SuperEx_Media

#51%Attack #EclipseAttack In the previous security lesson, we focused on Sybil attacks. I believe everyone now has a basic understanding of hacker attack methods in blockchain. Today, we continue digging deeper into the course “Blockchain Security Risks — Hacker Series,” and today’s theme is: 51% Attack & Eclipse Attack. These two types of attacks are often discussed together, but they are not the same at all. A 51% attack targets the entire chain — it is a consensus-layer security challenge; An eclipse attack targets individual nodes — it is a network-layer precision manipulation.One is “frontal battlefield,” the other is “flanking infiltration”; One requires massive cost, the other requires technical sophistication. This lesson will start from first principles, explaining how these two attacks operate, what threats they bring to the industry, why they are becoming increasingly important, and how we should truly understand on-chain security. https://news.superex.com/articles/18019.html Why Should We Understand 51% Attacks and Eclipse Attacks? As AI-driven quantitative trading expands, Layer 2 ecosystems explode, and cross-chain assets grow, on-chain value is no longer the “small-scale experiment” it was years ago. Between 2024–2025, the total on-chain asset scale of the crypto market exceeded $3.7 trillion. This means: Any chain whose consensus layer is compromised could see billions disappear. Any protocol whose node layer is attacked could be precisely manipulated or have prices influenced. Any weakness in a cross-chain system becomes the fastest cash-out channel for attackers. In other words: Understanding 51% attacks and eclipse attacks = understanding the real risk boundaries of blockchains. In a world dominated by DeFi, AI, cross-chain bridges, and restaking competition, security is never “just a technical topic.” It is a discussion of systemic market risk. Basic Concept: What Is a 51% Attack? A 51% attack refers to a situation where an entity controls more than half (51%) of a blockchain’s hash power or staking power, enabling it to “rewrite history” for malicious purposes. It applies to both PoW and PoS, just in different ways: PoW: Controlling >51% hashrate allows control over block production order. PoS: Controlling sufficient stake influences consensus voting. What can’t an attacker do? ❌ They cannot steal coins from wallets. ❌ They cannot change your wallet balance. ❌ They cannot break private keys. But what can they do? ✔ Perform double spending ✔ Prevent certain transactions from being included ✔ Manipulate transaction ordering (MEV) ✔ Create short-term network chaos ✔ Trick exchanges into accepting deposits from an invalidated chain In real life, attackers often use chain reorganization to perform double-spending, impacting exchanges and cross-chain bridges. Basic Concept: What Is an Eclipse Attack? An eclipse attack does not target the entire blockchain. Instead, it isolates a specific node by forcing it to connect only to attacker-controlled fake peers. This is a network-layer attack, not a consensus-layer attack. Targets can include: Validator nodes Miners Wallet infrastructure Exchange nodes Oracle nodes MEV algorithmic nodes The attacker’s goals often include: ✔ Preventing the node from seeing the real chain ✔ Assisting a 51% attack ✔ Influencing validator voting ✔ Manipulating MEV and transaction ordering ✔ Manipulating oracle prices ✔ Blocking transactions from entering the mempool Eclipse attacks are terrifying because: low cost, precision targeting, high efficiency — and no massive hashrate is required. 51% Attack: The Underlying Mechanism of “Forcibly Rewriting History” To understand a 51% attack, we must understand a core principle: Blockchains are not maintained by all nodes — they follow the “longest chain rule.” Whoever produces the longest valid chain becomes the source of truth. Thus, if you control 51% of the network’s total hashrate or staking power, your chain will always be the longest. 1. PoW Logic Because the side with the most hashrate produces valid blocks the fastest. If attackers gain >51% hashrate, they can secretly build a shadow chain, and once it becomes longer than the real chain, they broadcast it: All nodes switch to the longer chain The attacker cancels previous transactions Double spending becomes possible 2. PoS Logic The principles are similar, but instead of hashrate, attackers rely on: ✔ Large stake ✔ Validator distribution ✔ Voting weight ✔ Exploiting slashing/latency weaknesses 3. Attack methods include: Preventing other validators from voting Submitting malicious forks Conducting short-term censorship Rewriting transactions within certain epochs PoS chains have more complex 51% attack risks: Attackers do not always need 51% — just a majority of active validators. How a 51% Attack Works (Step-by-Step Breakdown) Step 1: Gain control of hashrate or stake Attackers prepare: massive GPU/ASIC power large staking capital network/node dominance For small-cap blockchains, this is surprisingly feasible. Step 2: Build a shadow chain Attackers mine blocks but do not broadcast them. Step 3: Perform a real-chain transaction Example: deposit 10,000 tokens to an exchange. Step 4: Publish the longer shadow chain The exchange’s confirmed deposit disappears as the chain reorganizes. Step 5: Profit via double spend Attackers: receive the exchange’s payout erase the original deposit profit without consequence Eclipse Attack: Precision Isolation of a Node An eclipse attack works like this: Make a node blind to the real network by feeding it only attacker-controlled data. Common techniques: 1. Control all peer connections of the target Nodes typically maintain fixed numbers of: Incoming peers Outgoing peers Attackers: continuously connect fill all slots block real peers Now the node receives only attacker data. 2. IP spoofing / fake nodes / zombie nodes Attackers deploy: many fake nodes spoofed IP addresses protocol-modified malicious nodes These create a “fake reality bubble” around the target. 3. Precision targeting PoS validators Once a validator is eclipsed: ✔ it votes on fake blocks ✔ it finalizes the wrong chain ✔ it loses rewards ✔ it enables coordinated attacks This is one of the most dangerous forms of consensus disruption. Core Differences Between the Two Attacks From the above table, we can clearly see: 51% attacks are “nuclear-level” attacks Eclipse attacks are sniper-level attacks Especially in the PoS era, the two are often used together — and this is precisely why they are the two themes of today’s lesson. The Crypto Market of 2025 Is Not the Market of Five Years Ago Layer 2 proliferation Restaking causing risk concentration Cross-chain bridges now hold massive value AI trading relies on oracles MEME markets create huge MEV LRTs and RWAs become new narratives On-chain stocks and bonds rising rapidly Under such conditions, we must reassess both attacks: 1. Rising risk of 51% attacks Reasons: increasing number of small PoW chains MEV incentives for chain manipulation validator centralization in some PoS chains compute power concentration due to AI 2. Eclipse attacks are now even more dangerous Because the systems relying on node connectivity include: cross-chain bridges (most vulnerable) oracles (price manipulation = instant profit) MEV systems exchange nodes DeFi protocols Eclipse attacks degrade a blockchain from “global ledger” to “isolated local ledger.” Attackers can manipulate expectations, transactions, and prices within seconds. Many Fear That 51% Attacks Steal Tokens — This Is Wrong A 51% attack cannot: Not change balances Not break private keys Not alter smart contract code But it can: revert transactions reorder transactions censor transactions create chain instability Exchanges are the ones most afraid — because they are the final victims of double-spends. Real-World Meaning of These Attacks(No historical examples listed, only principle-level analysis) Targets most at risk: small-cap PoW chains PoS chains with validator concentration systems with weak routing security oracles relying on single nodes cross-chain bridges (most fragile component in the industry) Attackers often use: MEV extraction off-chain shorting exchange deposits cross-chain withdrawals hedge models for guaranteed profit Today’s blockchain is a highly financialized system. Attackers do not attack to “destroy the chain” — they attack to profit. Defense Systems: How Blockchain Can Resist 51% & Eclipse Attacks 1. Defenses Against 51% Attacks Increase validator count Increase PoW hashrate cost Strengthen slashing rules Hybrid BFT + PoS consensus Strong randomness (VRF) Reduce mining pool centralization 2. Defenses Against Eclipse Attacks Increase peer randomness Increase peer counts Sybil-resistant peer selection Active suspicious-connection detection Multi-source mempool design Multi-path gossip protocol Minimum network quality requirement for validators PoS chains especially need robust network-layer protection. Conclusion: Blockchain Is Not Afraid of Attacks — It Is Afraid of Blind Confidence “Decentralization guarantees absolute security” is an outdated myth.Blockchain security is not a static state. It is a dynamic equilibrium shaped by: hashrate stake distribution validator diversity network design consensus rules economic incentives community behavior asset scale 51% attacks and eclipse attacks are not “weaknesses” — they are reminders that:True decentralization is not the number of nodes — it is the system’s total resistance to attacks.As blockchain carries greater financial value, understanding security = understanding the lifeline of the crypto market.

#SybilAttack #EducationalSeries Since the birth of BTC, hacking incidents and theft cases in the crypto industry have never really stopped. From 2012 to 2024, there have been 1,740 publicly known security incidents across the blockchain ecosystem, resulting in approximately 33.744 billion USD in losses. If we narrow the timeframe down to recent years, we can see that the amount involved in crypto security incidents has shown an upward trend: the loss from crypto security incidents totaled 1.8 billion USD in 2023, and by 2024 this number had risen to 2.308 billion USD. In other words, hackers have not slowed down at all; instead, they are constantly probing the industry’s defenses. At the end of the day, while the decentralization and anonymity of crypto assets bring tremendous convenience, they also make these assets an extremely tempting “prize” in the eyes of hackers. Every single attack is like a warning bell on the path of healthy industry development, reminding us that security is something we can never afford to relax on. Therefore, crypto participants must strengthen their security awareness in order to effectively protect their funds. In the next few educational articles, we will launch a “Security Awareness Educational Series.” The topic of the first lesson is: Sybil Attack. What Is a Sybil Attack? Why Is It Called “Sybil”? If we had to use a few phrases to describe Sybil attacks, I think they would be: The weapon air-drop hunters are best at using; The biggest source of vulnerabilities in governance voting; The cheapest means of manipulating on-chain data; The root cause behind many project failures, data inflation, ecosystem collapse, and liquidity pools being drained. More realistically: even if you feel very far removed from this concept right now, your assets, the DApps you have used, and the airdrop programs you have participated in may already have been “quietly affected” by Sybil attacks. Back to the topic itself: a Sybil attack refers to an attacker creating a large number of fake identities (fake wallet addresses, fake nodes, fake accounts) in order to influence how power, resources, or incentives are allocated in a system. The word “Sybil” comes from a case study of dissociative identity disorder titled Sybil, which tells the story of a person with 16 independent personalities. Doesn’t that look very similar to how Sybil attacks behave? So, in the blockchain context, this word is used to describe: one real-world controller disguising themselves as many independent participants. In the centralized world, this type of attack is relatively easy to detect: the same IP, the same device, multi-account operations — these are all things that systems can track. But in Web3, attackers are naturally given a perfect camouflage: Addresses can be generated infinitely; No phone number is required; No ID documents are required; No real-world identity binding is required; Wallets are costless to create; Nodes can be faked; Behavior can be scripted. This makes the cost of launching a Sybil attack extremely low and identification extremely difficult. Therefore: among all Web3 security threats, Sybil attacks are the most widespread and the most hidden. Why Are Sybil Attacks a Form of “Structural Damage” to Blockchain Systems? The danger of Sybil attacks does not come from how “strong” the attacker is, but from this fact: blockchain systems are inherently based on the assumption of “a majority of honest participants.” Once attackers, through massive identity forgery, become the “majority,” the system loses its balance. 1. Damage to Consensus Mechanisms (Especially PoA, DAG, DPoS) In some consensus mechanisms, the number of identities influences the level of trust the system assigns to nodes. Creating a large number of nodes = having majority voting power = controlling system decisions. Although PoW and PoS are not easily broken directly by Sybil attacks (because there is a real cost), light-client networks, DAGs, sidechains, and certain L2 schemes have all faced such risks. 2. Damage to Governance Systems (DAOs, Voting, Proposals) In governance frameworks, the most common issues include: Using a large number of identities to farm voting power; Masquerading as community members to influence proposals; Using multiple identities to create a “fake appearance of community consensus”; Once the governance system is manipulated, a DAO can easily become an empty shell. 3. Shock to Airdrop Models Airdrops are originally meant to reward real early users, but once a large number of Sybil users appear: One person can pretend to be 1,000 people with 1,000 addresses; They can batch-interact, batch-complete tasks, and ultimately take away 30–60% of the airdrop allocation. This is one of the reasons many projects fail → because the airdrop ended up going mostly to script farms, leaving real users without incentives. 4. Pollution of Data Metrics (On-Chain Data No Longer Reliable) When projects look at TVL, address count, and transaction volume, Sybil attacks can severely distort the data: A single person running scripts can create thousands of active addresses; TVL can be faked through recursive collateral loops; Interaction volume can be endlessly “farmed” via scripts. This creates a major industry dilemma: more data does not necessarily mean more truth; it might just mean more “fake prosperity.” 5. Threats to Fund Security In some DeFi protocols, attackers use a large number of identities to: Apply for loans; Exploit incentive loopholes; Manipulate reward pools; and even drain protocol liquidity pools. I believe you’ve seen such cases in the industry. How Are Sybil Attacks Carried Out? (Attack Path Analysis) Although each project is different, the generic steps of a Sybil attack are very clear. Step 1: Mass Creation of Wallet Addresses For example: 1,000 addresses; 5,000 addresses; Professional script farms can even go beyond 20,000; Cost of creating addresses = 0. This is one of the greatest risk sources in Web3. Step 2: Disguising as Real Users (Constructing Behavioral Footprints) Attackers will: Batch-interact; Batch-mint; Batch-swap; Hop across multiple chains; Disperse gas across multiple accounts; Use behavior paths with different “styles”; to mimic “real usage behavior.” The effect is stronger than you might imagine: one Sybil farmer can pose as 2,000 “real users.” Step 3: Evading Anti-Sybil Detection Right now, projects usually detect Sybil behavior using: IP addresses; Shared interaction patterns across addresses; Similar time patterns; Identical device fingerprints; Similar gas usage patterns; Frequent transfers between addresses. But script farms will evade these through: Bulk VPN switching; Mixers; Proxy pools; Randomized delays; Batched intent-based transactions; Multi-region nodes; Randomized breakpoint logging; to avoid being identified. This makes defense extremely difficult. Step 4: Launching the Attack at the Critical Moment Sybil attacks typically involve long-term preparation, with attackers continuously forging a large number of behavioral footprints just to strike at the key moment — for example: Right before a major airdrop distribution; Before governance voting; When incentive distribution starts; During node elections; During DEX liquidity incentive periods; During NFT whitelist minting phases. Attackers will unleash the fake identities all at once to participate in decisions or grab resources. The Most Common Sybil Attack Scenarios in Crypto (You’ve Definitely Seen These) 1. Airdrop Sybils (Most Common, Most Widespread, Biggest Impact) Typical cases: 2,000 interactions; 3,000 wallets doing the same quests; 6 months of sustained behavior to pose as “long-term users”; The project believes it has 100,000 users, but in reality: maybe 80,000 are script farms. 2. DAO Governance Attacks Attackers use multiple identities to influence: On-chain rules; Treasury usage; The project’s future roadmap; Critical votes. Some DAOs end up being completely controlled. 3. DEX Liquidity Incentive Wash-Farming Attackers use multiple identities to: Rotate LP positions; Wash-trade volume; Farm transaction volume; Farm fee rewards; Loop-arbitrage. In the end, they take most of the incentives, while real users get little or nothing. 4. NFT Whitelist Sybils Some popular projects see their whitelist spots snatched entirely by bots and scripts, with hundreds of WL spots ending up in the hands of a single real operator. This leads to: The project failing to build a real community; The floor price being unsustainable; Misaligned interests between minters and the project; A rapidly decaying ecosystem. 5. Node Forgery Attacks (Extremely Dangerous to Chain Security) In some light-client networks, DAG-based structures, etc., attackers can create a large number of nodes and pretend to be the network majority. This is the most dangerous type of Sybil attack. Six Mainstream Anti-Sybil Mechanisms Even though the industry has developed a complete Anti-Sybil toolkit, none of the methods are perfect. 1. Behavior Analysis This is the most common method, for example: Are interaction windows the same? Are time intervals too regular? Do multiple addresses share identical usage patterns? The downside is obvious: once scripts add random parameters, they become nearly undetectable. 2. Graph Analysis Graph analysis is mainly used to analyze: Transfer network graphs; Address interconnections; Similarity between on-chain paths. The weakness is again obvious: attackers only need to “cross-mix” paths to evade detection. 3. Device Fingerprints + IP Identification This is the most intuitive method, but VPNs, multiple devices, scripts, and proxy pools can bypass it completely. 4. Economic Cost Models (On-chain Actions Have a Cost) For example:Airdrops requiring high gas, high frequency, and heavy interactions. Script farms can still do it — it’s just slightly more expensive. 5. KYC (Most Effective but Least Decentralized) It is indeed effective, but it damages: Privacy; Permissionless access; The trustless, permissionless nature of DeFi. Therefore, most projects cannot adopt it extensively. 6. Trusted Execution Environments (TEE) Such as SGX and privacy-preserving proofs, but these are still immature for large-scale use. Three Fundamental Web3 Properties That Make Sybil Attacks Eternal Address creation is costless: you can never stop someone from creating 100,000 addresses. User identities are inherently anonymous: blockchains are designed not to require real-world identity. On-chain behavior can be disguised: Scripts = infinite users; Paths = can be mimicked; Interactions = can be copied; “Smell” = can be hidden. 4. Incentive mechanisms will always attract script farms: wherever there is money, there will be Sybil attacks. Future Anti-Sybil Trends in Web3 ZK-based identity (ZK-ID): ensuring users are real humans without knowing who they are. Soulbound Identity systems: enhancing “non-transferability of accounts.” DPR: Dynamic Participation Rating: giving higher weight to truly engaged participants. Cross-Chain Identity: evaluating real users based on combined behavior across multiple chains. High-frequency behavioral graphing (with AI): AI will play a central role in future Anti-Sybil systems. Conclusion: Sybil Attacks Will Never Disappear, but They Can Be Managed Sybil attacks will always exist — this is a structural feature of Web3. But we must: Understand them; Identify them; Manage them; Build Sybil-resistant systems; Design incentive models robust enough to withstand them. This is not only the responsibility of project teams, but also the key to the industry’s sustainable and healthy development. When you understand Sybil attacks, you understand Web3’s “real world.” When you understand how to defend against them, you understand the future direction of Web3.

#AA #EducationalSerie Today’s topic is Account Abstraction (AA). Just like its name suggests, this is a very abstract concept. How abstract? When you don’t understand it, you cannot get any information from its name, and you might not even understand how to read the name itself. Returning to the topic, Account Abstraction (AA) is one of the core technologies of Ethereum and even the entire Web3 ecosystem. It is considered the key that enables Web3 to truly reach mass adoption — some even say: without AA, there is no real Web3 mass adoption. This SuperEx in-depth educational article will explain AA from 0 to 1 in the simplest and most complete way, helping you fully understand: What exactly is AA? Why is it far more important than people imagine? What fatal problems of current wallets does it solve? What is its relationship with smart contract wallets? What are the differences among EOA, CA, and AA? How does ERC-4337 promote the implementation of AA? Why are exchanges, wallets, and DApps all accelerating their adoption of AA? By the time you finish reading, you will fully understand: AA is not an “Ethereum engineer’s technical term” — it is a breakthrough that will change the fate of every Web3 user. First, let’s talk about what AA is Let’s explain it in one sentence: AA = turning the wallet from a “dumb account that can only sign” into a “smart account that can execute logic.” In other words: The wallet becomes a smart contract. A wallet becomes like a smartphone — capable of installing various “security apps,” “recovery apps,” “spending limit functions,” and “automated payment functions.” You can think of AA as: “Traditional bank cards that can only swipe → upgraded into smart bank cards with programmable rules and automatic fund management.” Or “From a simple Nokia feature phone → upgraded to an iPhone with an App Store.” Wallets in the EOA era are ‘feature phones.’ Wallets in the AA era are ‘smartphones.’ AA Solves the Three UX Disasters of Blockchain Let’s start from reality: Web3 is difficult, dangerous, and has high barriers largely because the account model is ancient. Originally, Ethereum had two account types: EOA (Externally Owned Account) → requires private key signing CA (Contract Account) → smart contract The problem: EOA is too dumb, CA is too “passive,” and they cannot replace each other. EOA’s major problems include: Pain Point 1: Lose the private key = you’re done (no recovery) In Web2: Forgot password? → Recoverable Lost your phone? → Get a new one Locked out of email? → Customer support In Web3: Forgot your private key? → Money gone forever Lost your seed phrase? → Money gone forever Got phished into signing a malicious transaction? → Money gone forever This is not “security.” This is irreversible destruction. Pain Point 2: Must use native gas (e.g., ETH) to pay fees You use USDT, but the system forces you to prepare ETH for gas fees. In reality, no app demands: “You must first buy a small amount of USD to pay a system fee before using Amazon.” But in Web3, that’s normal. Pain Point 3: Wallet permissions are too large — one approval = lifetime trust Many users lose funds because they don’t understand approval details. EOA wallets: Have no custom rules No limit settings No freezing ability No security modules No transaction validation logic Once connected to a malicious contract → assets fully exposed. These pain points seriously hinder Web3 mass adoption. So AA appears with a clear goal:Make blockchain accounts flexible, recoverable, upgradeable, and extensible — like smartphone accounts. AA turns wallets from “dumb storage tools” into smart accounts. AA Is a Revolution, Not an Upgrade 1. Wallets no longer require seed phrases AA allows identity verification by: Phone + SMS Identity wallets Google / Gmail Apple ID Fingerprint / Face ID Even hardware modules AA brings social account recovery: Multi-signature recovery Biometric recovery Forgetting the seed phrase is no longer catastrophic This is the most important step for Web3 mass adoption. 2. You no longer need ETH to send a transaction(Gas abstraction / Gas token / Sponsor model) AA allows: Pay gas with USDT DApps pay gas for users Wallet operators pay gas (during promotional periods) Project teams set “Gas sponsorship mechanisms” This means: Users no longer need to hunt for “0.003 ETH for gas.” Web3 finally becomes as convenient as Web2: just use it. 3. You can set ‘transaction rules’: limits, whitelists, multi-layer security For example: Large transfers require 2FA Whitelisted addresses can receive funds instantly Blacklisted addresses are automatically blocked Daily spending limits Emergency freeze button Multi-authorization Automated recurring payments Security-check scripts before executing transactions Your wallet becomes a programmable security system. 4. More secure: proactive anti-theft instead of reactive damage control EOA = passive defense AA accounts = proactive defense Examples: Detect abnormal transactions → auto reject Detect malicious contracts → auto block Detect login from unusual region → require confirmation Detect large transfer → auto enable high-security mode This is an entirely different security philosophy. 5. Automation capabilities (auto top-up, auto liquidation, auto strategies) AA allows your wallet to not only “store money,” but also execute strategies, such as: Automatically convert salary into stablecoins Auto DCA (dollar-cost averaging) Auto top up margin Auto repay flash loans Auto staking Auto claim airdrops Auto move funds into higher-yield pools AA turns your wallet into your on-chain financial butler. AA’s Technical Core: ERC-4337(This section is technical; you can skip if uninterested) Many think Account Abstraction requires modifying Ethereum’s consensus layer. But Vitalik chose another path: ERC-4337 = enables AA without modifying Ethereum’s base protocol. It works through: EntryPoint contract UserOperation Bundler Paymaster Smart Contract Wallet These five components form AA’s complete lifecycle. Let’s break them down simply: 1. UserOperation: similar to a “transaction intent” You no longer send raw transactions. You send an intent-like message (UserOp), such as: “Help me use 100 USDT to buy an equivalent amount of ETH, and pay gas with USDT.” The AA wallet reads this “intent” and executes the logic. 2. Bundler: packages large numbers of UserOps into blocks It acts like a supplementary service to miners/validators.The Bundler handles: Verification Ordering Packaging Submitting to EntryPoint 3. EntryPoint: the core management contract of AA Validates wallet logic Executes operations Validates Paymaster Validates account logic Finalizes token deductions 4. Paymaster: the sponsor who pays gas for you Three common Paymaster models: DApps pay gas for new users Users pay gas using USDT/USDC Wallets provide free gas experience periods This is revolutionary for Web3 onboarding. 5. Smart Contract Wallet: the core account of AA It is not a simple wallet — it is an account with logic, supporting: Custom signature methods Custom security rules Social recovery Multi-signature Biometrics Permissioned transaction control This is why:AA wallets = the next entry point of Web3. What Real-World Use Cases Does AA Enable? 1. Web2-style registration: phone/email onboarding to Web3 New users no longer need seed phrases: Phone number Email Google login Apple login Zero barrier for Web2 users. 2. Gamers can play blockchain games without understanding wallets Games can: Auto-create wallets Auto-pay gas (sponsored) Auto-claim rewards Auto-store assets Players will feel: “This is just a normal game.” 3. Payments and transfers become as smooth as Web2 Scan-to-pay Contact-based transfers Pay gas with USDT Gasless transfers Perfect for beginners. 4. Automated DeFi investment strategies AA can automatically: Participate in liquidity pools Execute DCA Buy BTC on schedule Auto repay loans Auto stop-loss Auto take-profit Manage positions Provide liquidation protection Next-generation DeFi will feel much more like traditional financial products. 5. Enterprise-grade Web3 wallets Companies can set: Multi-signature Financial permissions Daily limits Risk monitoring Fund flow rules AA solves nearly all enterprise wallet problems. Challenges AA Still Faces 1. Cost issues Smart accounts require more logic → more gas. But with L2s rising rapidly, this problem is disappearing. 2. Security boundaries still need research Smart contract wallets face: Logic vulnerabilities Multi-module security management But compared to EOA, risks are far more controllable. 3. Ecosystem needs time to mature Paymasters, Bundlers, and other infrastructures need: Business models Incentive systems More decentralization But growth is accelerating rapidly. If you need one final summary Account Abstraction is the key that transforms Web3 from “hard to use” to “easy to use.” It solves the most critical pain points: Wallets are too difficult Assets are too easy to lose Approvals are too dangerous Gas UX is terrible No automation Too complex for normal people AA will make: Wallets → smart accounts DApps → real apps DeFi → like a bank GameFi → real games Web3 will no longer require understanding “private keys,” “gas,” or “nonce.” Blockchain will enter the true mainstream internet era.Among all Web3 technologies, AA’s importance is second only to Bitcoin itself.

#Fed #CryptoMarket Yesterday, in the article “Bitcoin Drops Below $90,000: Is This a Bear Market Confirmation, or the Beginning of a ‘Discount Period’?”, we mentioned that over the past month BTC has fallen from its all-time high of $126,000 all the way down below $90,000. A 25% pullback has thrown the market into panic, and the fear index has dropped into single digits. Over the last 41 days, the crypto market has seen more than $1.1 trillion in market cap evaporate, with average daily losses as high as $27 billion. All of this data tells us one thing: the crypto market is currently in the middle of a violent storm. At such a moment, the Fed’s internal “infighting” and Trump’s continuous pressure on the Fed are undoubtedly pushing this crypto storm to an even higher level. The reason is very simple: whether you like it or not, the Federal Reserve has already become the “hidden boss” behind the entire crypto market. Bitcoin is decentralized, but investors’ money is not. Liquidity in the crypto market does not appear out of thin air; it comes from the world’s core U.S. dollar system — and the Fed is the central brain of that dollar system. So: Rate hikes → the dollar becomes more expensive → liquidity in risk assets dries up → the crypto market crashes Rate cuts → the dollar becomes cheaper → liquidity flows back into tech and crypto → markets rebound Balance sheet reduction (QT) → capital is pulled out → the crypto market feels “starved of oxygen” Balance sheet expansion (QE) → capital flows back in → the long-term bull cycle restarts Of course, reality is far more complex than the simple picture above. But what you must remember is: behind every candlestick you see, it’s never just retail traders — it’s the fluctuation of the global cost of capital structure. Why Write This Article at This Moment? — Because the December Crash Changed Everything In yesterday’s article, we already analyzed that: Liquidity contracted rapidly in Q4 Crypto capital is clearly retreating Large VCs and institutions are cutting positions BTC and ETH have suffered structural breakdowns The market cap of stablecoins has fallen sharply All of this is inseparable from the Fed’s monetary policy shift since the second half of 2025. So the question now is no longer: “Does the Fed affect the crypto market?” The real questions are: “What will the Fed do next? And how should the crypto market respond?” Click to register SuperEx Click to download the SuperEx APP Click to enter SuperEx CMC Click to enter SuperEx DAO Academy — Space Starting from the Fed’s “Infighting”: From Hawks vs. Doves to Internal Fracture — Why Has It Suddenly Become So Hard to Reach Consensus? The Fed’s traditional culture is built around “a unified voice behind high walls.” The Chair’s public remarks usually have the support of a majority of the Committee; internal disputes are pushed down to the lowest possible level, and a unified front is used to stabilize markets. But this year, three major anomalies have appeared: 1. Economic Data Now Sends “Offsetting Signals” — There’s No Place to Put Consensus From Q3 to Q4 2025, the U.S. economy has shown a rare “two-headed contradiction”: Inflation remains sticky → in theory, they shouldn’t be cutting rates Employment is cooling rapidly and hiring is slowing → yet they must cut rates to avoid a hard landing This is not a one-sided risk; it’s a “fight with both hands.” The more contradictory the data, the harder it is for the Fed to reach a common judgment. This has created two opposing camps: (1) The hawkish camp: Inflation is still above the threshold A new round of tariffs could push prices higher Cutting rates now risks repeating the mistakes of the 1970s (2) The dovish camp: The labor market is cooling sharply Confidence indicators are falling, suggesting consumption has peaked Keeping rates high will crush low- and middle-income households In the past, the consensus was “inflation first.” But now that both risks are present at the same time, both camps feel they are the ones who are right. 2. Three Fed Governors “Think the Same Way,” Forming an Independent Bloc What’s special about this year is that three voting members of the Board were nominated by the same president and have highly aligned ways of thinking — something rarely seen in the past decade. Their general mindset looks like this: A deeper focus on employment They do not believe inflation will re-accelerate sharply They are strongly concerned about the structural damage caused by prolonged high rates When three votes form a solid bloc, the Chair immediately faces resistance when trying to push for a unified action. In other words, a “stable minority” has emerged inside the Fed — and once a minority becomes stable, it is no longer just a minority; it becomes a blocking force. 3. The Chair’s Authority Is Being Eroded: Internal Disputes Exposed, External Political Pressure Rising What the Fed fears most is the market starting to doubt whether “the Chair can still balance internal forces.” And yet this year, three unprecedented phenomena have occurred: Committee members are openly expressing differing opinions The Chair’s view no longer automatically represents “consensus” The President has repeatedly attacked the Chair in public This means that the Fed’s institutional trust is being weakened. The issue is no longer just a disagreement over one particular decision, but a fundamental erosion of trust. Without trust, there can be no consensus. Especially the Third Point: The President’s Public Attacks on the Chair Have Put Powell in a Very Passive Position In this cycle’s abnormal Fed situation, there is one external variable that must not be underestimated: Trump has repeatedly mocked Powell in public, even directly attacking the Chair and hinting at replacing him. Such attacks are not unheard of, but the timing is extremely sensitive: Powell’s term only has a few months left The Fed is already internally divided The December meeting is a key inflection point Candidates for the new Chair are already in the selection process This has led to a rarely discussed but very real phenomenon: the Fed is slipping into a “transition mindset.” Once any institution enters this mindset, three things happen simultaneously: No one wants to be responsible for aggressive decisions No one wants to be seen as a political tool The authority of the sitting Chair and the power of future candidates are weakened at the same time The Fed is exactly in this “squeezed in the middle” position. More importantly, when a President openly talks about a “shortlist for the next Chair,” everyone inside the Fed starts reassessing their own position. This leads to short-term behavioral distortions: Hawks become more hawkish, to avoid looking like they’re “cooperating with politics” Doves become more dovish, to emphasize the long-term legitimacy of the employment mandate Centrists become more cautious, to avoid picking the wrong side In short: policy preferences are becoming politicized. This further tears apart an already fragile consensus. The earlier a December rate cut happens, the more likely it is to be seen as “part of the new Chair’s legacy.” No one wants to carry that burden right before a power transition. Therefore: the closer the Fed gets to a leadership change, the more inclined it is to keep policy unchanged. Why Is a “Fed in Infighting Mode” Amplifying Systemic Risk in the Crypto Market Right Now? Unfortunately, at the worst possible moment in 2025, significant divisions have appeared inside the Fed, and the impact on the crypto market is direct — it is clearly amplifying systemic risk. Based on the analysis above, you can think of today’s Fed like this: One camp wants to continue tightening: afraid of a second wave of inflation One camp wants to start cutting: afraid the economy and markets are already being choked The middle camp swings back and forth: trying to balance “recession risk” vs. “inflation fear” With a leadership transition coming, all three camps, on the whole, lean toward keeping policy unchanged. And this kind of directional uncertainty hits the crypto market much harder than you might think. 1. Internal Division Means the Market Cannot Price the Future Path at All Traditional finance can still use models to estimate the rate path, but the crypto market doesn’t have such a buffer mechanism. One sentence from the Fed can send BTC down 5% in an instant. If two groups of Fed officials say completely opposite things? Then: markets lose direction, crypto loses liquidity, and volatility gets infinitely amplified. When expectations cannot be anchored, the most fragile segment — altcoins — is the first to suffer. Those sudden flash crashes and midnight wicks you see are not just “whales playing games,” they are the direct reaction to expectation collapse. 2. The Bigger the Disagreement, the More Unstable the Policy Turn: Crypto Fears “Unclear Inflection Points” the Most What is the real switch that turns on a bull market? Not ETFs Not halving Not narratives It is the clear turning point when Fed policy shifts from tightening → easing. But the current problem is: if the Fed itself cannot reach an internal consensus on direction, how can markets position ahead of time? This leads to two outcomes: Capital doesn’t dare to come in — liquidity in major coins dries up As on-chain data shows, total stablecoin supply has been declining for months, and risk appetite is in the lowest zone. 2. The leverage system becomes unbalanced — $100–300 million liquidations can happen at the drop of a hat Policy uncertainty → loss of directional conviction → all leverage is reduced to short-term speculation, making the market even more fragile. 3. Conflicts Between Officials Make the Crypto Market More Dependent on “Surprise Headlines” In the past, the market only needed to watch: FOMC meetings CPI Employment reports Now it’s different. Because the factions within the Fed are no longer in sync, any public remarks by an official can completely disturb the market. This has pushed the crypto market into an extremely unstable state where: Headlines matter more than on-chain fundamentals Fed speeches matter more than BTC’s technicals A single comment can directly flip the day’s direction Final Thoughts The Fed determines global liquidity → liquidity determines the direction of the crypto market. The 2025 crash has made one thing crystal clear: if you’re in crypto and you don’t understand macro, you’re flying blind. Over the next six months, the Fed will once again be the absolute core variable for the entire crypto market. SuperEx will continue to provide: Updated policy analysis On-chain data Exchange liquidity trends Structural changes in the crypto market to help every user find the clearest possible direction in the most complex macro environment. Please stay tuned to SuperEx media.

#EducationalSeries #MACD #RSI There is a question that many people may not have really thought about yet: in the entire crypto ecosystem, what is the most important sector?Is it exchanges? Is it institutions? Is it data companies (DAT)? To answer this, we first need to figure out what is truly most important to the crypto industry. The answer is very simple — liquidity. Liquidity is the most fundamental condition for every segment of the crypto ecosystem to function. The higher the liquidity of a sector, the greater its efficiency and influence. Based on this, we can conclude that the sector which carries liquidity is the most important to the crypto ecosystem — and that sector is: the secondary market. All tokens need to circulate and be realized (cashed out) through the crypto trading market, and basically all institutions, organizations, and even retail investors are deeply involved in the crypto trading market. And once you participate in the crypto trading market, the question of how to profit from it becomes something you can’t avoid. This is exactly the topic of today’s educational article: technical indicators in the crypto trading market. In the crypto trading market, whether you are an intraday scalper, a swing trader, or a trend follower, “technical indicators” are something you can never bypass. They are the trader’s compass, the translator of price action, and an important tool to help you reduce the interference of subjective emotions. But most users only stay at the “I’ve heard of the names” level. They know things like RSI, MACD, Bollinger Bands, but do not truly understand the underlying logic, applicable scenarios, strengths, pitfalls, or how to combine multiple indicators into their own trading system. In this article, we will build a systematic and complete cognitive framework for technical indicators. This is the “ultimate” tutorial on technical indicators in the SuperEx educational series — you can treat it as a mini encyclopedia. Note: This article is mainly aimed at helping you build a cognitive framework for technical indicators, not at deeply explaining a few specific indicators. Note: If you want to learn a specific technical indicator in detail, you can go to SuperEx Academy (https://x.superex.com/ ) to study. SuperEx Academy is the world’s first online academy to offer comprehensive education on crypto-native indicators. It features the most extensive technical indicator tutorials and is the most detailed online learning platform for market technical analysis. Here, you’ll find hundreds of courses on commonly used indicators, along with nearly every known crypto-native indicator tutorial. What Are Technical Indicators, and Why Must Every Trader Understand Them? In essence, technical indicators are a set of mathematical tools based on historical price and volume. Through calculations on candlesticks, trading volume, volatility, and so on, they transform price data into structured information. You can understand it like this: K-lines (candlesticks) = raw material Technical indicators = processed semi-finished products Trading strategies = final products The role of technical indicators is not to “predict the future,” but to describe the current state, rhythm, strength, and bias of price, so that traders can obtain structured assistance in an information-incomplete market. The Three Key Problems Technical Indicators Solve 1. Market Direction: Is It Going Up or Down? For example: MA (moving average) MACD ADX Super Trend Trend indicators help traders distinguish between trend vs. range (consolidation). 2. Market Strength: Is the Momentum Strong Enough? For example: RSI Stochastic CCI Momentum indicators reflect the strength behind the trend, helping you avoid chasing at the top or selling at the bottom. 3. Market Structure: Is Volatility High or Low? For example: Bollinger Bands ATR These are used to judge whether price is starting to move or ending a move through volatility. Technical indicators do not exist in isolation — they are different dimensions of data that complement each other. Trend judgment + momentum strength + volatility structure — only when these three are combined can you form systematic trading. The Four Major Categories of Technical Indicators There are roughly thousands of technical indicators in the market. The system is huge and complex. However, if we classify them according to their function, then all technical indicators can be grouped into the following four categories: 1. Trend Indicators Main purpose: identify trend direction and trend phase — in other words, the overall market direction (up or down). MA (Moving Average) EMA (Exponential Moving Average) MACD Ichimoku (Ichimoku Kinko Hyo) ADX (Average Directional Index) Best for: trending markets, suitable for long-term traders or for decision points. Not suitable for: interpreting choppy/ranging conditions. 2. Momentum Indicators Main purpose: measure the strength of price rise or decline. RSI Stochastic CCI ROC Best for: judging overbought/oversold conditions, and spotting divergence. 3. Volatility Indicators Main purpose: determine whether the market is about to break out and whether risk is rising. Bollinger Bands ATR Keltner Channel Best for: breakout trading and risk management. 4. Volume and Capital Flow Indicators This dimension is particularly important in the crypto market. OBV (On-Balance Volume) MFI (Money Flow Index) NVI / PVI (Negative/Positive Volume Index) Volume Profile Best for: capturing the moves of big players and confirming trends. In-Depth Look at 15 Mainstream Technical Indicators (Logic + Usage + Pitfalls) Below are the most frequently used indicators in the industry — the ones that professional traders rely on the most. 1. MA / EMA — The Most Basic Trend Indicators MA (Moving Average) is the “mother of all indicators”. The calculation is very simple, but it is the most widely used tool in trend trading. Advantages of MA: Clear and intuitive Filters out noise Excellent for trend following Disadvantages: Strong lag Easily “slapped in the face” in ranging markets EMA increases the weight of recent prices, so it reacts faster than MA and is more suitable for highly volatile markets like crypto. 2. MACD — A Two-in-One Trend + Momentum Indicator MACD = 12EMA — 26EMA → this gives DIF; then take the 9EMA of DIF → this gives DEA; finally, DIF — DEA → histogram. MACD combines both trend and momentum information, and is suitable for: Judging trend direction Judging whether the trend is strengthening or weakening Observing divergence in the histogram However, MACD’s biggest problem is: signals come late. 3. RSI — Momentum Overbought/Oversold Indicator The core of RSI is: strength of upward moves vs. strength of downward moves. RSI > 70: strong, but possibly overbought RSI < 30: weak, but possibly oversold RSI divergence: an important signal of trend weakening The crypto market is prone to overbought and oversold situations, so RSI is more sensitive here. 4. Bollinger Bands — The King of Volatility Bollinger Bands are composed of three parts: Middle band: 20MA Upper band: 2 standard deviations above Lower band: 2 standard deviations below They are extremely powerful: Use band width to judge breakout vs. contraction Use the bands as potential resistance and support Use “squeeze → expansion” to capture major impulse moves Bollinger Bands are the foundation of all volatility-based strategies. 5. ATR — The Most Accurate Volatility Indicator ATR does not predict direction — it tells you how big the moves are. It’s commonly used for: Setting stop-loss levels Identifying extreme conditions Distinguishing false breakouts from real breakouts This is a must-use for professional traders. 6. ADX — Trend Strength Detector ADX measures trend strength: ADX > 25: strong trend ADX < 20: ranging/choppy It is suitable for filtering false trends and reducing blind entries. 7. Volume Profile — The Most Realistic “Position Distribution” In the crypto market, volume itself is extremely important. Volume Profile can tell you: Where the main positions of big players are Key resistance and support levels High-volume nodes (value areas) It is far more powerful than traditional “bottom-of-chart volume bars”. 8. OBV / NVI / PVI — Essential Tools for Analyzing Capital Flows Volume-based indicators directly show whether capital is entering or exiting the market. OBV: add volume on up days, subtract on down days NVI: price changes on low volume days, representing “smart money” PVI: price changes on high volume days, representing retail behavior Especially in altcoins, OBV + NVI are among the most effective tools for identifying market makers and whales. 9. Ichimoku — A Five-in-One Trend System It includes: Tenkan Kijun Senkou A Senkou B Chikou It is not just an indicator, but an entire trading system. 10. CCI, Stochastic — Representatives of the Oscillator Family These are suitable for ranging markets: Judging local highs and lows Capturing rebounds and pullbacks Spotting divergence 11. VWAP — The Cost Line for Professional Traders Widely used by institutional traders, VWAP (Volume-Weighted Average Price) reflects the average market cost. Price > VWAP: bulls in control Price < VWAP: bears in control 12–15. Less Popular but Loved by Professional Traders KAMA (Kaufman Adaptive Moving Average) T3 Moving Average Ulcer Index (drawdown pain index) Elder-Ray Index There are many more technical indicators — you’re welcome to study them all at SuperEx Academy. Will You Definitely Make Money Once You Learn Technical Indicators? No. Indicators Often “Lie” Too. Why do so many people lose money using indicators? In fact, the problem is not with the indicators themselves, but with how they are used. The following 4 mistakes are made by 99% of beginners: 1. Trading with Only One Indicator No single indicator can describe the entire market structure. The correct approach: Trend + Momentum + Volatility → three-dimensional structure. 2. Failing to Distinguish Trend vs. Range Using trend indicators in a ranging market = guaranteed losses. Using oscillators in a trending market = guaranteed misjudgment. Therefore: always identify market structure first → then choose which indicators to use. 3. Treating Indicators as “Prediction Tools” Indicators are not crystal balls; they are descriptive tools. Key point: structured information ≠ predicting the future. 4. Ignoring Volume Many false signals can actually be filtered out simply by looking at volume. How to Build Your Own Indicator System? (SuperEx Teaches You in 4 Steps) A complete trading system requires: trend + momentum + volatility + risk management + capital management. Below is the most robust indicator combination framework. 1. Trend Indicator (Choose One) EMA 20 / 50 Super Trend MACD 2. Momentum Indicator (Choose One) RSI Stochastic ROC 3. Volatility Indicator (Choose One) ATR Bollinger Bands 4. Volume Indicator (Strongly Recommended) OBV MFI NVI 5. Final Combination (Example) For example: Trend: EMA moving averages Momentum: RSI Volatility: ATR Volume: OBV This is a standard “institutional-grade technical indicator system.” The Particularities of Technical Indicators in the Crypto Market (Not Comparable to Stocks) The crypto market is very different from traditional markets: No daily price limit up/down Trades 24/7 Extremely high volatility More complex institutional participation Faster capital rotation Therefore, many traditional indicators need conceptual adjustment: RSI reaches overbought more easily in crypto Bollinger Bands are broken more frequently MACD divergence is often more effective Volume-based indicators are even more critical Trend indicators should use EMA rather than MA This is why the crypto market must use indicator combinations that adapt to its volatility structure. Of course, there are also many crypto-native technical indicators — you can learn all of them at SuperEx Academy, where you’ll find complete tutorials on indicators designed specifically for the crypto market. Summary (Here’s Your Final Framework) Technical indicators are not magic formulas — they are structured descriptions of price behavior. Remember the ultimate principles: Do not rely on indicators to predict the future; rely on them to understand the present. Do not rely on a single indicator; rely on indicator combinations to reduce errors. Do not only look at price action; also look at capital flows. Do not treat indicators as crystal balls; treat them as an instrument panel. As long as you can understand: Trend + Momentum + Volatility + Volume → you can build your own trading system.

#BTC #ETH Over the past month, BTC has fallen all the way from its all-time high of $126,000 to below $90,000. A 25% pullback has thrown the market into panic, with the Fear & Greed Index dropping into single digits. Looking further back, we can see that over the past 41 days, more than $1.1 trillion in crypto market cap has evaporated, with average daily losses as high as $27 billion. The Futures market has been hit even harder. According to SuperEx statistics, last week (11.10–11.16) total liquidations across the market reached $3.772 billion, including $2.777 billion in long liquidations and $995 million in short liquidations, with longs taking the main damage. At the time of writing, BTC is trading around $91,900, but it once broke below the $90,000 mark, hitting $89,925.99. ETH is hovering around the $3,000 level, at $3,093.9. No sector has been spared. Layer2 and DeFi are leading the declines, and fear has spread across the board. Many are asking: is this a deep correction within a bull market, or the official beginning of a bear market? Let’s Talk Data: How Serious Is This Pullback Really? 1. Longs Liquidated Across the Board, Market Loses Support Bitcoin longs alone saw $328 million in liquidations, causing the price to accelerate downward in succession. High-beta sectors like Layer2 and DeFi were hit even harder: 24h sector performance: Layer2: -7.9% DeFi: -6% PayFi: -4.11% Layer1: -4.17% NFT: -3.9% MEME: -3.51% AI: -3.66% 2. Short-Term Holders Almost Completely Wiped Out On-chain data shows that 2.8 million BTC held by STHs (short-term holders) are almost entirely in loss. This is the largest concentrated loss zone since the FTX collapse. With almost all short-term coins in the red, technical traders, stop-loss orders, and leveraged positions will continue to amplify the downside. 3. Long-Term Holders (LTHs) Are Selling, Whales Are Reducing Exposure From July to now, long-term holders have already sold more than 452,500 BTC. This is a very rare signal: continuous distribution by long-term holders → suggests that market confidence is weakening. 4. ETFs See Three Consecutive Weeks of Net Outflows, Institutions Cooling Off Last week, digital asset funds saw net outflows of $2 billion (the largest this year). BTC ETFs had net outflows of $1.11 billion last week. ETH ETFs saw net outflows of $728 million. Institutional demand cooling is the most obvious it has been in the past three months. 5. Whale Sell-Off + Retail Panic = Negative Feedback Loop The Fear & Greed Index has remained in the 10–14 “extreme fear” range, and retail has almost completely stopped buying. After BTC fell below $100,000, a large number of stop-loss orders were triggered, pushing the market even lower and forming a classic “spiraling negative feedback loop.” Right Now, There Are Three Main Views on This Continued Downtrend View A: The Market Has Not Turned Bearish, We’re in a Discount Phase (“Bull-Market Correction View”) Those who hold this view firmly believe that the fundamentals haven’t changed: institutional capital hasn’t disappeared, and central banks and Wall Street are steadily embracing crypto. Their representative points include: 1. Coinbase: No Deterioration in Fundamentals The head of institutional strategy at Coinbase stated: The current decline = mechanical liquidations, not a change in the underlying trend; The Czech National Bank buying Bitcoin is a “milestone event”; Citi and Morgan are starting to use stablecoins → regulated finance is fully engaging with the crypto industry. This is an extremely rare set of positive developments compared to previous cycles. 2. Bitwise CIO: BTC Fundamentals Are Very Strong He believes that 2026 will be a key year for new all-time highs. 3. CryptoQuant Data: Long-Term Holders Are Accumulating on a Large Scale Since October, LTHs have increased their holdings by 186,000 BTC. This is one of the largest accumulation waves within the cycle. Historically, whenever this appeared, prices would surge afterward. 4. Binance Australia: No Massive Exit, Retail Still in the Market Retail investors have not exited the market. Instead, they have: Rotated out of “high-risk coins” Rotated back into blue chips like BTC and ETH This is entirely different from the “mass exodus” seen in true bear markets. 5. Long-Term ETH Bulls: The Cycle Is Far from Its Top ETH is about to upgrade, stablecoin supply is growing, and asset tokenization is accelerating — all of which suggest that the next wave of momentum has yet to be released. The core belief of this camp: this is a discount phase within a bull market, not the start of a bear market. View B: The Bear Market Is Already Confirmed (“Bear Market Confirmation Camp”) This camp holds the opposite view. They believe that key technical indicators have been broken and liquidity conditions are continuously deteriorating — the bear market has already begun. Their arguments include: 1. BTC Has Broken Below the 50-Week Moving Average (50WMA) This is an extremely important signal: Bitcoin has never broken below the 50WMA during a bull market. Historically, it has only broken this line four times — all corresponding to bear market phases. Now BTC has once again fallen below this line. 2. Three Consecutive Weeks of ETF Net Outflows, Institutions Withdrawing This is a strong, unusual signal. The mainstream interpretation is that the institutional “reservoir” of demand is shrinking and the trend is weakening. 3. USDT Share Surging (Bearish Signal) A rising share of stablecoins → declining risk appetite → a typical bear-market characteristic. 4. Declining Leverage Demand, Perpetual Funding Rates Collapsing Monthly funding paid by longs has dropped from $338 million → $127 million, a 62% decline, indicating that long-side leverage appetite has vanished and market risk preference is falling. 5. Wyckoff Top Structure Appearing Some analysts argue that the current price action is highly similar to the classic “Wyckoff distribution” structure, and that BTC is tracing a pattern commonly seen near cycle tops. The core belief of this camp: the bear market has already started. This downturn is not short-lived; the market is entering a prolonged bottom-building phase. View 😄 The Bear Market Has Already Lasted Six Months and Is About to End (“Bear Exhaustion, Bull Emerging Camp”) This camp is more neutral. The CEO of Bitwise argues that the past six months have already been a bear market, and we’re now approaching its end. His thinking is: ETF AUM (assets under management) has barely declined, which shows that although retail is selling, institutions are largely holding steady. With central banks buying BTC, Wall Street embracing crypto, and stablecoin market caps expanding, the fundamentals have never been stronger. Therefore: this is not the beginning of a bear market, but rather the late stage of one. Where Does Bitcoin Go Next? Four Areas Worth Watching Closely 1. BTC May Still Have Room to Move Lower On-chain data shows that internal exchange liquidity has suddenly surged. This kind of pattern usually corresponds to “panic selling + liquidity stress.” Historically, this signal often appeared before pullbacks. Combined with low funding rates and negative basis, we may reasonably assume that BTC has likely not yet reached its bottom. 2. The Real Key Rebound Zone Lies Below $90,000 Several analysts believe that $89,000 (another 5% down) is the near-term rebound zone. The price has already corrected to around the $92,000 range, which offers some support for this view, but it has not firmly held this level. If this is just a short-term bounce, prices could easily revisit below $90,000. Further, if $89,000 is lost → BTC may fall back into the $74,000–$82,000 range to search for stronger support. And $80,000 has been recognized by many institutions as a key support level for this cycle. Some even argue that $80,000–$85,000 is a reasonable low under the Federal Reserve’s “liquidity tightening cycle.” 3. Key Variable: The Market Impact of 61,000 BTC from the Jian Zhiming Case The UK Treasury has made it clear that it will not include the 61,000 BTC from the Jian Zhiming case into national reserves, but will instead sell these BTC. This will create long-term supply pressure, but the real key is: How much will actually be sold? When will it be sold? Will the BTC be sold at a discount? This could trigger a second wave of impact on the market. 4. Institutions Are “Quietly Buying the Dip” While sentiment is extremely bearish, on-chain data shows “strong hands accumulating,” for example: On the ETH side: one whale has bought 13,117 ETH in the past 24 hours. ETH treasury company BitMine has accumulated 67,021 ETH in a week. On the BTC side: Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy) bought 8,178 BTC last week. El Salvador has bought 1,098 BTC in the past 7 days. These are very important signals: large players are accumulating in tranches, not exiting. Of course, this article is only an objective summary and analysis of the current state of the market and existing conditions. It does not make any predictions about the future market nor offer any investment advice. After all: “In a bull market, never call the top; In a bear market, never call the bottom; In a choppy market, don’t try to predict the future.” These three lines are the best advice for everyone. Final Thoughts Taking into account on-chain data, the macro environment, and institutional behavior, we can be fairly certain that: Short term: There is still downward pressure on the market; blindly buying the dip is not advisable. Mid term: Institutions are still accumulating, ETF AUM remains solid → the fundamentals have not turned bearish. Long term: The crypto industry continues to move steadily forward, with sovereign states and Wall Street accelerating their embrace of crypto assets. In other words: Prices are falling, but the industry is getting stronger. Fear is intensifying, but coins are changing hands. Retail is hesitating, but institutions are buying. The $80,000 area will likely become a key price zone, around which the next stage of market games will unfold. As for whether this is “bear market start” or “discount period begin” — the final answer can only be given by time.

#NFT-Fi #NFT When people see today’s topic, their first reaction is often “profile pictures,” “artworks,” “limited collectibles,” “monkey pictures,” and so on. At the same time, a lot of questions will come up: “Isn’t an NFT already a kind of financial asset?” Maybe you, reading this article now, just bought someone’s NFT on XXX today. As you watch the price of that NFT fluctuate, you feel a strong financial attribute in it. But do you really understand NFTs? In the beginning, they did not come with financial attributes — they came with artistic attributes. What you’ve been seeing in terms of price going up and down is more about the value fluctuation of the artwork itself, rather than financial value. What we are talking about today as “financial assets” is more about understanding questions like: How can NFTs be used as collateral? How can NFTs be used to borrow and lend? How can NFTs be fractionalized? How can NFTs provide liquidity? How can NFTs be priced? How can NFTs become yield-bearing assets? In other words, when NFTs fully shift from being a “cultural product” to a “financial product,” we need to understand this trend, because it is rapidly becoming a mainstream narrative. This is exactly today’s topic: NFT-Fi (NFT Financialization) — how NFTs are gradually evolving from collectibles into “financial assets” that can be traded, borrowed against, and used for derivatives. To help you grasp the entire framework in one read, this article will go from underlying logic to mechanism principles, from market demand to future trends, and explain everything in one go. Let’s start with what NFT-Fi actually is The financialization of NFTs is essentially a transformation: assets that originally only had “uniqueness” gain price discovery, financial attributes, and capital efficiency through protocols, models, and liquidity design. In other words: NFTs that could originally only be bought and sold → can now be used like assets. NFTs that originally had no yield model → can now generate interest, returns, leverage, and derivatives. NFTs that originally just sat in your wallet as an avatar → can now become staked assets, collateral, or liquidity positions. One-sentence summary: NFT financialization is about turning NFTs into assets that can be used inside DeFi. So why is this becoming a trend? The reason is very simple: 1. The financial potential of NFTs goes far beyond simple trading Within the overall NFT market, pure collectible trading is only a small part. The real long-term, sustainable, and scalable market lies in: Financial services Asset management Collateralized lending Rights and yield derivatives Liquidity protocols Asset pricing models It’s like houses: the house itself is a vessel of value, but the mortgage market is the truly massive market. It’s the same with NFTs: holding them is only the beginning. Using NFTs in financial activities is where the real market lies. 2. NFTs are inherently asset-like The asset nature of NFTs comes from: Scarcity Tradability Price volatility On-chain ownership and provenance As long as something satisfies these characteristics, it has the basic conditions to be financialized. 3. DeFi’s growth needs new forms of collateral For DeFi to continue growing, it needs more “collateralizable assets.” But mainstream collateral types (like ETH and stablecoins) have limited room to expand. NFTs are naturally suitable as a new source of growth. 4. NFT players and DeFi players overlap heavily People who talk about NFTs every day are also among the most active asset users. Providing financialization services is essentially directly serving this group of high-value users. The core underlying logic of NFT financialization (must understand) The essence of NFT financialization cannot be separated from two concepts: Price Discovery and Capital Efficiency. 1. Price Discovery Before financialization, NFT prices were determined by: Rarity Narrative and hype Social/media attention Trader sentiment KOL influence Project team actions This is a classic “unstable market pricing” structure. Financialization makes prices more predictable by introducing: Discount rates implied by lending markets Liquidity depth in LP pools Trading demand in derivatives markets Pricing models from oracles Put simply: the price of NFTs is moving from “subjective perception” to “objective pricing.” 2. Capital Efficiency Before financialization, an NFT: Could only be held after purchase Tied up capital Could not generate yield After financialization, an NFT: Can be used as collateral Can be borrowed against Can be used to sell options Can be fractionalized Can provide liquidity Can be used with leverage to go long In other words, an NFT is no longer the “end-point asset” — it becomes the starting point of capital usage. This is the real core of the ecosystem moving from 0 to 1. The four main tracks of NFT financialization (complete structure you must know) NFT financialization is not a single product. It is a complete system that can be broken down into four primary directions: 1. Collateral & Lending This is the basic structure underlying everything in NFT financialization, and the logic is straightforward: You own a very valuable NFT. You don’t intend to sell it, but you still want to get liquidity from it. What do you do? You, being clever, pledge this NFT to a protocol. The protocol lends you ETH or stablecoins based on the NFT’s value, while the NFT is locked in the protocol until you pay back your debt. This process solves a critical problem: an NFT is an asset, but previously you couldn’t “extract liquidity without selling.” Collateralized borrowing solves exactly that. 2. NFT Liquidity NFTs are naturally illiquid, because each one is “unique.” But financialization needs exactly the opposite — products must become “liquid.” So how can a unique product like an NFT gain liquidity? There are many ways, including but not limited to: AMM pools Tiered pricing by NFT ranges Floor-price-based NFT pools Batch NFT liquidity pools Automated order book depth NFT vaults The essence of all of these is to transform “unique assets” into “tradeable assets.” 3. NFT Fractionalization Many NFTs are extremely expensive. At their peak, some were selling for tens of millions of dollars, and even now, after years of cooling down, valuable NFTs still have very high entry barriers. So NFT fractionalization appeared: taking an NFT that is too expensive to buy outright and splitting it into many “shares,” so more people can participate — similar to stock splits or fund units. Fractionalization solves two problems: High-priced NFTs are impossible to access → fragmentation lowers entry barriers Pricing is hard to discover → the market can price the fractions via trading It turns NFTs from a game only a few can play into something that many can participate in. 4. NFT Derivatives Once NFTs have a sufficiently robust price foundation, derivatives can be built on top: NFT options (calls and puts) NFT perpetual contracts NFT indices NFT volatility indices NFT swap contracts NFT shorting tools These derivatives turn the NFT market from “one-way trading only” into a market where you can: Go long Go short Hedge Arbitrage Use leverage The range of strategies becomes very rich — and NFTs are completely transformed into a financial market. Let’s break the system down and explain each key module in simple terms 1. NFT Valuation Systems Financialization requires accurate pricing, the “objective prices” we mentioned earlier. But NFT prices are hard to predict because: Rarities differ Each individual piece is unique Liquidity is extremely poor Trades are discontinuous To address these issues, NFT valuation systems have emerged, primarily using: Floor-price-based models Rarity-weighted models Polynomial regression prediction models Machine learning models Multi-market weighted pricing Aggregated NFT oracle feeds The ultimate goal: establish a standard price that can be used for lending, trading, and collateralization. 2. Liquidation Mechanisms Financialization must have a liquidation system; otherwise, security cannot be guaranteed. NFT liquidations are much harder than fungible token liquidations because non-fungibility makes each NFT’s value different. The most direct consequences are: difficulty in liquidation and extreme price swings. So we get mechanisms like: Collateralization ratios Safety margins Auction-based liquidation Offsetting liquidation via LPs Batch liquidation Delayed liquidation mechanisms Overcollateralization buffers This system ensures NFT lending markets don’t end up with large masses of bad debt. 3. NFT Liquidity Pools Liquidity is the core attribute of any financial product — NFTs are no exception. That’s why NFT Liquidity Pools are indispensable. Current forms of NFT liquidity pools include: Single-sided NFT pools AMM automated market-making pools NFT/ETH trading pairs NFT floor-price futures pools Synthetic NFT asset pools Through these pools, we can build: Automated trading Deep order-book-like liquidity Stable price ranges Swap and exchange mechanisms NFT-to-NFT trading They make the NFT market tradable and give NFTs continuous pricing. 4. Synthetic NFTs To allow NFTs to be used as collateral without actually transferring the original NFT, synthetic NFTs were created. They have several uses: Use collateral to peg and track the NFT’s price Mint “equivalent NFT tokens” Let NFTs trade like ERC-20 tokens Synthetic NFTs are the “ultimate weapon” for NFT liquidity in the context of financialization. Five key pain points NFT financialization is solving The NFT market originally had many problems: Poor liquidity High transaction costs Violent price swings No ability to borrow/loan No way to short or hedge Financialization addresses these one by one: 1. Poor liquidity → AMMs and pools provide continuous liquidity NFT financialization moves NFTs from peer-to-peer trading to pool-based trading. 2. Hard to sell listings → liquidity becomes constant You no longer need: A specific buyer A manual listing To rely on “getting lucky” to find a match 3. No way to hedge risk → derivatives provide hedging tools You can: Short by selling NFT liquidity tokens Use NFT put options to hedge downside Use perpetuals to short similar assets 4. No yield → DeFi-style structures provide returns You can even: Pledge an NFT as collateral to earn interest Deposit into NFT LPs to earn fees Go long/short and earn spread Rent out NFTs to earn rental income Sell certain rights of an NFT to earn income This transformation is crucial: NFTs are no longer just “things you spend money on,” but become assets that can generate money. Eight major application scenarios of NFT financialization NFT collateralized lending: obtain liquidity without selling the asset. NFT automated market making: easier trading and more stable pricing. NFT fractionalization: lower entry barriers and broaden participant base. NFT options and perpetuals: provide hedging, leverage, and arbitrage markets. NFT asset management: funds, portfolio management, index-based investing. NFT rentals: game NFTs and others can be rented out to generate profit. NFT synthetic assets and indices: treat NFTs as “index-like assets” for investment. New financial products from NFT + DeFi: yield strategies, leveraged products, LP positions, structured portfolios, and more. Future trends in NFT financialization Trend 1: NFTs will become fully DeFi-native Collateral, lending, leverage, options, and derivatives will become basic infrastructure. Trend 2: NFTs will merge with on-chain identity (DID) NFTs representing user identity will help determine credit scores and borrowing limits. Trend 3: “NFT = asset certificate” will become the default perception Membership cards, real-world assets, in-game items, tickets, certificates — all will become NFTs that can be financialized. Trend 4: Composable financial products will emerge NFT + LP + lending + shorting — complex financial structures will become mainstream strategies. Trend 5: NFTs will move from “speculative market” to “structured financial market” They will gain a mature financial ecosystem, like stocks and bonds already have. In closing In the past, when you bought an NFT, all you could do was wait for the price to rise. Now, when you buy an NFT, you can: Use it as collateral Borrow against it Rent it out Earn yield Hedge risk Use it for portfolio hedging Join derivatives markets Add leverage Lend it out to others Provide liquidity Receive liquidity mining rewards Obtain portfolio-level returns NFTs are no longer just “digital collectibles” — they have become carriers for on-chain assets.And NFT financialization is exactly about enabling every on-chain asset to be: Usable Composable Liquid Borrowable Yield-bearing This is a key piece in the true maturation of the Web3 asset ecosystem.

#Stock #Bybit #SuperEx As the core of the crypto industry, the strategic direction of crypto exchanges to a large extent represents the overall direction of the entire crypto sector. Think back for a moment: what have exchanges been “competing” on over the past few years? New listing speed, Launchpad, derivatives depth, BTC inscriptions/runes, L2 ecosystem expansion, AI narrative linkage, and so on — almost every one of these has stirred up waves across the industry. But starting from Q4 2024, a new trend has quietly started to move into the spotlight — “Tokenized US Stocks” are becoming the new battleground among crypto exchanges. Especially after the U.S. imposed stock trading bans on multiple countries and regions (including Mainland China, Hong Kong, Russia, Nigeria, etc.), more and more investors have been forced to look for alternative paths. Traditional “workaround” methods are cumbersome and high-risk, while the model of “buying U.S. stocks directly with USDT” has begun to spread rapidly across the industry. As a result, on-chain U.S. stock trading zones have become a new direction for exchange deployment. From tech giants like TSLA, NVDA, and AAPL, to U.S. stock ETFs, and even potential future “on-chain index funds,” all of these are step by step appearing on crypto exchanges. This time, it’s not just a narrative bubble — it is truly becoming a strategic priority at the exchange level. From Bybit’s stock price-tracking products, Bitget’s simulated exposure products, to SuperEx recently listing over 90 U.S. stock mapped trading pairs in one go, market competition has heated up very quickly. On-chain U.S. stocks solve one of the biggest bottlenecks the crypto market has faced in the past decade: bringing the most solid, most certain, and most liquid assets from the real financial world directly on-chain. This means that the product lines of crypto exchanges are no longer limited to “crypto-native assets,” but are beginning to reach into the world’s largest traditional financial market. Why Have “On-Chain U.S. Stocks” Become the New Focus? Why are U.S. stock trading zones suddenly becoming a key competition point among exchanges? It feels like this concept became hot almost overnight. Overall, the reasons can be summed up in three points: 1. Large-Scale Bans Have Created Strong Demand for Alternatives From 2024–2025, U.S. regulators imposed U.S. stock trading restrictions on investors in several countries, with some regions facing outright bans. This directly caused tens of millions of users to suddenly lose access to trading tech stocks like AAPL, TSLA, NVDA on their original platforms. What now? Naturally, they began to look for options that: Do not require a U.S. brokerage account Do not require USD fiat deposits Are not geographically restricted Do not involve complicated identity checks On-chain U.S. stock trading zones happen to match these needs perfectly. 2. Crypto Exchanges Need New “Growth Engines” What kind of reality are exchanges facing today? A few simple examples: Spot trading has been pushed to the limit Derivatives are a fierce red-ocean battleground New listings are constrained by regulation User growth is slowing Meanwhile, the massive scale of traditional financial markets is the easiest and most directly convertible pool of assets for the crypto world to connect with. Tokenized U.S. stocks can effectively provide: High-frequency trading potential A spot-like trading experience Low barriers to entry Strong liquidity potential Naturally, this becomes a new track for exchanges. 3. U.S. Blue-Chip Assets Help Investors Diversify Risk We’ve talked about why exchanges care about U.S. stock zones. Now, from the user’s perspective, U.S. stock trading zones are also extremely attractive. Crypto users have long been exposed to: High volatility High risk Short project cycles U.S. stocks are a completely different animal: Stable, century-old companies like Apple, Microsoft, and Coca-Cola, growth-driven tech stocks with clear financial reports, and backing from the real economy — many crypto investors have always wanted to allocate into U.S. stocks; it’s just that the barriers used to be too high. Now, the U.S. stock trading zone makes it as simple as: “You can buy U.S. stocks with USDT.” Which Exchanges Have Already Launched or Piloted U.S. Stock Mapping Products? To avoid brand controversy or overreach, we’ll focus on three exchanges whose information is relatively transparent and whose models are relatively mature in terms of “U.S. stock mapping products.” The list below focuses on product logic rather than ranking. Bybit: Partial U.S. Stock Mapped Assets(Good liquidity, but limited coverage) Bybit started experimenting with “price-mapped assets” in 2023, including: TSLA AAPL NVDA META and other popular tech stock price index products. Characteristics: Prices track real U.S. stock movements Tradable with USDT Limited selection of assets Not yet designed for large-scale expansion Suitable for: Traders who only need price exposure to a few popular tech names. Trading zone entry: Bybit official website — Tools — TradFi Bitget: Synthetic U.S. Stock Exposure(Small product set, positioned more for speculation) On Bitget, you can use USDC to trade these tokenized U.S. stocks on-chain, without needing a traditional brokerage account or a complicated bank setup. Trading hours follow the U.S. stock market (including pre-market, regular, and after-hours), but settlement is done via blockchain, and in some periods, trading is even offered with zero gas fees. Bitget mainly provides synthetic tokens that simulate U.S. stock prices. Advantages: Relatively clear compliance direction (using Ondo for custody) USDT-denominated trading Bitget claims support for 100+ U.S. stocks and ETFs Multiple trading sessions (synchronized with U.S. stock market hours) Time-limited campaigns with “0 gas + 0 trading fee” Disadvantages: Actual tradable symbols are very limited — only 19 popular U.S. stocks Overall feels more like RWA investment products than pure U.S. stock mapping pairs Not very suitable for long-term, stable investment experience More geared toward professional users; higher learning cost Suitable for: Users who occasionally want to speculate on the short-term moves of individual U.S. stocks. Trading zone entry: Bitget official website — Derivatives — Stock Contract Trading Pairs SuperEx: Stock Market (90+ Trading Pairs, All with 0 Fees) On SuperEx, “U.S. stock trading pairs” are essentially tokenized mappings of U.S. stock price action. These tokens track the real-time price fluctuations of their corresponding U.S. stocks. You can buy and sell these stock-linked assets with USDT just like you would trade any cryptocurrency. Their nature is not the underlying stock itself, but rather a form of price exposure. What you buy with USDT is a digital asset pegged to the stock price of a company like Apple. Advantages: Extensive coverage: 90+ globally recognized blue chips and popular stock assets 0 trading fees: Currently 0 fees; future structure TBD USDT direct trading: No need for fiat or banks Borderless access: Tradable globally without geographic constraints Easy access: Direct entry visible on the homepage Smooth UX: Trading interface is identical to regular spot crypto trading NO-KYC Trading zone entry: SuperEx official website (www.superex.com) — Stock Market SuperEx is not the very first crypto platform to experiment with a Stock Market section, but the scale, technical architecture, and “Community-First” model behind this launch make it particularly significant. By introducing over 90 globally well-known blue chips and popular stock assets, SuperEx is sending a clear signal to the market — the fusion of traditional finance and crypto finance is happening faster than most people expected. This innovation not only redefines the meaning of “Borderless Finance,” but also opens up a completely new investment dimension for global users. Are you ready to trade the world’s most famous companies the same way you trade Bitcoin?

#IPFS #Filecoin Today’s topic is IPFS. For many users who haven’t explored this field before, the concept may feel very unfamiliar. However, the idea of distributed storage is something most people have at least some understanding of, since “distributed storage” is one of the foundational concepts in blockchain. If you already understand distributed storage to some extent, then you essentially already have a conceptual framework for IPFS — you can think of IPFS as one of the representative protocols of distributed storage. From a conceptual perspective, IPFS (InterPlanetary File System) is a network transmission protocol designed to create a persistent and distributed system for storing and sharing files. It improves the security and efficiency of file storage through decentralization, content addressing, and peer-to-peer communication technologies. From a background perspective, the emergence of IPFS is inseparable from the highly centralized nature of the Web2 era. For decades, the internet has operated on a simple, almost fragile logic: Files live on a server → you request them → the server sends them back. It works — until it doesn’t. A single server crash can take down your website. A government block can make content vanish overnight. A malicious actor can manipulate, delete, or forge stored data. A platform can censor anything it decides is “inappropriate.” A corporation can shut down a product and erase years of user data. The modern web looks decentralized on the surface, but underneath it’s still deeply centralized — owned and controlled by a handful of giant players. This is why IPFS exists. IPFS (InterPlanetary File System) isn’t just another storage tool. It’s a re-architecture of how information should live and move on the internet — content-addressed, permanent, censorship-resistant, and distributed. In this SuperEx Educational Series deep-dive, we’ll unpack: Why the current Web2 model is fundamentally flawed What IPFS actually is How its content addressing revolutionizes data storage How decentralized file distribution works The ecosystem around IPFS, including Filecoin Real-world applications in crypto, Web3, and beyond Why IPFS matters to the next 20 years of digital innovation How it intersects with blockchain, NFTs, DePIN、DeAI and more This is the guide for anyone who wants to understand not just the technology, but the meaning of IPFS. The Problem IPFS Tries to Solve: A Centralized Web Built on Borrowed Time To understand IPFS, we must first understand the core weakness of today’s internet: It’s built on location-based addressing. 1. What is location-based addressing? Every file on the internet is stored somewhere. When you visit a website, you aren’t requesting content — you’re requesting a location: https://***.com/**/**.** The URL tells your browser where the file lives, not what it is If the server goes down → the file disappears. If the corporation deletes it → it’s gone. If the region blocks the domain → you lose access. If the server replaces the file → you get whatever they want you to see. This system is fragile by design. 2. The big risks of centralized storage Let’s break it down: Risk 1: Single points of failure One server outage can kill millions of websites. This happens every year with AWS、Google Cloud、Azure。 Risk 2: Content impermanence Links rot, pages vanish, and databases shut down. A study by Harvard Law found 49% of links break within 2 years. Risk 3: Censorship and control Governments block domains. Platforms remove posts. Corporations decide what stays online. Risk 4: Data integrity cannot be independently verified You can’t prove a file wasn’t tampered with. 3. The internet needed a new foundation IPFS responds with one radical idea: What if files weren’t retrieved from a “location” but from the entire network — and the network verifies the content automatically? This changes everything. What IPFS Actually Is: A Distributed, Content-Addressed File System IPFS is a peer-to-peer protocol designed to make the web: faster safer permanent decentralized Think of it as BitTorrent + Git + a global database — but engineered for Web3 and production-scale internet applications. 1. The core concept: content addressing In IPFS, files are not requested by their location. They’re requested by a content hash — an irreversible cryptographic fingerprint. Example: QmT7d8… (CID) — This is called a CID (Content Identifier). 2. What the CID does uniquely represents the file proves the content’s integrity ensures tampered files are rejected allows any node to serve the content If 10 people have the file, you can get it from all of them. If 1,000 nodes pin it, it lives “forever.” This is content addressing in pure form: You don’t ask where the file is. You ask the network: “Give me the file that matches this hash.” If someone changes even 1 byte → the hash changes → the network rejects it → users receive the correct version. This is what makes IPFS tamper-proof by design. How IPFS Works Under the Hood To truly understand IPFS, we need to explore three core mechanisms: Content addressing Content routing Content distribution Let’s break them down. 1. Content Addressing: CIDs When you upload something to IPFS, it is: split into small chunks → hashed → hashed again into a merkle-DAG → assigned a unique CID.This is very similar to how Git tracks versions of code. The beauty，If content doesn’t change, the CID remains identical across space and time. Two users uploading the same file → same CID. Ten servers hosting it → same CID. A million nodes serving it → same CID. This destroys redundancy and ensures consistency. 2. Content Routing: Who Has the File? IPFS uses a Distributed Hash Table (DHT) to map: CID → Nodes that store this CID When your node wants a file: It queries the DHT → The DHT returns a list of peers that have the data → Your node fetches the pieces from the fastest/closest ones. Routing is distributed，No company controls the lookup table. 3. Content Distribution: Parallel & Efficient IPFS distributes files BitTorrent-style: Pieces come from multiple peers Downloads are concurrent The more nodes holding the file → the faster it loads Traditional web 1 server → 10,000 users = server melts IPFS 10,000 users → each becomes a potential distributor → system gets stronger It flips the scaling model on its head. Why IPFS Matters: The Web3 Stack Is Incomplete Without It Blockchains do NOT store files. They never have and They never will. A blockchain can store small pieces of data, but not: video images game assets documents datasets AI model files NFT metadata DeAI training data This is why IPFS is the essential partner to blockchain. 1. NFTs without IPFS = fake decentralization Before IPFS, most NFTs stored metadata on Web2 servers. If the server shuts down，your NFT becomes a broken link. With IPFS: metadata is permanent image files are permanent version history can be preserved anyone can verify authenticity Every serious NFT project today uses IPFS in some form. 2. DePIN projects need IPFS for real decentralization Decentralized physical infrastructure (DePIN) — including peer-to-peer storage, computing, transmission, map data, and AI data storage — relies heavily on verifiable distributed data systems; IPFS is precisely this foundational layer. 3. DeAI will rely heavily on IPFS AI models and training datasets are usually: Huge Require version control Require transparency Require verifiable provenance IPFS’s content-addressing model perfectly meets these needs. 4. DAO and decentralized governance archives Governance proposals Historical voting records Community materials Project documentation All of these require tamper-proof long-term storage. 5. Decentralized Social (DeSoc) Imagine if social platforms worldwide had to meet the following three conditions: Are decentralized Data belongs to users Are not controlled by the platform Then users’ posts, content, and media would have to be stored on IPFS or similar protocols; for example, Lens, Farcaster, and CyberConnect all make extensive use of IPFS. IPFS vs. Traditional Cloud Storage: A Real Comparison Press enter or click to view image in full size The IPFS Ecosystem: Filecoin, Pinning, Gateways, Toolkits IPFS is not one single network — it’s an ecosystem. 1. IPFS by itself does NOT guarantee permanence Important point: IPFS stores content as long as someone pins it.If nobody maintains copies → it may disappear. This leads us to… Filecoin, Pinning, Gateways, Toolkits 2. Filecoin: Economic Layer for Permanent Storage Filecoin incentivizes: storage providers long-term archiving verifiable storage proofs With cryptoeconomic guarantees. Filecoin + IPFS = a complete decentralized storage system: IPFS handles retrieval Filecoin provides incentives Together, they ensure permanence This is why the industry often mentions them together. 3. Pinning Services For people who want permanent storage without running nodes: Pinata Infura Web3.Storage Estuary NFT.Storage These services help keep files alive indefinitely. 4. Gateways Gateways convert IPFS into regular Web2 URLs: https://ipfs.io/ipfs/<CID>. They make IPFS usable by browsers that don’t natively support the protocol. Real-World Use Cases Here are real, large-scale applications of IPFS: NFTs：OpenSea, Rarible, Foundation all support IPFS metadata. Decentralized Social Networks：Lens Protocol stores its posts in IPFS. AI Data Storage：Training datasets stored using IPFS to ensure transparency. Decentralized Science (DeSci)：Research papers stored permanently and censorship-resistant. Metaverse Assets：3D models, textures, voices, avatars — stored on IPFS. Government Records：Some jurisdictions already experiment with immutable archives. DePIN Projects：Map data, traffic info, location indexes all require decentralized storage. Final Thoughts — IPFS Is Not Just a Technology, But a Rewrite of Internet Philosophy The old internet says:“You access content from whoever owns the server.” The IPFS internet says:“You access content from the entire network,validated cryptographically, stored everywhere, owned by no one.” It is the biggest shift in data architecture since the early web itself. In a world where: AI models need transparent sourcing decentralized social needs censorship resistance NFTs need permanent metadata DePIN networks need verifiable storage Web3 identity needs permanence IPFS is no longer optional. It is the backbone — not of the future web, but of the new internet already being built.

#HongKong #JPEX According to reports, on November 5, 2025, the JPEX collapse case entered its first formal prosecution. This prosecution was initiated by the Commercial Crime Bureau (CCB) of the Hong Kong Police Force, involving as many as 13 individuals, including 6 core members of JPEX, as well as 7 OTC operators and KOLs. The successful commencement of this prosecution also marks the beginning of the criminal proceedings in the JPEX case. CCB Chief Superintendent Ernest Wong stated at the press conference that this is the first round of prosecution in the JPEX case, and the charges mainly involve conspiracy to defraud, money laundering, obstruction of justice, and inducing others to invest in virtual assets through fraudulent means or with reckless disregard for the consequences. With a time gap of more than two years, many users have already forgotten what exactly happened with JPEX, and some new users have never even heard of it. The JPEX case occurred in 2023 and is the largest virtual asset fraud case in Hong Kong’s history, involving more than HK$1.6 billion and causing 2,700 investors to suffer losses. The platform operated without a license, attracted users with false promises of high returns, and eventually collapsed in September 2023. However, to be honest, crypto-financial fraud involving more than USD 100 million is indeed rare in Asia. Moreover, JPEX was not a simple “virtual asset fraud case” — its scale was unprecedented, the people involved were complex, and it had a massive cross-border funding chain. More importantly, it tore open the deepest shadow hidden during the regulatory transition period: unlicensed operations, fake regulatory narratives, high-return traps, KOL promotion chaos. One could say JPEX committed nearly every type of crypto-financial fraud possible. At a deeper level, the case also exposed the systemic risks accumulated due to the long-standing conflict between “innovation” and “regulation.” With two years of investigation, 80 arrests, 2,700 victims, losses exceeding HK$1.6 billion, and the masterminds placed on Interpol’s Red Notice list, the JPEX case is no longer merely “Hong Kong’s biggest crypto collapse” — it is a case significant enough to be written into the history of Hong Kong’s virtual asset regulation. A Full Review of the JPEX Case: What Exactly Happened Back Then? JPEX was a crypto exchange founded in 2020, headquartered in Dubai. It promoted itself as a “global digital asset trading platform” and a “Japanese cryptocurrency exchange,” and claimed to hold financial licenses from the United States, Canada, Australia, and Dubai VARA. Then came the dramatic twist: JPEX pulled a classic “concept substitution.” According to investigations by the SFC, these “licenses” were only for foreign exchange services and could not support virtual asset trading. As for the so-called “Japanese cryptocurrency exchange,” both Japan’s Financial Services Agency and Dubai’s VARA clarified that JPEX was not authorized to operate. Public opinion is always two-sided, like the sword of Damocles hanging overhead — if mishandled, backlash follows instantly. JPEX launched massive advertising campaigns in Hong Kong (such as in MTR stations, on bus bodies, and on shopping mall exterior walls), combined with promotion from OTC shops and social media KOLs, gaining significant initial attention. After all, under the regulatory environment of two or three years ago, such overt advertising was extremely rare. Of course, this is also why 7 OTC operators and KOLs were among the defendants. June 2023 The Hong Kong government launched the Virtual Asset Trading Platform (VATP) licensing regime, requiring all platforms to obtain approval from the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) before they could provide services to retail investors. JPEX, however, did not apply for a license and continued operating without approval — planting the “bomb” for the coming collapse. Early July 2023 Users in mainland China began experiencing difficulties withdrawing funds. At first, people assumed it was an isolated issue or a regional limitation. But JPEX’s next moves instantly triggered public uproar, as rumors of the JPEX collapse began to spread. July 18, 2023 A mainland user surnamed “Yu,” having encountered withdrawal problems, was invited by JPEX to “resolve the issue in person” at a Hong Kong OTC shop. After entering Hong Kong, he was ambushed and beaten by unidentified individuals near the intersection of San Wan Road and Chok Yuen Street in Sheung Shui, close to Cambridge Plaza. His forehead and nose suffered abrasions. After police arrests and questioning, it was revealed that the assailants were executives from JPEX’s investment company. The behavior of luring and assaulting retail investors who sought to defend their rights was unprecedented in the entire history of crypto exchanges and was extremely egregious in nature. This incident could no longer be covered up. The news spread rapidly, and on the well-known Hong Kong forum LIHKG, posts began circulating from mainland users complaining about “failed withdrawals,” claiming the platform lured victims into coming to Hong Kong to “resolve fund issues” and then arranged to have them ambushed. Originally, one would think that after such an incident, JPEX would lay low. Unexpectedly, despite being warned by the SFC for false statements and alleged illegal assault, the promotional activities continued. September 13, 2023 The Hong Kong SFC issued a public warning targeted at JPEX, titled “Warning Statement on Unregulated Virtual Asset Trading Platform.” The core contents of this statement were as follows: JPEX was operating without a license, violating the VATP licensing regime that came into effect on June 1. JPEX used social media influencers and KOLs (such as promotional posts on Instagram) as well as OTC shops to falsely claim it held financial licenses from the U.S., Canada, Australia, and Dubai VARA. JPEX had already been placed on the SFC’s Alert List as early as July 8, 2022. Its products were suspected of “deposit/yield” arrangements, illegal fundraising, and many retail investors had filed complaints about being unable to withdraw funds or sustaining losses. The SFC required all KOLs and OTC shops to immediately stop promoting JPEX and its related services and products. September 13, 2023 After such a direct public warning from the SFC, one would expect JPEX to make some rectifications. However, JPEX’s next actions became even more baffling. Just hours after the statement was published, JPEX quickly responded on its website and blog, claiming that the SFC’s actions were “unfair suppression by the Securities and Futures Commission, forcing us to consider withdrawing our license application in Hong Kong and correspondingly adjusting our future policy development. The SFC should take full responsibility for damaging the prospects of cryptocurrency development in Hong Kong.” In a blog post, JPEX claimed it had publicly announced plans to apply for a crypto trading license in Hong Kong as early as February 2023 and considered Hong Kong a key market, but due to the SFC statement “conflicting with Web3 policies,” it was considering withdrawing its license application and adjusting its regional strategy. What looked like an accusation against Hong Kong authorities for inaction and unfair treatment unexpectedly became an admission that the platform had not obtained a license — directly intensifying investor panic. Complaints surged from several hundred cases before the statement to more than 1,600 cases afterward. Many users rushed to OTC shops seeking help, making the platform’s liquidity crisis publicly visible. Whether it is a bank or an exchange, the consequences of a liquidity crisis are catastrophic. For example, in the case of FTX, liquidity exhaustion was the primary driver of its bankruptcy. September 17, 2023 Only four days later, JPEX released another announcement on its official blog, once again emphasizing that “unfair treatment” by Hong Kong regulatory authorities caused JPEX to suffer massive negative press, which triggered the liquidity crisis. The announcement also mentioned that its third-party market makers had “maliciously frozen” platform funds, further exacerbating the crisis. JPEX stressed that this was not a problem of the platform itself but was caused by external factors. It promised to restore liquidity and gradually adjust fees. The announcement also confirmed that the Earn service would be fully suspended for trading on September 18, and users would be unable to place new orders. Meanwhile, JPEX raised withdrawal fees for USDT from the original 10 USDT to 999 USDT. Considering that the maximum withdrawal limit per transaction on JPEX was only 1,000 USDT, users could effectively withdraw only 1 USDT — essentially “freezing user assets.” Although JPEX explained that this adjustment was necessary to “respond to business changes,” the absence of a recovery timeline triggered maximum panic among the community and users. Rumors of an impending “rug pull” intensified. As of September 18, the number of police reports reached 1,641 cases, involving approximately HK$1.2 billion in losses. September 18, 2023 The Hong Kong Police CCB launched a surprise operation codenamed “Operation Iron Gate,” raiding 20 locations and arresting the first group of 8 suspects, seizing cash, computers, and documents on site. The speed of the police action was extraordinarily fast and rare in the entire history of the crypto industry. October 2023 The number of arrests in the JPEX case increased to 28, including 28-year-old KOL Henry Choi Hiu-tung (founder of Hong Coin). November 5, 2025 This brings us back to the report at the beginning of this article: half a month ago, after two years of investigation, the Hong Kong Police CCB officially prosecuted 16 individuals. Why Was JPEX Able to Expand So Rapidly in Hong Kong After the Regulatory Upgrade? Many people wonder how such a “three-no” exchange (no license, no transparency, no compliance) could rise so quickly. In fact, the rise of JPEX is not mysterious at all. It followed all the templates of Ponzi schemes and exchange scams that have appeared in Asia over the past decade: high returns, fake licenses, KOL hype, offline advertising bombardment… But what truly enabled its explosive growth in Hong Kong was this: It took advantage of the gap between regulatory system upgrades and changes in public awareness. 1. Hong Kong was in a confusing “policy window period” for Web3 Starting in 2023, Hong Kong promoted virtual asset policies at a strategic level: Officials publicly supported Web3 The licensing regime (VATP) was officially implemented Overseas platforms and capital rapidly gathered Hong Kong aimed to become Asia’s virtual asset hub Under such political and policy momentum, the general atmosphere of “Hong Kong welcomes crypto assets” overshadowed the finer details. Ordinary investors mistakenly believed: “Since Hong Kong supports Web3, the platforms here must be safe.” But the truth was the opposite: summer 2023 was the most chaotic period in regulation, and the easiest time for platforms to “fish in muddy waters.” The “time gap” between policy announcements and regulatory enforcement was precisely the loophole JPEX exploited most skillfully. 2. Massive advertising created a “compliance illusion” JPEX’s biggest success was not technology but advertising — blanketing the MTR, airport, buses, and mall façades. As mentioned earlier, such overt advertising was unprecedented in crypto history, making JPEX look like: “A big platform with strength, background, and the confidence to advertise publicly.” The psychological impact of advertising is extremely powerful: Real scams do not hide in the shadows — they often stand in the brightest places. 3. Fake overseas licenses + KOL endorsements formed a “trust closed loop” The reason users were convinced is that JPEX constructed a fake compliance narrative: Claiming to be licensed in multiple countries Using regulator logos to imply endorsement KOLs guaranteeing “these licenses have been checked; it’s very safe” OTC shop staff reassuring retail investors that “Hong Kong’s regulation is strict, so JPEX must be fine” Retail investors believed they had done their “due diligence,” but in reality, all the information was fabricated. JPEX’s manipulation wasn’t sophisticated — it merely targeted human psychology precisely: Compliance illusion + KOL-generated safety = You won’t need to think. 4. High returns created irresistible incentive traps JPEX’s main attraction was its Earn product, promising annualized returns of: BTC 20% ETH 21% USDT 19% This drew in a huge number of investors. By using OTC shops and social media KOLs for promotion, the platform created the image of “low risk, high return.” Where Will Hong Kong’s Virtual Asset Market Go After JPEX? The impact of JPEX is substantial. Short-term regulatory tightening is guaranteed. If you observe Hong Kong’s crypto policy, you’ll notice that although the policy framework has been implemented, approvals remain extremely strict, and only a small number of institutions have succeeded. It is clear that after JPEX, Hong Kong will no longer allow a second “JPEX.” Licensed platforms will become the only entry point. While this means the industry will become healthier, competition will also become more intense.

#Forks #Soft Forks #Hard Forks Most of us aren’t strangers to the word “fork.” Any high-consensus, large-scale project will encounter forks as it matures — think BTC and ETH. And speaking of timing, here’s a fork headline from today: according to an official announcement, Binance will support the Ethereum (ETH) network upgrade and hard fork. To prepare for the upgrade and hard fork, Binance will perform maintenance on the ETH wallet at 14:00 on November 26, 2025 (UTC+8). Some say: “The rules of a blockchain are written in code, but its future is decided by consensus. Every ‘fork’ is the inevitable result of the co-evolution of technology, consensus, and the ecosystem.” What does that mean? In short, while a blockchain’s underlying logic is deterministic, its development path is determined by consensus — and every fork occurs when differences arise around a technical or ecosystem upgrade. All in all, forks tend to happen around various chain upgrades, especially after rapid evolution across L1s, L2s, and rollup ecosystems. Yet many still hold a surface-level understanding: is a fork just a technical update? A community vote? A price event? Or an ecosystem reshuffle? In reality, it’s all of the above. Blockchains aren’t powerful because they “never change,” but because they can continually “self-evolve” via forking mechanisms. Today, we’ll explain soft and hard forks in the clearest, deepest, and most practical way. https://news.superex.com/articles/16172.html Why must blockchains “fork”? The industry’s most misunderstood question Outsiders often view forks as “chaos” or “conflict,” but true blockchain participants know: forking is the lifeblood of the blockchain world. In Web2, companies call the shots. In blockchains: There’s no boss No CEO No central server No one can force you to upgrade Every chain is like a sovereign nation, and all nodes, miners, and validators are its “citizens.” To amend the law (chain rules), you need “social consensus,” and the forking mechanism is how this “nation” legitimately changes its rules. Forks arise from four fundamental needs: 1) Performance improvements: throughput, fees, and latency never stop being issues Whether BTC, ETH, or the fastest L2, performance isn’t static. Whenever users surge, you’ll see: Insufficient TPS Elevated gas fees Block congestion On-chain activity competing for resources The community proposes upgrades that often redefine block formats, gas mechanics, or consensus parameters — making forks inevitable (and yes, disagreements over upgrade approaches). Performance upgrades are the most common driver of forks. 2) Security: the longer a chain lives, the more it must patch vulnerabilities Blockchains aren’t “absolutely secure” — they become “more secure over time.” Early on, any chain may face: Transaction-validation bugs Timestamp issues Consensus sync delays State-calculation errors Economic-incentive design flaws Large chains undergo security upgrades almost annually, and fixing flaws often means changing old rules — thus requiring a fork. 3) New features: ecosystem expansion needs new rules Ethereum’s journey from PoW → PoS and from EVM extensions to various scaling components is a textbook “feature-iteration-driven fork,” e.g.: Extending virtual-machine capabilities Adding new precompiles (e.g., ZK-related) Supporting new rollup modes Introducing entirely new execution or data-layer logic Each new feature alters underlying rules, so you “upgrade the language” via a fork. 4) Economic-model adjustments: incentives are the soul of a blockchain A chain isn’t only technology — it’s also economics, which must evolve: Change inflation rate? Modify the gas model? Alter miner/validator rewards? Introduce new burn mechanics? Economic parameters directly affect fairness, security, and sustainability — another frequent reason to fork. Bottom line: Forks aren’t chaos; they’re the core mechanism of blockchain evolution. Without forks, there is no future for blockchains. Soft forks: a gentle, backward-compatible “gradual evolution” A soft fork is a backward-compatible upgrade. In short: the new rules are stricter, but old nodes still accept new blocks. That’s the essence of a soft fork — no breaking old systems, no forcing everyone to upgrade immediately. 1) Why are soft forks compatible with old nodes? One sentence: a soft fork narrows old rules rather than expanding them. For example: Old rule: block size ≤ 1 MB New rule: block size ≤ 0.9 MB Old nodes still deem such blocks valid (they satisfy the old rule), while new nodes enforce the stricter limit. Result: old nodes do not reject new blocks. Since old nodes don’t reject new blocks, the chain doesn’t split and everything runs smoothly — that’s the logic behind a “quiet” soft-fork upgrade. 2) Common soft-fork moves Soft forks typically involve: Adding stricter validation logic Imposing extra constraints on transaction formats Disabling certain operations Introducing additional rules without confusing old parsers In other words, soft forks “don’t disturb old logic” while enhancing the chain. 3) Why do major chains prefer soft forks? Lowest community cost: not everyone must upgrade simultaneously; consensus remains intact. Lowest risk: no two chains, no new coins, no mapping headaches. User invisible: exchanges, wallets, staking, and apps keep running. Ecosystem continuity: big chains avoid “splits” at all costs; soft forks enable the smoothest evolution. Thus BTC, ETH, Solana, and many L2s default to soft-fork paths. Hard forks: a non-backward-compatible “structural reset” If a soft fork is “iOS 14 → 14.1,” a hard fork is “iOS 14 → iOS 18” — a full system remodel. New and old rules do not recognize each other, and nodes can’t mutually validate blocks. Because they’re incompatible, the outcome is obvious: the chain splits into two versions. 1) Why can’t hard forks support old nodes? Hard forks expand rules. For example: Old rule: block size ≤ 1 MB New rule: block size ≤ 2 MB When a new node proposes a 1.8 MB block: It’s valid to new nodes It’s invalid to old nodes (>1 MB) Old nodes reject it Sync breaks immediately Two chains then diverge: One led by the new rules One led by the old rules That’s the essence of hard-fork chain splits. 2) Consequences — an industry-wide “seismic event” Two independent chains Two asset systems (two coins) Split among nodes, miners, validators Wallets, exchanges, and tooling must be rebuilt Liquidity is divided Narratives are reshaped Serious? Absolutely. In this industry, a hard fork is a big event — not merely technical, but systemic. 3) When is a hard fork unavoidable? Despite the cost, some scenarios demand it: Rule-rewrite upgrades: architecture overhauls, VM changes, consensus transitions Fundamental incompatibility: new features old rules can’t parse Core economic redesign: e.g., radically new rewards or gas models Irreconcilable ideology: communities part ways, each with its own chain In short: a hard fork is the most thorough “rebirth” a blockchain can undergo. System-level view: the fundamental differences Block-validation rules differ: Soft forks tighten rules; hard forks expand them. Press enter or click to view image in full size Impact on node ecosystems differs: Soft fork → upgrade optional; Hard fork → upgrade mandatory (or you’re on the old chain). Impact on ecosystem development differs: Soft fork = steady, continuous evolution; Hard fork = rebuild the civilizational stack. Neither is inherently “good” or “bad” — they fit different scenarios. In the L1, L2, and rollup era, fork mechanics are structurally changing With 2024–2025 ushering in multi-layered ecosystems, forking isn’t just a single-chain act — it spans cross-chain coordination. 1) Rollups upgrade far faster than L1s; soft forks become high-frequency Rollups are the leading scaling path and behave like rapidly iterating app-chains — upgrades feel like Web2 software releases. Common patterns: Frequent soft forks Weekly updates Constantly improving compression, data availability, proving systems This “lightweight fork culture” is accelerating the crypto world’s iteration speed. 2) Major L1s prefer soft forks (to avoid political schisms) The more mature the L1, the less it can stomach a hard fork: Large market cap Massive ecosystems Rich DApp landscapes Complex exchange integrations The cost of a hard fork is simply too high Hence L1s increasingly favor soft-fork, incremental upgrades. 3) AppChains fork more like Web2 product updates AppChains are smaller and nimbler; their forks feel like “version bumps” without heavy consensus politics. Upgrades are more flexible, and even hard forks rarely pose systemic risk. Soft/Hard fork trends: the industry is entering a “gentle-upgrade era” Trend 1: Ethereum leads the soft-fork era, avoiding systemic splits Post-PoS, ETH leans toward: Modularity Incremental upgrades Soft-fork priority Emphasis on ecosystem continuity Hard forks only when absolutely necessary Trend 2: Rollups become high-frequency iterators As “upgradable application chains,” rollups upgrade more like auto-updating software — soft forks will be routine. Trend 3: Hard forks serve as “ecosystem reboots” (non-mainstream chains) Smaller, stalled, or struggling chains will rely more on hard forks to “start over.” Trend 4: Regulation increasingly shapes fork paths Expect cases like: Hard forks driven by regulatory demands Soft forks for privacy adjustments Parameter tweaks for compliance Chain evolution is no longer purely technical — it’s the intersection of regulation and engineering. Trend 5: Forks become more automated, predictable, and low-cost Infrastructure is maturing: Automated upgrade tooling Compatibility testing State-migration tech Decentralized governance processes Forks will feel more like “routine maintenance,” not “major political events.” Trend 6: Exchanges play an ever more critical role In fork seasons: Liquidity determines which chain users view as “main” Exchanges shape the public’s main-chain perception Forked coins’ circulation hinges on exchange support User asset safety relies on exchange guarantees Platforms like SuperEx will matter more than ever. Conclusion: Forks aren’t chaos — they’re how blockchains evolve Back to the original question: why do all chains need to fork? Because the magic of blockchains isn’t in “never changing,” but in “getting better without centralized decision-making.” Soft forks deliver gentle evolution; Hard forks deliver structural restarts. Together, they outline the evolutionary path of blockchains for decades to come.

In our previous educational article, we explored Real-World Assets (RWA) — the concept of bringing tangible assets like real estate, bonds, commodities, and even invoices into the blockchain world. But as the RWA narrative continues to dominate discussions in 2025, one crucial question arises: How are these “real-world” assets actually brought on-chain? That’s where RWA Tokenization comes in — the technical and economic process that turns real-world value into programmable digital tokens. In essence, RWA Tokenization is the operational layer of RWA, transforming the idea of bridging traditional finance (TradFi) and DeFi into a working reality. What Exactly Is RWA Tokenization? Tokenization means creating a digital representation of a real-world asset on a blockchain.This token serves as a digital claim or fractional representation of ownership, rights, or future income linked to the underlying asset. In simple terms: If RWA is the “what,” tokenization is the “how.” Example: A real estate property worth $1 million can be divided into 1,000,000 tokens, each representing $1 of ownership. These tokens can be: Traded on-chain (in secondary markets) Used as collateral in DeFi lending Distributed to investors around the world — instantly and transparently This approach makes illiquid assets liquid, divisible, and globally accessible, opening the door to a multi-trillion-dollar transformation of global finance. The Tokenization Workflow: How It Actually Works Tokenizing real-world assets involves several layers and participants.Here’s a simplified breakdown of the process: Step 1: Asset Identification and Legal Structuring A company (the issuer) identifies an eligible real-world asset — such as a government bond, invoice, or property.Then, legal entities (often called Special Purpose Vehicles, or SPVs) are created to hold the asset and ensure compliance with local regulations. Step 2: Digital Representation on Blockchain A smart contract is deployed to represent the asset in token form.Each token might represent: Ownership (e.g., shares in an SPV) Debt claim (e.g., interest-bearing tokens) Revenue rights (e.g., income share) Step 3: Custody and Verification Third-party custodians or oracles verify that the real-world asset exists and is properly managed.This step is crucial to maintain trust and prevent fraud — often handled by regulated custodians or auditing firms. Step 4: Token Distribution Once verified, the tokens are distributed to investors via platforms or marketplaces — typically under compliance frameworks like KYC/AML and regional securities laws. Step 5: On-Chain Integration The tokens can now interact with DeFi protocols — for lending, staking, or liquidity provision — effectively bridging TradFi and DeFi. Why Tokenization Matters: The Core Advantages Tokenization isn’t just a technological novelty — it’s the financial evolution that redefines how we own, trade, and interact with value.By bridging the gap between illiquid real-world assets and frictionless digital markets, tokenization is reshaping global capital flows at every level — from small investors to sovereign wealth funds. Below are the five core advantages that explain why tokenization matters — and why it’s widely viewed as the “missing link” between traditional finance (TradFi) and decentralized finance (DeFi). 1. Liquidity for Illiquid Markets Illiquidity is one of the biggest inefficiencies in global finance.Traditional assets like real estate, private equity, or fine art often have long holding periods, limited buyers, and complex settlement procedures. Tokenization changes that dynamic entirely. By dividing ownership into fractional, transferable tokens, these assets can be traded 24/7 on blockchain-based secondary markets, giving investors an exit option that never existed before. For instance, instead of needing $1 million to buy an entire property, an investor could purchase 1,000 tokens worth $1,000 each — effectively owning a verifiable fraction of the asset. This democratizes access, but it also injects liquidity into previously locked capital, allowing institutions to manage portfolios with more flexibility and efficiency. Liquidity also improves price discovery — as tokenized assets trade more frequently, the market naturally determines fair value in real time rather than through infrequent private appraisals. 2. Global Accessibility In traditional markets, geography and regulation define who can invest in what.Real estate in Singapore, bonds in the U.S., or private credit in Europe often remain siloed due to jurisdictional limits. Tokenization breaks those barriers by transforming ownership rights into borderless, blockchain-native assets. Anyone with an internet connection and a compliant wallet can potentially access high-value investment products that were once reserved for institutions or accredited investors. This creates a new era of financial inclusion — where global investors can diversify portfolios across regions and asset classes with just a few clicks. It also allows asset issuers (like developers, lenders, or governments) to tap into global liquidity pools, expanding their investor base beyond traditional borders. As blockchain networks continue to integrate KYC-compliant identity solutions and regulatory-compatible layers, this global accessibility will only accelerate. 3. Transparency and Auditability One of the most profound advantages of blockchain-based tokenization is radical transparency. Every issuance, transfer, and redemption of a tokenized asset is recorded immutably on-chain. This means ownership records are verifiable in real time, eliminating the need for centralized registries or reconciliation processes. For investors, this transparency builds trust and accountability; for auditors and regulators, it provides a real-time view of financial activity without relying on delayed or opaque reporting systems. In traditional finance, information asymmetry often leads to mispricing or even fraud. With tokenization, data integrity is guaranteed by code and consensus, not by intermediaries — a shift that could make compliance, auditing, and risk management significantly more efficient and reliable. 4. Lower Costs and Faster Settlement The traditional financial system is full of middlemen — brokers, clearinghouses, custodians, and settlement agents — each adding fees and delays to every transaction. Settlement cycles can take T+2 or longer, particularly across jurisdictions. Tokenized systems eliminate these frictions. Transactions occur directly between blockchain addresses via smart contracts, enabling instant (T+0) settlement and near-zero counterparty risk. Lower operational costs also mean that smaller investment sizes become viable. Previously, it made little sense to sell $100 of a bond due to administrative costs — but tokenization makes such micro-investments economically feasible. In short, tokenization doesn’t just make markets faster — it makes them fairer and more efficient for all participants. 5. Programmable Finance and Composability Perhaps the most revolutionary aspect of tokenization lies in its programmability. Once an asset exists on-chain, it can interact seamlessly with other smart contracts and DeFi protocols — unlocking endless possibilities for automated financial logic. For example: A tokenized bond can automatically distribute coupon payments to holders every month. A tokenized property can send rent income to token holders in real time. Tokenized treasuries can be used as collateral for on-chain loans or integrated into yield strategies. This composability — the ability to combine different financial primitives into new, automated structures — is what transforms tokenization from a digitization tool into an innovation engine. Imagine a world where traditional yields meet DeFi automation: A U.S. Treasury token generating 4% APY could be automatically lent out on-chain to generate an extra 1% yield — all governed by transparent smart contracts, not human intermediaries. Key Categories of Tokenized RWAs The RWA tokenization market has diversified rapidly. Here are the major categories dominating the ecosystem in 2025: Among these, tokenized Treasury bills have become the fastest-growing segment, led by issuers such as Ondo Finance, Maple, and Superstate. The Infrastructure Behind Tokenization RWA tokenization doesn’t happen in isolation. It requires a robust ecosystem: 1. Tokenization Platforms Projects like Centrifuge, Goldfinch, Maple, and Clearpool provide the tools to onboard real-world assets into blockchain environments. 2. Custodians and Oracles Firms like Chainlink, Circle’s Reserve Reports, and Credora verify asset backing and transparency. 3. Blockchains and Networks Layer 1 and Layer 2 chains optimized for financial operations — such as Ethereum, Avalanche, Polygon, Solana, and Base — serve as the settlement layers for tokenized RWAs. 4. DeFi Protocol Integration Once tokenized, RWAs can be used as collateral on protocols like Aave, MakerDAO, and Compound, merging traditional yield products with decentralized capital markets. The Regulatory Landscape Tokenization operates at the intersection of blockchain and traditional financial regulation, which makes compliance critical. United States: SEC treats most RWA tokens as securities; issuers must comply with Reg D or Reg S exemptions. Europe: MiCA (Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation) offers clearer frameworks for asset-backed tokens. Asia: Hong Kong, Singapore, and Japan are rapidly positioning themselves as RWA-friendly hubs, with regulated tokenization pilots for bonds and funds. Regulatory clarity remains the biggest catalyst for large-scale RWA adoption in the next few years. The Future of RWA Tokenization RWA Tokenization is not just a trend — it’s a structural transformation of global finance. According to Boston Consulting Group, up to $16 trillion worth of assets could be tokenized by 2030. In this vision, tokenized assets will: Serve as collateral in DeFi lending Power on-chain money markets Enable instant cross-border settlements Connect real-world income streams to decentralized infrastructure Eventually, tokenization could become as natural as listing shares on a stock exchange — but faster, borderless, and transparent. Conclusion: Tokenization as the Engine of Real-World Adoption RWA Tokenization is the practical foundation turning blockchain from a speculative playground into a functional financial system. It is the bridge that connects yield-hungry DeFi capital with traditional, yield-generating real-world assets — creating a new era of hybrid finance (HyFi). The story of RWA Tokenization is still unfolding, but one thing is clear: The next trillion dollars in crypto won’t come from memes or speculation — it will come from real-world assets brought on-chain through tokenization.

#SEC #okenClassification #Crypto Industry? On November 12, at the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia’s fintech conference, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chair Paul Atkins opened with a very straightforward and quite amusing remark: “If you’re already tired of hearing the question ‘Are crypto-assets securities?’ I completely understand.” What does this mean? Very simple: starting today, you no longer need to be troubled by the question of whether crypto-assets are securities. Indeed, at this conference he officially announced that the SEC will establish a four-category token classification system based on the Howey Test. This is not only the clearest and most systematic statement of position by a U.S. regulator in the crypto-asset arena, but also the first time in a decade that the entire crypto market has seen a clear, systematic, and implementable regulatory model. This is not an ordinary “policy update.” This is a fundamental restructuring of the standards that define the essence of crypto-assets. This is the critical moment that ends the regulatory gray zone and lays the foundation for compliant digital assets over the next decade. Why is the industry so shaken? Because for the past ten years, the crypto market has been stuck on an unanswerable question: “Exactly what counts as a security?” This question has trapped American entrepreneurs, trapped institutional capital, and trapped the construction of the tokenized world’s infrastructure. The SEC’s latest stance provides a clear path for the first time: Crypto-assets ≠ are not inherently securities. Utility tokens, collectibles, and network tokens do not fall under securities. Only “tokenized securities” belong under traditional securities regulation. A token’s status can “dynamically change” from security → non-security as the technology matures. This is tantamount to: the United States officially recognizing that crypto-assets are not a one-size-fits-all world of securities, but a multi-layered new asset system. This will profoundly change the future behavior of exchanges, project teams, institutions, developers, and even users. SEC’s Four-Category Token Regulatory Framework: The New “Basic Rules” for the Industry The SEC’s four-category token classification and its interpretation are the core of this article — naturally, they are also the focus of industry attention. The following content will parse these four standards layer by layer, and clarify the regulatory implications, future development paths, and industry impact for each category. Category One: Digital Commodities & Network Tokens 1）What is this? The core feature of this category: it does not rely on the issuer’s “essential managerial efforts” to increase value; its value comes from the functional nature of the network protocol and decentralized operation. Its most notable characteristic is that the token’s use value significantly outweighs its speculative value. Paul Atkins made it clear that, in his view, these tokens do not fall under the securities umbrella. This provides a clear regulatory position for major cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum. This means: “Independently operating network tokens” of major chains like BTC and ETH fall into this category They are not securities They are not subject to the SEC’s traditional securities laws This is a major signal: for the first time, the United States has clarified that public-chain tokens such as Bitcoin and Ethereum are digital commodities rather than securities. This will directly accelerate institutionalization across mining, staking, DeFi, and derivatives markets. 2）Industry significance The introduction of this classification is equivalent to: Institutional investment can legitimately enter the BTC/ETH ecosystem A clearer construction path for project teams: decentralization is the key to compliance Institutional products such as ETFs, futures, and custody will further expand This is a boon for the entire Layer 1 ecosystem. Category Two: Digital Collectibles (NFT-type Assets) 1）What assets fall into this category? Art NFTs: music, video, game items, digital trading cards Virtual IP, avatars, limited digital memorabilia The SEC made it clear: These tokens are not securities Purchase purposes are based on collection, access, or usage They do not rely on the project team’s continued operation to generate profits By explicitly excluding such digital collectibles from the definition of securities, the SEC has provided urgently needed regulatory certainty for the NFT market — this means the NFT market has, for the first time, received confirmation of “non-security status.” 2）Industry significance NFT projects will no longer face policy risk of being labeled securities; Exchanges can more freely expand the NFT market; Enormous room for development in chain gaming, digital content, and brand IP; NFT 2.0 (asset credentials, on-chain identity, membership systems) will enter a boom cycle. Category Three: Digital Utilities (Utility Tokens) This covers tokens with practical functions, such as memberships, tickets, credentials, proofs of ownership, or identity badges. These functional tokens focus on specific uses rather than investment objectives, and thus are carved out from the securities category. Purchasers do not expect to profit from the “managerial efforts of others.” This class of tokens has been a persistent point of controversy, and the SEC has finally provided a clear definition. 1）Core characteristics of utility tokens: Used to access a service (tickets, memberships, bandwidth, computing power). Used for on-chain identity, credentials, or functional usage. Do not provide purchasers with an “expectation of profits from the efforts of others”. The SEC made it clear: Utility tokens are not securities. They focus on practical use cases and do not constitute investment contracts. As networks mature, the role of the project team diminishes. In other words: the majority of tokens that were forced to “pretend to be securities” over the past decade due to regulatory ambiguity finally have a compliant industry positioning. Why is this important? Because a large number of tokens in the current market — including most public-chain ecosystem tokens, governance tokens, application tokens, and GameFi tokens — may fall into this category. 2）This will significantly change: The issuance logic of Launchpads. The way users participate in token economies. The compliance documentation required by exchanges to list assets. Utility tokens derive their value from usage scenarios rather than investment expectations — this gives the industry a completely different narrative framework. Category Four: Tokenized Securities This is the only token type classified as a security. Paul Atkins emphasized: “A stock doesn’t change its nature as stock because it’s represented by paper certificates, DTCC account records, or blockchain tokens. A bond doesn’t cease to be a bond because smart contracts track its payment flows.” 1）Types include: Tokenized versions of equities. Tokenized versions of bonds. REITs, fund shares. Any “on-chain form of traditional securities”. The SEC stressed: an asset does not cease to be a security simply because it is converted into token form. A stock is still a stock, a bond is still a bond, an ETF is still an ETF — only the recording medium and settlement method change. 2）Industry significance This classification lays the foundation for a “Wall Street on-chain.” In the future, we will see: Tokenized Treasuries Tokenized equities On-chain funds On-chain versions of all financial products This market will be in the tens of trillions. Exchanges, custodians, and compliance firms will form a new competitive landscape here. The SEC’s “Dynamic Token Identity” Is the Most Revolutionary Part The four-category structure is not the SEC’s biggest breakthrough. The real breakthrough is that, for the first time, the SEC acknowledges: a token can transform from a security → a non-security. When a network is sufficiently decentralized: The project team’s managerial efforts no longer determine value; The token’s usage scenarios operate independently; Governance is dispersed; Protocol upgrades are driven by the community; As long as the above prerequisites are met, the token can exit its “investment contract” status. This resolves the biggest issue of the past decade: “A token might look like a security at issuance — what happens once it matures?” Now the U.S. has provided the answer: a token need not carry a lifelong securities attribute because of the “manner of issuance.” This will affect: New projects’ token issuance routes Regulatory exemption paths Community governance models The pace of project decentralization This is the first truly operable regulatory path the industry has seen in ten years. Industry Impact — A SuperEx Perspective Exchanges (especially CEXs) will face business-structure overhauls Exchanges will need to update along the four categories in the future: Listing classifications KYC/AML models Risk disclosures Trading-pair categories Clearing and custody compatibility In particular: NFT markets can expand more boldly Utility-token listings will have a stronger regulatory basis Tokenized securities will require dedicated compliant zones U.S. exchanges will be affected first, but global platforms will gradually align to the same standards. Project teams: decentralization and functional delivery will be the only compliant path This classification system sends a clear signal to project teams: don’t treat tokens as financing tools — treat them as functional tools. Over the next 3–5 years, a project’s core competitiveness will be: Whether true decentralization can be achieved. Whether there is natural on-chain usage demand. Whether the token can shift from “investment contract” to “network function”. Whether the team can reduce key centralized developer control. Projects will move more rapidly toward: DAO-ization. Modular governance. Code immutability. Autonomous protocol operation. Institutions: digital commodities and on-chain securities will enter “dual fast lanes” Institutions have long been constrained by compliance concerns. Now two paths are clearly delineated: (1) Digital commodities (BTC/ETH) path: Futures, perpetuals, and ETFs can all expand. Capital can participate with lower legal risk. The on-chain derivatives market will boom. (2) Tokenized securities path: Wall Street enters crypto. Treasuries, funds, and bonds will be issued on-chain in large numbers. On-chain settlement will become the institutional standard. The U.S. will use regulatory clarity to re-compete for global crypto leadership Over the past five years: Europe has MiCA. Hong Kong opened a licensing regime. Singapore advanced compliant asset management. The U.S. lagged behind for a long time. But the Token Classification Law changes all this: it is the “inflection point” for the U.S. to vie for the definitional power of crypto regulation. Over the next decade, global crypto regulation may be rebuilt along U.S. lines. Conclusion The SEC’s four-category token classification system is not a simple compliance policy; it is: A definitional standard for digital assets. A rules foundation for industry participants. The shared boundary of innovation and compliance. A blueprint for global regulation over the next decade. An accelerator for the convergence of crypto and traditional finance For the first time, it allows the industry to answer three most fundamental questions: What is a security? What is not a security? How can a token transform from a security into a non-security? This not only ends the crypto industry’s ten-year regulatory fog, but also opens a decade-long period of institutionalized growth. The future crypto world will not be just the “coin circle,” but rather: A digital commodities system. A digital collectibles system. A digital utilities system. A tokenized securities system.

#Off-ChainData #On-ChainData In previous articles we said: battle reports can deceive you, but the front line won’t. In the crypto world, that translates to: the news cycle may deceive you, but the data won’t. The blockchain explorer we covered earlier is the perfect window for viewing data. But here’s what you need to care about: are you looking at real data, or a packaged narrative? That’s today’s topic: on-chain and off-chain data. And the question we just raised is the core difference between “On-Chain Data” and “Off-Chain Data.” The former is recorded on the blockchain — objective and tamper-proof; the latter exists in exchanges, social platforms, analytics tools, macroeconomic databases, and other external environments — a fusion of “reality” and “public opinion.” Understanding the relationship between the two is like analyzing both financial statements (on-chain) and public sentiment (off-chain) in the stock market. Only by mastering this “twin system” can you truly grasp the market’s underlying logic. Why has “data” become so important in the Web3 era? There’s a misconception that in the Web3 era, data has become important. That’s not correct. In the Web2 era, data was already the core pillar for analyzing financial dynamics — using reports, regulatory disclosures, and central bank indicators to judge economic and market trends. On this point, Web3 and Web2 share the same need. What’s different are the sources and credibility of information: in the crypto world, everything becomes “on-chain signals” — wallet addresses, gas consumption, position changes, total value locked (TVL), node counts… every data point is like DNA, revealing the health of the ecosystem. However, while blockchains are transparent, they are not automatically comprehensible. You can see the flow of funds, but not necessarily whose funds they are or why they’re moving. That’s where off-chain data fills in the explanation. From SuperEx’s research perspective — on-chain data reveals behavior, off-chain data explains motive. For example: You see on chain that 10,000 ETH moved out of an address; Off chain, the news tells you it was a fund’s quarterly rebalancing; Only by combining the two does the information become meaningful. What is “on-chain data”? — The blockchain’s “ECG” On-chain data refers to public information stored directly on blockchain networks. Anyone can access it via block explorers or nodes, and it has three traits: Public and transparent: anyone can verify it; Tamper-proof: once recorded on chain, it exists permanently; Real-time traceable: transactions and address changes update instantly. Main categories of on-chain data Transaction Data Transfer amounts, frequency, gas fees, active addresses — used to analyze market heat and capital flows. Wallet Behavior Whale wallets, large-holder distribution, new wallet counts — used to gauge ecosystem growth or capital concentration. Token Economic Data Inflation rates, burn volumes, staking ratios — used to reflect a project’s supply-demand structure and long-term sustainability. Smart Contract Interactions DeFi protocol call counts, DEX volumes — key indicators of application-layer activity. Node and Block Data Block times, node counts, block sizes — used to reflect network decentralization and health. Examples of on-chain data tools Glassnode: BTC/ETH on-chain behavior analysis; Nansen: labeled wallet tracking; Dune Analytics: custom SQL on-chain queries; Etherscan / SuperEx Explorer: real-time transaction tracking. These tools translate “code language” into market signals humans can read. What is “off-chain data”? — The “external signals” beyond the chain Off-chain data refers to all information that exists outside the blockchain but can indirectly influence on-chain behavior. It is the “bridge” between the human world and the on-chain world. Its main sources include: Exchange Data Order-book depth, funding rates, open interest — reflect traders’ short-term behavior and market expectations. Macro Data U.S. Treasury yields, CPI, rate decisions — used to analyze crypto assets’ correlation with traditional financial cycles. Social and Sentiment Data Twitter, Reddit, Telegram sentiment — the origins of market FOMO/FUD. Regulatory and Policy Information For example, SEC lawsuits, Hong Kong virtual asset guidance — policy expectations directly affect confidence in capital inflows. News and Institutional Research Messari, CoinDesk, The Block reports — can influence institutional investing and secondary-market judgment. The role of off-chain data If on-chain data is the “record of facts,” then off-chain data is the “market’s interpretation.” It helps us answer: Why did a trade happen? Why did price move? — The “human nature” and “institutions” behind it are hidden off chain. The synergy between on-chain and off-chain data: piecing together the “true signal” Many assume on-chain data is objective enough to make independent calls on the market. In reality, without off-chain data, on-chain analysis often only sees the result, not the cause. Example 1: Whale transfers ≠ necessarily bearish On chain: a whale sent 5,000 BTC to an exchange. Off chain: reports reveal the address belongs to a fund doing quarterly settlements. → It’s not sell pressure, but internal accounting. Example 2: TVL spikes ≠ necessarily organic growth On chain: a DeFi protocol’s TVL doubled in a week. Off chain: the protocol announced an airdrop incentive. → It’s short-term mercenary inflows, not real adoption. Example 3: Rising address activity ≠ real user growth On chain: active addresses jump. Off chain: bots are wash-transacting to farm rewards. → That’s “fake heat,” not ecosystem expansion. In SuperEx’s analytical system, we always stress: on-chain tells you what happened, off-chain tells you why it happened. Only together can you build a credible, explainable crypto market model. Blind spots and risks in on-chain and off-chain data Data distortion Some protocols manufacture “fake traffic” via batch wallets to inflate activity; Some exchanges may inflate reported volumes. Latency and noise On-chain data can have block confirmation delays; Off-chain sentiment is noisy in the short term and easily misleading. Data fragmentation Multi-chain, multi-layer ecosystems scatter information; Aggregation tools are needed for unified modeling. Over-interpretation Extreme moves in a single indicator don’t necessarily mean a trend reversal; Always combine context and multi-dimensional data. From data to decisions: how traders read both worlds Build a “data map” mindset Don’t view any single metric in isolation. Construct a multi-dimensional view: capital flows → price changes → social sentiment → policy expectations. That’s a closed loop. Use data to verify narratives When a social platform hypes a hotspot (off-chain narrative), go on chain to check: did funds really enter? Are users really growing? Validating narratives with data is key to resisting “fake hotspots.” Use off-chain signals to position early When CPI falls and USD liquidity improves, you can often anticipate crypto capital returning. Macro off-chain indicators often lead on-chain behavior. Learn to identify “lagging signals” On-chain activity often rises after prices rebound. The truly leading indicators usually are off-chain liquidity easing + stablecoin issuance growth + improving sentiment. Future trends: the fusion and intelligence of on-chain and off-chain Data fusion becomes a core industry theme In the future, blockchain infrastructure will no longer strictly separate “on chain” and “off chain”: Oracles synchronize real-world data; Modular data layers handle storage and validation; AI models deliver real-time monitoring. Compliant data will become core assets With MiCA and Hong Kong’s VA frameworks landing, data compliance (KYC, AML) will become a foundational Web3 need. Future “on-chain data” will also carry a “verifiable identity” dimension. The rise of AI + blockchain analytics AI models can automatically identify whale behavior and predict anomalous transaction patterns. Combined with on-chain traceability, they will form “adaptive risk-control” systems. Conclusion: Data isn’t the destination — it’s the key to understanding the market The greatest charm of blockchain is that it records “trust” in the form of data. But real insight doesn’t lie in the data itself — it lies in understanding the data. On chain tells you the truth; off chain tells you the story. Only by merging the two can you see the full picture of the market. The construction and evolution of “verifiable data” will allow more users to gain the ability to read the truth. After all, in an age where everyone chases hotspots, understanding data is understanding the future.

#P2P #CryptoExchanges Tighter crypto regulation has become a global trend — evident from moves across representative countries and regions in Europe, the U.S., and Asia. Yet the corresponding banking rails have not fully opened. Aside from a few places like Singapore, Hong Kong, and the United States — where some banks support direct fiat-to-crypto conversion — most regions still rely heavily on P2P support. We can safely say that P2P trading (peer-to-peer fiat on/off-ramps) has become the key battleground for exchanges competing over user acquisition. From Binance, OKX, Bybit, and Huobi (HTX) to the rising challenger SuperEx, this track has moved from a “price war” into the deeper waters of “service and security.” Today, we’ll systematically break down across multiple dimensions: among the high-value P2P platforms of 2025, what are the commonalities and differentiated advantages? First, a quick explanation of the P2P model P2P — peer-to-peer trading — refers to direct fiat transactions. It lets buyers and sellers exchange crypto assets and fiat currency directly without going through an exchange’s centralized matching engine. Under the P2P model: Trades are conducted directly between buyer and seller; The exchange serves only as an escrow/guarantor; Funds flow through banks, e-wallets, or payment apps. In essence, this is a form of “decentralized on/off-ramp” that solves for capital flows under varying regulatory environments worldwide. Precisely because of this, P2P is both a “grey and red” market — grey due to regulatory ambiguity across jurisdictions, red due to enormous demand. The underlying logic of P2P competition: a shift from traffic to trust Competition among P2P exchanges is no longer just “who is cheaper,” but “who is more trustworthy.” Against the backdrop of tighter regulation and maturing users, future P2P platforms must meet three criteria at once: Compliance: AML, KYC, and anti-fraud mechanisms become basic infrastructure — without compliance, there is no trust. Liquidity: A sufficient number of merchants and orders keeps pricing stable — this shapes the first impression for users. Experience & Localization: Support for diverse payment methods, fast response, and transparent dispute resolution — these are the “soft power” factors. Today’s main event: the P2P landscape across major exchanges Binance P2P: The traffic giant’s global standard Binance remains the “industry benchmark” in P2P, thanks to its massive user base and deep liquidity — whether Thai baht, Vietnamese dong, or Nigerian naira, you’ll easily find quotes. Pros: Global coverage across 140+ countries, 50+ fiat currencies; Strict advertiser vetting and a mature dispute arbitration system; Dedicated risk control and escrow mechanisms; Stable fiat reference rates and tiered KYC controls. Cons: Fees have been rising; Stricter bank risk controls in some countries, with frequent account freezes; Higher onboarding threshold for new users (multi-level verification). One-line summary: Binance is still strong — but no longer cheap. OKX P2P: Centered on “security and compliance” Since 2024, OKX has significantly fortified its compliance stack, especially with localized regulatory support in Europe and Southeast Asia. Its P2P process feels more “bank-like” and rigorous. Pros: Coverage in 60+ countries; Instant escrow within OKX Wallet; Fast, localized customer support; Strong AML, flexible tiered KYC. Cons: Retail onboarding can be cumbersome; Fewer advertisers, less aggressive pricing competition; Limited payment methods in some regions. One-line summary: Safe and steady, but not “lightweight.” Bybit P2P: A later entrant with refined UX Bybit entered P2P later, but rapidly attracted younger users with strong UX and UI design. It focuses on a friendly interface, diverse payment methods, and seamless in-app trading. Pros: Supports USDT, BTC, ETH and other majors, with broad coverage; Robust multilingual support (suited for emerging markets); Smooth in-app trading, diverse payment options; Price-protection features for some fiat currencies. Cons: Shallower market depth than Binance/OKX; Full P2P not available in some countries; Limited local merchant enablement policies. One-line summary: Elegant experience, still a young ecosystem. HTX (Huobi) P2P: A veteran’s localized evolution Huobi has long invested in P2P, especially across Southeast Asia and Latin America with an established user base. Post-rebrand, its P2P system has upgraded into a more flexible, region-targeted model. Pros: Supports 40+ fiat currencies with a clean interface; Well-defined pro-merchant system; “Credit score” system to improve safety; Stable escrow. Cons: Brand rename has affected user trust; Customer support can still be slow; Merchant incentive design lags. One-line summary: A steady veteran — slightly conservative. SuperEx P2P: A zero-fee global “game-changer” In 2025, SuperEx’s P2P offering has broken out quickly. As global users focus more on free on/off-ramps and low-cost trading, SuperEx has emerged as a rising star with three strategies: zero fees + global coverage + localization. Pros: Coverage in nearly 200 countries and regions. In many emerging markets (e.g., Nigeria), SuperEx P2P has become a user favorite. Truly zero-fee model: - Unlike platforms that charge ad or service fees, SuperEx offers end-to-end zero platform fees. - No fees for buyers/sellers regardless of trade size or count. Localization: all merchants are local; only local fiat is permitted. Escrow-guaranteed trading: full escrow throughout the process until both sides confirm completion. More human-centric risk controls: transparent AML; all P2P KYC (P2P-only, other sections No-KYC) strictly real-name verified. Comprehensive multilingual support. Cons: While merchant numbers are solid, there’s still room to grow compared to long-established leaders like Binance and OKX. One-line summary: SuperEx P2P is a new-generation global platform with the lowest user costs and the lightest trading experience. SuperEx’s P2P is still growing relative to legacy leaders — but that doesn’t stop it from being one of the most promising P2P platforms in 2025. From a user perspective, SuperEx P2P’s biggest appeal is: No extra transaction costs; A more equal and transparent trading environment; Real dispute arbitration and platform guarantees; Low operational barriers — friendly to beginners; Support for major global fiats (USD, JPY, EUR, etc.). From a platform perspective, P2P not only boosts user stickiness — it’s also a key link in SuperEx’s construction of Web3 financial infrastructure. Conclusion: P2P is reshaping the entry logic of the crypto world In 2025, P2P isn’t just a “buy crypto” entry — it’s an expression of financial sovereignty. Against a backdrop of a fragmented global financial system, every user wants a free and secure asset on/off-ramp. Binance has depth, OKX has compliance, Bybit has UX, Huobi has legacy — while SuperEx has become a truly new entry platform with zero cost, strong security, and global reach. The future of P2P competition isn’t about who’s the biggest — it’s about who understands users the best.