glassnode flagged liquidation clusters near $85,000 and $87,000. Its framing: if price turns up, those shorts become fuel. An asymmetric setup, not a guaranteed squeeze. I'm watching $76,000. A daily close below it, and the shorts keep working. A push back toward $81,000, and they're under pressure. #WSOT2026 #NovUSCPIWatch #WSOTPicktoEarn10U #USPayrollsAndRateDecisionsDriveMacroWeek #OilVolatilityTracksIranPeaceTalks $ETHUSDT

Berkshire's $9.6B Buyback Came Before The Crash

Berkshire Hathaway bought back $9.6 billion of its own stock in Q3. That's the biggest single-quarter buyback in its history, topping the $9.3 billion from Q3 2020. It reported the number Saturday, in CEO Greg Abel's third quarter. The viral version adds a few things I wanted to check. "First buybacks since 2024."Not quite. Buybacks restarted earlier this year. By quarter: $234 million, then $4.5 billion, then $9.6 billion. That's about $14.4 billion so far this year, plus roughly $2 billion more in the first four weeks of October, per Reuters. That ramp is the real signal. "Ready in the middle of the crash."The $9.6 billion went out July through September. The Nasdaq-100 lost $2.3 trillion on Thursday, November 5, per NBC. And AP reports Berkshire's Class A shares have since surged past $878,000, above where they traded before Buffett announced his retirement. So buybacks likely paused recently. This isn't Berkshire buying the crash. It's Berkshire buying before it. The cash pile.$352.3 billion by Berkshire's own count, which excludes rail and utility cash. That's down from $373.5 billion in March. On the broader measure it's $377.4 billion. Either way, those are September 30 numbers. I couldn't find the quote about taking advantage if the AI infrastructure trade implodes. Fair read: Abel is clearly more willing to use the cash than Buffett was. Buybacks went from tiny to a record in two quarters. I'm watching Berkshire's Q4 report. If cash falls and stock purchases rise after this sell-off, that's crash-buying. If buybacks stay near zero with the stock near record highs, that's price discipline. #WSOT2026 #NovUSCPIWatch #WSOTPicktoEarn10U #USPayrollsAndRateDecisionsDriveMacroWeek #OilVolatilityTracksIranPeaceTalks

Next Week Won't Confirm The Fed. It Will Move It.

"Next week confirms the Fed's December decision." Not quite. The Fed meets December 8 to 9. More data lands before that, including October PCE on November 25. What next week can do is move the odds. Right now they sit around 75% to 80% for a hike, depending on the source. Two prints matter most. Tuesday, November 10, 8:30 a.m. ET: October CPI - Consensus: headline +0.3% month over month (September: +0.6%). Core +0.2% (September: +0.3%). - There's no year-over-year number this time. Last October's CPI was never published because of the government shutdown, so there's nothing to compare to. Headlines will lean on monthly figures and model estimates. The Cleveland Fed's nowcast is about 3.7% headline and 2.5% core. That's a model, not a consensus. - Core is the swing factor. Bloomberg's tracker points to about +0.33%, against that 0.2% consensus. September's three-month core pace jumped to 3.4% annualized from 2.0%. So a 0.3% core print would count as hot. Friday, November 13, 8:30 a.m. ET: October PPI Consensus: headline +0.4% (September: +1.3%). Core +0.3%. And CoreWeave reports Tuesday, Cisco on Thursday. Two AI earnings checks right after last week's rout. Here's my read. The tweet's logic holds in rough form. A hot CPI plus a hot PPI pushes hike odds up. A soft pair pulls them down. I'd drop words like "confirmed" and "bigger crash." Bitcoin has been trading with risk assets, so it will probably feel those odds too. I'm watching core CPI against 0.2%. A 0.3% or higher would likely push December odds back toward the roughly 90% we saw before the AI sell-off. An in-line 0.2% probably changes little. #WSOT2026 #NovUSCPIWatch #WSOTPicktoEarn10U #USPayrollsAndRateDecisionsDriveMacroWeek #OilVolatilityTracksIranPeaceTalks

Whale Shorts Are Biggest Since Oct 2025. So What?

Glassnode says Hyperliquid whales are adding to their Bitcoin shorts. Net positioning flipped short two weeks ago, after seven months long. Short exposure is now the biggest since October 2025.$BTCUSDT The line going around: last time whales were this short, price moved down considerably. Here's the snapshot (CryptoBriefing, November 7). Roughly $892 million to $924 million in BTC shorts. A net short of about $345 million to $470 million, depending on the snapshot. Nearly twice as many shorts as longs. The biggest single short is about $178.5 million, opened near $76,390. Bitcoin sat around $76,000. I'd read it with four notes. - **One precedent isn't a rule.** "Considerably" has no size and no timeframe. Last time was October 2025, right after Bitcoin's record near $126,000. Plenty of room to fall. - **Net short can't tell a bet from a hedge.** A short on one venue can offset coins held somewhere else. I can't tell which this is. - **The biggest short is near breakeven.** It entered at $76,390. Bitcoin is around $76,000. That's the same $76,000 to $76,500 zone analysts have watched as support. A break helps the whales. A bounce hurts them. - **Scale.** About $0.9 billion in whale shorts. Last week, $1.28 billion left US spot Bitcoin ETFs. Different markets, not like-for-like, but the ETF selling is bigger than this whale book. To be fair, this group did long the bottom, per Glassnode. They've been right before. And on October 27, Glassnode flagged liquidation clusters near $85,000 and $87,000. Its words, in effect: an asymmetric setup, not a guaranteed squeeze. I'm watching $76,000. A daily close below it favors the shorts. A push toward $81,000 puts them under pressure. #WSOT2026 #NovUSCPIWatch #WSOTPicktoEarn10U #USPayrollsAndRateDecisionsDriveMacroWeek #OilVolatilityTracksIranPeaceTalks

Ethereum Ranks #1 Five Ways. ETFs Keep Leaving.

Grayscale says Ethereum is #1 among smart contract platforms. Stablecoins, tokenized assets, applications, developers and investment products (X post, November 6). Behind it: nearly $140 billion in stablecoins, about half of supply. Roughly 40% of tokenized assets, more than twice its nearest rival. Over 2,000 apps on mainnet and about 6,000 across Layer 2s. US ETPs above $13 billion. CME futures above $3 billion in open interest.$ETHUSDT It holds up. But I'd add a few notes. Who's ranking? Grayscale runs Ether products of its own, including ETHE. Not disqualifying. It's just a manager with a stake in the story. Now the part that doesn't fit. The "investment products" lead sits oddly next to the flows. US spot Ether ETFs lost $365 million last week, per Farside. BlackRock's ETHA was $346 million of it. By my count, that's a sixth straight week of net outflows. About $1.6 billion left in October. SoSoValue now shows $12.84 billion in net assets. And what's being ranked? Mostly what sits on the network. Balances. Assets. Products. Activity is a different measure. An older Grayscale report, from early 2025, found Ethereum led on on-chain assets but had lagged some chains on activity. So Ethereum is where the money and assets live. Whether that turns into demand for ETH is a separate question. I'm watching ETH ETF flows. If the stablecoin and tokenization lead finally shows up as inflows, the rankings are doing something for the token. Until then: a strong network story, and a weak flow story. #WSOT2026 #NovUSCPIWatch #WSOTPicktoEarn10U #USPayrollsAndRateDecisionsDriveMacroWeek #OilVolatilityTracksIranPeaceTalks