SuperEx_Media

#Nasdaq #Tokenized #Crypto Reuters reports that Nasdaq has submitted a proposal to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) seeking rule changes that would allow securities listed in traditional digital or tokenized form to trade on the Nasdaq exchange. In its filing to the SEC, Nasdaq voiced an issuer-centric concern: “Nasdaq believes that the tokenization of securities should not deprive issuers of the right to determine where and how their shares trade.” The document also notes that Nasdaq has limited ability when it comes to granting issuers such a choice. Nasdaq President Tal Cohen said the company hopes to “build a bridge between the digital-asset world and traditional assets.” He also wrote on LinkedIn: “The challenge and responsibility is to ensure that this transformation always puts investors’ interests first.” This is, without question, a deep-sea torpedo that caught everyone off guard. Why such a strong market reaction? Simply put: It’s no longer small brokers or crypto platforms testing at the margins — it’s Wall Street’s “cathedral of tech stocks” embracing blockchain. For the first time, TradFi and the Web3 world are converging at the level of the “regular army.” So the question is: Can Nasdaq truly open the “tokenized securities” door? What are its motives, implications, and challenges? And what opportunities might crypto investors find here? Below, we break down this historic move from multiple angles. Key Points in Nasdaq’s Proposal (per the public filing) 1) Tokenized securities treated on par with traditional stock Whether ordinary shares or tokenized shares, orders would go into the same order book and follow the same trading rules. In other words, tokenized Tesla or Microsoft that investors buy would carry no difference in shareholder rights versus the conventional stock. Dividends, voting, shareholder meetings — all identical. This sends a crucial signal: tokenization is not a “substitute” but a digitized version of the same regulated security. In the past, crypto markets popularized “tokenized Tesla” or “tokenized Apple” mainly as synthetic assets, typically backed by platform collateral and tracking price via derivatives. Those tokens were not stock; holders lacked shareholder rights and merely got price exposure. By contrast, Nasdaq’s tokenized securities proposal would write shareholder rights into the product’s rule framework. That means a buyer of tokenized Microsoft is fully equal to a buyer of regular Microsoft stock. This is true, compliant security tokenization. For the broader crypto market, that implies a major step up in legitimacy and trust. 2) A “dual-track” settlement model Order entry and matching would remain on existing infrastructure, but settlement could use on-chain tokens. Ultimately, the Depository Trust Company (DTC) and the established clearing system would still provide the backstop. This is a transitional design. In traditional finance, clearing and custody are the core systemic-risk touchpoints. Rather than rushing into “disintermediation,” Nasdaq proposes a two-sword approach: Matching: Keep the mature, proven matching engine for stability. Settlement: Introduce a blockchain tokenization option to boost efficiency and flexibility. Risk backstop: DTC and other clearing institutions remain the ultimate safety net. The dual model satisfies regulators’ safety priorities while letting investors experience blockchain benefits. For cross-border investors in particular, tokenized settlement could compress settlement cycles from T+2/T+1 toward T+0, a huge leap in liquidity and trading experience. 3) Earliest go-live: 2026 If all goes well, U.S. investors could see the first batch of tokenized stocks trade on Nasdaq’s main board as early as Q3 2026. Why 2026? A. Lengthy regulatory review. The SEC’s process includes rigorous review, public comment, industry hearings, and rule amendments — typically 18–24 months at minimum. B. Technical integration. Marrying blockchain with existing market plumbing isn’t just “add a chain.” Account models, KYC/AML, custody, and more require careful re-architecture. C. Market education. Investors — especially traditional institutions — need time to understand “tokenized stock.” Nasdaq must roll out rules, education, and outreach progressively. In other words, 2026 is actually ambitious. If achieved, it would mark a sweeping endorsement of tokenization by traditional finance. Why This Is Epoch-Making A. Shareholder rights go on-chain for the first time. Investors wouldn’t just trade stock prices on a chain; on-chain identity could carry dividends, voting, and governance. In time, smart contracts could even automate shareholder meeting outcomes. B. Lower barriers for global investors. Imagine an investor in a small African town using a crypto wallet to directly hold shares of a Nasdaq-listed company — without convoluted cross-border account opening. C. A compliant regulatory framework takes shape. If approved, Nasdaq’s blueprint becomes a template. The NYSE, Cboe, and even Asian venues (HKEX, SSE) could follow. D. Faster TradFi–Web3 fusion. Two previously siloed worlds — securities markets and crypto — gain a tokenization bridge. For Web3, the design space explodes. E. Liquidity reshaped. Tokenized stocks could ultimately offer 7×24 trading like crypto spot. The classic open-close rhythm of TradFi may be rewritten — very familiar terrain for crypto traders. F. A bigger investable universe. Crypto investors wouldn’t be limited to BTC/ETH/altcoins; they could buy tokenized Tesla or Coca-Cola directly. That reshapes capital flows and asset allocation. G. A true RWA bridge. RWA used to be a buzzword. Putting tokenization on one of the world’s biggest exchanges moves it from the edge to the center. The Challenges to SEC Approval Intense regulatory scrutiny. The SEC won’t greenlight this lightly. Expect comment rounds and industry debate. Traditional powerhouses like Citadel have already warned about potential regulatory-arbitrage risks. Mixed issuer attitudes. Many listed companies may not want their shares tokenized. Recall that when Robinhood listed an OpenAI tokenized stock, OpenAI quickly distanced itself. Technology and security On-chain settlement must interoperate with today’s clearing rails. Any flaw could be amplified. With quantum computing inching closer, security sensitivity only rises. Incumbent interests. Legacy brokers and market-makers may resist trends that disintermediate them and threaten entrenched revenue streams. Conclusion: Finance’s “2026 Moment”? If the SEC ultimately approves, 2026 could be a turning point in financial history: Tokenized stocks enter the main board — true convergence of TradFi and blockchain. Investors gain faster, more convenient, and more global trading. Crypto gets the strongest endorsement it has ever seen. Risks remain: regulatory tug-of-war, technical security, and redistribution of economic rents. None of these resolve overnight. But regardless of outcome, Nasdaq’s application has already sent the clearest signal yet: Blockchain is no longer “alternative” — it is the direction of finance.

I originally thought the public-chain race had already ended and that the global public-chain landscape wouldn’t change much in the short term. Ethereum remains the big brother, but high gas and congestion have long been criticized; newcomers like Solana, Aptos, and Sui keep grabbing the spotlight; BNB Chain leverages its exchange advantage to occupy the traffic gateway. However, the quiet rise of OK Chain has, in a very short time, seized the global blockchain focus — this is a kind of miracle. Here’s the question: On what grounds can OK Chain be discussed as a topic of “core competitiveness”? Can it really gain a firm foothold in the public-chain track? If Ethereum is “the throne,” and Solana is “the ambitious upstart,” then OK Chain is more like a “pragmatic builder.” Its buzz didn’t come out of thin air; it’s built on a balance of performance, ecosystem, and user experience. Breaking down OK Chain’s competitiveness from several key dimensions 1. Performance and cost: a pragmatic choice of high TPS + low gas In the public-chain world, performance and cost are always unavoidable topics. TPS comparison: OK Chain’s average TPS is stably above 4,000. While there’s still a gap with Solana’s theoretical peak, it’s far higher than Ethereum mainnet’s 30–50. Gas fees: On OK Chain, an average transaction costs around $0.01, while the same operation on Ethereum may be $0.50 or more. What does this mean? If you’re a high-frequency trader or engaged in chain gaming and NFT minting, OK Chain’s cost-performance is very compelling. That said, it must be pointed out: high TPS does not equal absolute advantage. Solana has also experienced outages due to performance issues; whether OK Chain can remain stable under extreme market conditions still requires more real-world testing. In other words, performance is OK Chain’s starting point, but not the decisive factor. 2. Developer friendliness: EVM compatibility lowers migration costs For developers, the biggest pain point is: do I need to learn a whole new toolchain, or can I just “copy + tweak” and go live? On this point, OK Chain has taken a steady route — EVM compatibility. Solidity can be used directly, with no extra learning curve. Ethereum ecosystem tools like MetaMask and Hardhat are basically plug-and-play. A DeFi protocol running on Ethereum typically only needs to change a few parameters to migrate to OK Chain. What does this bring developers? Lower trial-and-error costs and faster time to launch. For example: a certain GameFi team originally deployed on Ethereum; after players complained about high gas, they migrated to OK Chain and went live in under a week, resulting in significantly improved user retention. Therefore, developer experience + migration convenience are important weights for OK Chain in winning ecosystem projects. 3. Ecosystem support: fund-driven application rollout Public-chain competition has never been just about technology — it’s about ecosystems. Backed by the OKX exchange, OK Chain naturally has traffic and capital advantages. The official side has launched a $1 billion ecosystem fund, focusing on DeFi, NFTs, GameFi, and other tracks. Some cases: DeFi: OKX Swap has become a leading on-chain DEX, with daily volumes steady in the hundreds of millions of dollars. NFT: The OKX NFT marketplace has surpassed $1 billion in trading volume and has supported cross-chain versions of celebrity IPs. GameFi: A certain chain game launched on OK Chain reached 200,000 DAU in three months, with low gas praised by players as “the most user-friendly experience.” Of course, ecosystem prosperity driven by funding also has limitations: capital support can bring short-term booms, but long-term retention depends on project quality. BNB Chain’s ecosystem experienced a phase of “many projects but bubble-heavy”; whether OK Chain can avoid this remains an open question. 4. User experience and security: low barrier, but with controversies Another competitive point for OK Chain is being more user-friendly to the average user. Staking just 10 OKT lets you become a candidate validator to participate in rewards — a lower threshold than many PoS chains. Wallet UX is clearly optimized: OKX Wallet has integrated OK Chain, enabling one-click staking and one-click cross-chain. Annualized yields hold around 5%–8%, more attractive than traditional bank wealth products. But issues shouldn’t be ignored: OK Chain has about 50 nodes, far fewer than Ethereum’s tens of thousands, so its degree of decentralization is subject to debate. Cross-chain assets rely on smart-contract bridges, which have historically been high-risk targets; more assurances are needed for security. In other words, OK Chain has found a balance between user experience and security, but it’s not perfect. Common misconceptions many new users have about OK Chain “OKT only goes up and never down”: In fact, OKT once fell from $300 to $80 during a bear market. As a public-chain token, it’s heavily affected by market cycles and ecosystem development. “Fewer nodes means more danger”: Not necessarily. Under PoS, validators must stake large amounts; the cost of misbehavior is high, and security isn’t necessarily worse than chains with more nodes. “Cross-chain assets are completely safe”: Not true. Even official bridges have potential risks. These misconceptions remind us: don’t just look at the hype — analyze the underlying logic rationally. So where exactly does OK Chain stand? Compared with Ethereum: It can’t replace it, but it can serve as a “cost-effective complement.” Compared with Solana: Solana pursues extreme performance; OK Chain takes a more balanced route. Compared with BNB Chain: Both are exchange-backed; BNB Chain is more like the “incumbent leader,” while OK Chain is still in the catch-up phase. More precisely, OK Chain doesn’t aim to be the “public-chain overlord,” but hopes to become pragmatic infrastructure within the Web3 ecosystem. OK Chain’s latent ambitions — and signals already released Layer-2 integration: planning to launch OKX Rollup, with TPS expected to break 100,000. Compliance attempts: licenses obtained in Dubai and Malaysia; compliant stablecoin pilots may come in the future. AI + blockchain: testing AI smart-contract auditing to help developers lower security costs. If these plans land, OK Chain may gain more discourse power in the next bull cycle. Back to the original question: what is OK Chain’s core competitiveness? OK Chain’s core competitiveness isn’t about “replacing someone,” but about: balancing performance and cost to give users a more cost-effective option; lowering developer barriers so projects can migrate and launch faster; leveraging the exchange ecosystem to form positive feedback in capital and traffic; finding differentiated paths in compliance and new-tech exploration. For developers, OK Chain is a public-chain environment worth testing and deploying on; For investors, the value of OKT depends more on ecosystem prosperity than short-term speculation; For ordinary users, it’s a low-threshold entry to Web3, but risk awareness must not be lost. In a single sentence: OK Chain isn’t the most dazzling public chain, but it is one of the most pragmatic builders.

Introduction: Why learn spot trading? We often hear professional terms like “spot,” “futures,” “leverage,” and even “options.” These may sound fancy, but if you don’t even understand spot trading, then those derivative plays will read like a foreign language. So, if you’re a newcomer to crypto, or a seasoned player looking to shift from speculation to long-term, steady investing, spot trading is the foundation you must lay first. Why? Three reasons: 1. Spot trading means real ownership In the spot market, what you buy is yours. Once the coins hit your wallet, they’re your assets — you can withdraw them, store them, or hold them long term. This is completely different from “paper” plays like futures and leverage. 2. Relatively lower risk The worst case in spot trading is the asset going to zero. In futures, one misstep can liquidate you to zero. Spot is the “safety threshold” for beginners entering crypto. 3. Low learning cost, intuitive operation Spot is simply: buy and sell. If you’re bullish, you buy; if you’re bearish, you sell; if you want to hold long term, you accumulate. The rules are simple — but the strategies, money management, and mindset behind them are what truly determine whether you can make money. In other words, spot is the starting point for the entire crypto investment world. Whether you later move on to futures, NFTs, or DeFi, you’ll still rely on the basic logic of spot. https://news.superex.com/articles/917.html What is spot trading? The simplest explanation In one sentence: in the market you use USDT (or another stablecoin) to buy the cryptocurrency you want — BTC, ETH, etc. — and you own it immediately. That’s “spot.” 1. Spot trading vs. futures trading Many beginners can’t tell them apart. Here’s a real-life analogy: spot trading is like buying fruit. You pay at the fruit stand for apples and take them home — the apples are yours. Futures trading is like making a bet: you’re not actually buying apples; you’re betting with someone about whether apples will be more expensive or cheaper tomorrow. If you’re right, you profit; if you’re wrong, you lose. You may never see an apple the whole time. Clear enough? So spot is more like “real investing,” while futures is more like “high-risk speculation.” 2. Features of the spot market Simple and intuitive: only buy and sell — no leverage multipliers or liquidation mechanics. High freedom: buy a little or a lot; you can even hold for years. Controllable risk: as long as you don’t go all-in or chase tops, you typically won’t go to zero overnight. Strong liquidity: on large exchanges like SuperEx, orders fill very quickly; you can transact almost anytime. Why choose SuperEx for spot? With so many exchanges out there, why trade spot on SuperEx? Key points: Zero-barrier signup, smooth experience: SuperEx’s registration and onboarding are very friendly. Without complex KYC steps you can start right away — great for beginners. Rich trading pairs: SuperEx offers thousands of spot pairs — not only top assets like BTC and ETH but also newly listed altcoins and meme coins to suit different preferences. Security guaranteed: asset safety is paramount. SuperEx has robust custody and risk controls; to date there have been no incidents of stolen funds, and funds are 100% safe. Strong community vibe: SuperEx has the world’s largest DAO community, covering 22 countries and regions, with diverse initiatives and high user engagement — you’ll find trading partners like you here. How do you trade spot? (Super simple) To make sure beginners can follow along, here’s a “foolproof tutorial”: Step 1: Deposit — first transfer your USDT or other major coins into your SuperEx account. Step 2: Choose a trading pair — if you want BTC, select BTC/USDT. Step 3: Place an order Limit order: set your own buy price. If you want BTC at US$60,000, place an order and wait for it to fill. Market order: buy immediately at the current market price — fastest, but may incur some slippage. Step 4: Hold or sell If you want to hold long term, keep it in your spot account. If you think price has reached your target, sell back to USDT. That’s it! Buy, sell, hold — these make up the entire spot process. Core strategies for spot trading Just knowing how to buy and sell isn’t enough. To truly make money in spot, you must master some core strategies. Here are the most important for beginners: 1. Don’t chase green or panic-sell red Beginners’ biggest problem is emotion: they see people shouting “about to moon,” impulsively buy the top; when it dips, they panic and cut losses. That approach is almost guaranteed to lose. The right approach: When the market surges, stay calm — don’t rush in at the height of emotion. When the market dumps, consider laddering in to lower your cost. 2. Build positions in batches — don’t go all-in Don’t deploy all your funds at once. A better approach is to average in, say 30%–30%–40% at different prices. Even if you’re short-term bag-holding, you can lower the average cost. 3. Set take-profit and stop-loss Take-profit: set a target — for example, take some profit at +30%. Don’t expect to sell the exact top. Stop-loss: for example, cut at −10% to protect principal. 4. Long-term vs. short-term Long-term: suits large-cap coins like BTC/ETH on a long-run uptrend. Short-term: suits hot altcoins for quick gains — but control risk. 5. Always keep cash on hand Don’t lock all your money in spot. Keep some USDT ready so you can buy dips during crashes. Spot trading glossary (must-read for beginners) If you don’t understand these, it’s like shopping on another planet — you’re trading without knowing what you’re doing. Here’s a comprehensive guide to common terms: Trading pair Definition: a two-asset quote used for trading. Example: BTC/USDT means buying BTC with USDT or selling BTC for USDT. Tip: the more popular the pair, the better the liquidity and faster the fills; illiquid pairs have larger slippage and more volatility. Bid/Ask (Buy price/Sell price) Buy price: highest price a buyer is willing to pay. Sell price: lowest price a seller is willing to accept. Tip: the order book aggregates all resting orders; if your buy price meets the sell price, you fill. Market order Definition: buy/sell at the current market price. Pros: fastest — immediate execution. Cons: slippage risk, especially during volatile moves. Limit order Definition: you set the buy/sell price; the system rests your order until price reaches it. Pros: price control, no slippage. Cons: may not fill promptly, or at all. Volume Definition: total quantity traded for a pair within a period. Tip: high volume means active markets; moves are more informative. Low-volume coins are easier to manipulate — higher risk. K-line (candlesticks) Definition: charts showing price over a period, including open, close, high, and low. Tip: beginners don’t need to memorize patterns, but can judge trend via K-lines: a long upper shadow suggests price was pushed down; a long lower shadow suggests it was pulled up. Change (%) Definition: percentage price change — measures speed of rise/fall. Tip: coins with sharp short-term moves are high risk — suited for experienced short-term traders. Pending orders/Entrusted orders Definition: all unfilled buy/sell orders sorted by price. Tip: watching the book helps identify support/resistance and potential direction. Unrealized P&L / Realized P&L Definition: mark-to-market gain/loss on your holdings before selling. Tip: don’t let unrealized gains cloud your judgment, nor panic-sell unrealized losses. Execute your plan. Max supply/Circulating supply Definition: total issuance vs. amount currently tradable in the market. Tip: larger supplies tend to be more stable; small supplies can swing wildly. Support/Resistance Definition: levels where price tends to stop falling (support) or stop rising (resistance). Tip: combine with order-book depth to judge entries/exits. Take-profit/Stop-loss Definition: preset sell levels to lock in gains or cap losses. Tips: Take-profit: e.g., buy BTC at 50,000 USDT, set TP at 60,000 — sell when it hits. Stop-loss: e.g., buy BTC at 50,000 USDT, set SL at 45,000 — sell when it hits to avoid larger losses. Spot wallet vs. Fiat wallet Spot wallet: stores the crypto you trade. Fiat wallet: stores USDT, USDC, and/or fiat currency. Tip: transfer funds to the spot wallet before placing orders. Hot wallet vs. Cold wallet Hot wallet: connected to the internet — convenient but less secure. Cold wallet: offline storage — more secure; better for large, long-term holdings. Tip: keep large sums in cold storage; small amounts for trading in hot wallets. Trading fees Definition: platform fees charged per trade — typically a percentage of notional. Tip: fees vary by pair. Average cost Definition: your average entry price for a coin. Tip: used to calculate unrealized P&L and plan adds/reductions. Grid trading Definition: placing a series of buys/sells within a range to earn from swings. Tip: best for ranges; not suitable for strong trends. Arbitrage Definition: profiting from price differences across exchanges or pairs. Tip: requires larger capital, speed, and low fees; for most retailers, it’s a supplementary tactic. Liquidation Definition: a leverage/futures concept — spot typically doesn’t liquidate, but knowing it helps you understand market risk. Super index Definition: like a stock index, reflecting the aggregate price of the whole market or a category of coins. Tip: use indices to view overall trends and avoid being misled by single-coin moves. Advanced spot strategies + FAQ After the basics, let’s move to practice. Many beginners don’t struggle with “what buy/sell means,” but with “when to buy,” “how to buy to win more,” and “how to avoid pitfalls.” Here are strategies and common Q&As: 1. Core approach to spot trading At its core, spot is buying low and selling high. Easy to say, hard to do — especially in a volatile market. The core logic has three parts: Money management  — Only risk what you can afford to lose per trade.  — Never bet everything on one or two coins. Suggestion: per-coin exposure ≤ 20%–30% of total assets. Trend judgment  — Observe K-lines, volume, and support/resistance.  — Trade with the trend; don’t chase against it. Example: BTC falls from 120,000 to 110,000 USDT. If you chased, you may face short-term losses; if you waited for support and a rebound to buy, risk is lower. Strategy execution  — Don’t trade on vibes — pre-set take-profit/stop-loss.  — Control emotions; don’t overtrade on short-term noise. Example: a coin jumps 20% — many chase and then suffer a 10% pullback and psychological stress. 2. Common spot strategies 2.1. Swing trading Core idea: capture medium/short-term moves. Steps: Find coins with clear trends (up or down). Buy near support; sell near resistance. Use TP/SL. Tips: Avoid overtrading in tight ranges — you’ll get trapped. Watch volume — be cautious if price and volume diverge. 2.2. Dollar-cost averaging (DCA) Core idea: buy in batches to reduce average-price risk. Steps: Buy a fixed dollar amount weekly/monthly. Hold long term to smooth cost. Pros: lower psychological pressure; no need to watch constantly. Suits: investors who are long-term bullish on a coin. 2.3. Grid trading Core idea: within a range, auto place buy/sell orders to earn from swings. Example: BTC ranging 45,000–50,000 USDT — set grids every 500 USDT to capture spreads on each swing. Tip: best when range is clear; during one-way trends, you can get stuck — adjust grids manually. 2.4. Copy trading Core idea: follow KOLs or skilled traders and copy their trades. Pros: reduces learning cost; quick to start. Risk: pros can lose too — only follow trusted traders with stable track records. 2.5. Trend following Core idea: trade with momentum. Steps: Determine trend direction using MAs, MACD, etc. In uptrends, buy and ride; when it ends, sell. In downtrends, wait or sell. Tip: don’t preempt bottoms/tops. Use trailing take-profits before trend ends to protect gains. 3. Common mistakes and fixes 3.1. Chasing pumps and dumping dips Mistake: buy when it’s up, sell when it’s down. Fix: set TP/SL and execute the plan. 3.2. Overconcentrating in one coin Mistake: all-in on one asset — huge downside risk. Fix: diversify and control per-coin exposure. 3.3. Emotional trading Mistake: driven by fear or greed. Fix: make a plan and automate execution (TP/SL, grids, DCA). 3.4. Ignoring fees and slippage Mistake: overtrading — fees eat profits. Fix: account for costs; choose low-fee pairs or platform discounts. 4. Spot trading FAQ (must-read for beginners) Q1: Difference between spot and margin/leverage? Spot: you trade with your own funds/coins; risk is controllable; no liquidation. Leverage: you borrow to amplify size; both returns and risk are magnified; liquidation is possible. Q2: Do I need to read K-lines? Not mandatory, but they help with trend/support/resistance. Q3: Can spot make quick money? It can, but with high risk. Beginners should favor steady strategies — long-term returns are more reliable. Q4: Do I need to sell immediately after buying？ No. Hold per your plan — especially with DCA or swing strategies. Q5: Are fees high? Varies by exchange; using maker orders or higher tiers can reduce them. Q6: Is spot suitable for everyone? It suits most investors, but you must understand risk and money management. It’s not suitable to put all capital into short-term speculation. Q7: How can beginners get up to speed quickly? Learn the exchange interface. Start with paper trading or small amounts. Learn TP/SL and position sizing. Gradually try strategies like DCA, swing, and grid. Conclusion Spot trading is the most basic and most important play in crypto. Understanding terminology, mastering strategies, and controlling risk is how you truly make money. Through swing trading, DCA, grids, and copy-following — combined with TP/SL and money management — you can profit steadily amid market volatility. Spot isn’t a get-rich-quick tool; it’s about using sound strategy and calm execution to keep each trade as controlled as possible. Master these, and you’ll operate like a pro on SuperEx or any other exchange.

#Venus #PhishingAttack #Crypto In September 2025, the Venus Protocol phishing incident ignited an industry-wide debate: a wallet worth 13 million USD was drained, the protocol team urgently halted all functionality, and within 12 hours pulled off an unprecedented “rescue operation.” This wasn’t just another phishing attack — it exposed a deeper contradiction: can a decentralized protocol have it both ways? Can it uphold “code is law,” yet still “extend a helping hand” in a crisis? This article reconstructs the drama end to end — from the attack vector to the protocol’s response, and the governance questions underneath — to unpack the full story behind the Venus phishing incident. A Full Replay of the Venus Phishing Incident A. An Apparently Ordinary Phish: Six Seconds to Ruin Back to 09:05 UTC on September 2, 2025. A Venus Protocol whale (Sun Kuan, founder of Eureka Crypto) opened the Zoom client, ready for routine DeFi operations. No one expected this meeting to spark a 13 million USD vaporization. The hacker didn’t try to crack a private key or smash a protocol bug. Instead, by tampering with the Zoom client and forging a browser extension, they led the victim to believe they were performing an ordinary approval signature. At the moment of signing, the attacker obtained delegated control over the wallet. From click to liquidation: just six seconds. For DeFi users, this is chilling. Almost everyone has signed similar approvals — often faster than reading the terms of service. Faced with a long-prepared social-engineering trap, every defense can collapse instantly. B. The Attack Flow: A “Flash-Loan Murder Mystery” Once the compromised wallet was under control, the hacker executed a textbook DeFi attack sequence: Flash loan ignition: Borrowed 285.72 BTCB with no collateral, instantly commanding tens of millions in liquidity. Repay & transfer: First repaid the victim’s debts, then, leveraging the granted approvals, transferred out all assets, including vUSDT, vUSDC, and BTCB. Re-collateralization: Used the stolen assets as collateral to borrow 7.14 million USD in USDC from Venus — effectively forcing the victim to pay the hacker’s “ransom.” Flash-loan repayment: Closed the loop by repaying the flash loan with the stolen funds — getting something for nothing while shunting the risk to the victim’s wallet. In under a minute, 13 million USD was siphoned out — like a well-rehearsed script. C. Protocol Response: From the Nuclear Option to a Flash Vote Typically, this is where such attacks end: the victim laments, the hacker vanishes, the community snarks for a few days, and life goes on. Not this time. At 09:09, security firms Hexagate and Hypernative fired the first alerts. Venus quickly confirmed the problem and, within 20 minutes, hit the emergency brake — a full protocol pause: Borrowing halted Liquidations suspended Withdrawals frozen The entire DeFi protocol entered standstill mode. This was unprecedented: to save one user, the entire ecosystem shut down. Next, Venus initiated a so-called flash vote. The proposal was blunt: Partially restore functionality to avoid spillover liquidations Force-liquidate the attacker’s positions and seize collateral Conduct a full security review Ultimately restore the protocol Community voting result? 100% in favor. The number recalls the “perfect elections” of authoritarian states. Consensus — or resignation? No one can say for sure. D. Counterstrike: The Hacker’s “Grave of His Own Making” With the vote passed, Venus moved immediately. Out of greed, the hacker left stolen assets as collateral inside the protocol. Those very collateral positions became his death trap. At 21:36 UTC, Venus executed liquidations, forcibly seizing the attacker’s positions. In under 12 hours, the “perfect playbook” turned into a “suicide script.” Funds were recovered, the protocol restored — but at the cost of shaking trust in decentralization across the industry. E. The Victim and the Hand Behind the Curtain Victim Sun Kuan later acknowledged: this was a long-planned phishing campaign. The attacker impersonated an industry acquaintance and used a tampered Zoom client and Chrome extension to induce an unsuspecting approval. Multiple analyses suggest the Lazarus Group, a North Korean hacking outfit, may be behind the attack. They have a long record in crypto, adept at social engineering and patient staging. It means that even seasoned players can be defenseless against a nation-state adversary. Decentralization’s Dilemma: Save People or Obey the Law? 1. Venus’s actions sparked intense controversy. “Code is law” has long been DeFi’s golden rule: once a smart contract is deployed, no one should have the power to change or interfere. It stands for extreme transparency and certainty — rules on-chain, equal for all, no exceptions. But in this case, Venus intervened — triggering the emergency pause and even force-liquidating the hacker’s positions via governance. While this effectively clawed back losses, it forces a rethink: how “decentralized” is a decentralized protocol? From a user’s standpoint, the intervention is almost beyond reproach. Leaving a 13 million USD loss unaddressed isn’t just a personal nightmare — it can spark panic selling. Venus’s “emergency brake” was like pulling the fire alarm in a burning building, preventing spread. For most users, fund safety trumps the abstract principle of decentralization. From decentralization’s standpoint, though, this breaks the myth. An emergency switch admits there are visible hands behind the protocol — capable of freezing markets, changing rules, and deciding outcomes. How different is that from TradFi’s “lender of last resort”? In a sense, Venus became a quasi-bank beneath a decentralized veneer. 2. More troubling: who decides when to invoke emergency powers? If it’s for hackers, everyone applauds; but if, in future, it targets an “non-compliant wallet” or a “politically sensitive transaction,” could the same rationale apply? Once the precedent is set, decentralization’s boundary blurs. This is a paradox the entire DeFi space can’t avoid: Ideal: all power to code — even if user error destroys funds, no human intervention. Reality: users want a safety net — someone to help when the unexpected hits. This debate isn’t new. In 2020’s MakerDAO black swan, to stabilize DAI the community had to rush in auction mechanics; In 2022’s Solana outages, validators coordinated restarts to keep the system alive; In 2016’s The DAO hack, Ethereum hard-forked to roll back transactions and save the ecosystem. These cases show that when interest collides with ideology, the blockchain world often oscillates between purity and pragmatism. So when someone asks, “If DeFi still relies on human intervention, how is it different from a bank?” — the answer may not be binary. The difference may be: TradFi rules are typically set by a few institutions; users passively accept. DeFi interventions at least require open, on-chain governance votes — decisions are transparent and auditable. This is the subtle, fragile boundary between DeFi and TradFi: DeFi seeks to retain a decentralization ethos, yet admits that in extremes, a human hand may be needed. Venus simply surfaced the problem early. Conclusion From the 09:05 click to the 21:58 restoration, the Venus phishing incident looks like a “successful rescue,” but it leaves bigger questions: Can a decentralized protocol be truly decentralized? Are emergency powers a safety net or a centralization shackle? Faced with real-world risk, must ideals ultimately compromise? Perhaps that’s the most memorable part of this episode: hackers can steal assets, but what may truly be stolen is people’s faith in decentralization.

#Pokémon #RWA #Crypto Pokémon needs no introduction. For most people born between 1980 and 2000, it’s a childhood memory — a two-dimensional dream. Now that 2D world is breaking the fourth wall: Pokémon trading cards are becoming deeply intertwined with crypto. From physical cards to on-chain tokens, from offline collecting to on-chain trading, Pokémon is no longer just childhood nostalgia — it’s turning into a real financial experiment with crypto characteristics. Of course, this isn’t the first time the Pokémon franchise has crossed boundaries. Let’s start from the earliest versions and unpack this “on-chain Pokémon craze”: is it a bubble, or the next multi-billion-dollar narrative? Three Waves of the Pokémon Card Craze: Nostalgia, Celebrities, On-Chain The story of Pokémon cards is far more than “a kids’ game.” Behind it lies a complete market development history. Each wave of hype is the result of culture, entertainment, and finance intertwining. 2016: Nostalgia-Driven The XY Evolutions set was a milestone — virtually a one-to-one recreation of the 1999 Base Set design. Charizard and Pikachu, which grew up alongside the post-’90s generation, returned to the stage. For many players who had become adults, these were more than cards; they were tangible forms of childhood memories. Some joked, “We couldn’t afford it as kids; now we can finally make up for it.” This nostalgia surge heated the market instantly. Niche promo cards like Mario & Luigi Pikachu were just US$30 in 2016; today they’re worth over US$10,000, validating the reality of emotional premium. 2020: Celebrity-Driven If 2016 was “collective sentiment from old players,” then 2020 was “hard-core boosts from traffic and capital.” The global explosion of Pokémon GO brought both new and old fans into the TCG market. What truly pushed cards into the public eye was celebrity effect. Logan Paul appeared on stream wearing a first-edition Charizard necklace worth millions, igniting social media. Steve Aoki went further, opening “Aoki’s Card House,” driving a trend that combined physical card trading with online shows. In this wave, cards were no longer just a “geek niche hobby,” but moved to the intersection of mass culture and capital markets. 2025: On-Chain Boost By 2025, the craze had been pushed to a new dimension. The launch of Pokémon Pocket digital card packs let mobile users experience the thrill of ripping packs, lowering the barrier to spread. Meanwhile, card vendors on YouTube have risen, and “live pack breaks” became a form of entertainment content that drew in younger users. What truly sent the market boiling was the entry of crypto and RWA (real-world assets on-chain). The on-chain $CARDS gashapon (capsule) machine generated US$16.6 million in revenue in just one week, fully replicating the narrative logic of NFTs and GameFi — but backed by a real, 30-year-old Pokémon IP. At that moment, sentiment, traffic, and crypto capital converged, and Pokémon cards entered a new era of “on-chain financialization.” Why Are Crypto Players Targeting Pokémon? Many may wonder: crypto market participants already hold Bitcoin, Ethereum, NFTs — why cross over to Pokémon? Behind this are three layers of logic. Similar Market Logic: Crypto and Cards Are Essentially “Kindred Assets” The crypto and TCG markets are highly similar in their core logic. Scarcity: Bitcoin’s supply is 21 million; first-edition Charizard cards are also extremely limited. Scarcity + consensus is the core value logic for both. Cyclicality: Crypto has bull and bear cycles; cards also have booms and cool-offs. The 2016, 2020, and 2025 waves are somewhat analogous to Bitcoin’s halving cycles. Speculation: Whether coins or cards, participants share the “buy today, rise tomorrow” mindset. Cards trade actively in traditional secondary markets, resonating with crypto’s 24/7 trading culture. In other words, cards and crypto are both “novel financial derivatives” in nature — just with different forms. For crypto natives, Pokémon cards are another kind of “blue-chip NFT.” RWA in Practice: Cards Are the Easiest Physical Assets to Tokenize RWA (real-world assets on-chain) is a crypto buzzword of 2024–2025. People have tried tokenizing real estate, bonds, even gold. But the assets that truly satisfy all three — scarcity, ease of custody, and global recognition — turn out to be Pokémon cards. Clear scarcity: Print runs of rare cards are public data, with grading firms like PSA providing endorsements. Small and easy to custody: Unlike gold or real estate, cards only need storage in a vault or grading facility. Global consensus: Pokémon is one of the strongest IPs worldwide, transcending language and culture — with name recognition arguably higher than “Bitcoin.” This makes cards the optimal proving ground for RWA. Crypto users can buy tokenized fractions of cards, enjoy price movements, and avoid physically holding the card. It naturally fits NFT fractionalization and DeFi collateralization. Gashapon Gamification: Meeting Crypto Players’ “Thrill Demand” Crypto traders are used to high volatility and high stimulation. Traditional card collecting feels too “slow” by comparison. The $CARDS gashapon machine precisely addresses this pain point. Players pay US$50 per pull and get Pokémon of varying rarities. The project claims positive EV: on average, the cards drawn are worth more than the cost. All transactions and results are on-chain, avoiding behind-the-scenes manipulation. This model is essentially an upgraded NFT blind box/GameFi — except behind it isn’t a virtual JPG but a multi-billion-dollar Pokémon card market. Crypto players are piling in not only because it’s a new narrative, but because it satisfies their craving for thrills and wealth fantasies. A similar example was the recent “BTC lottery machine” — the same FOMO logic. Beyond Speculation: A Strategic Play to “Go Mainstream via IP” Crypto has long had a problem: outsiders don’t get it. NFT, DeFi, Layer 2… these terms are too abstract for the average person. Pokémon is different. Kids know Pikachu. Parents have bought cartridges or plushies. Hundreds of millions globally have played Pokémon. When a crypto protocol tokenizes Pokémon cards, it’s leveraging this super IP to “break out of the bubble.” That’s much easier than telling a story from scratch. Just as NBA Top Shot used basketball to popularize NFTs, Pokémon is a natural bridge for crypto to the mainstream. Capital’s Push: Not Just Retail; Institutions Are Betting Too Don’t forget: behind the financialization of Pokémon cards aren’t just retail and KOLs. Some hedge funds are positioning in high-end cards as alternative assets. Grading firms like PSA and Beckett are partnering with RWA platforms to provide attestation/custody. Major exchanges are even considering “card indices,” letting investors one-click into a market-wide basket. With capital flowing in, “on-chain cardification” may shift from a niche party to the next large-scale financial product track. In short, crypto targeting Pokémon isn’t accidental. It’s the inevitable result of market logic, RWA trials, gamified mechanics, and capital’s push. For crypto natives, it’s not just a “new narrative,” but a ticket to the mainstream. Opportunities and Pitfalls of On-Chain Pokémon 1. Opportunities: A. A Hundred-Billion-Dollar Market Traditional TCG market size: US$25–30 billion per year. After blockchain-ization, CEO expectations are for 3–4× growth, reaching the hundred-billion level. B. Influx of New Participants Crypto users crossing into collecting. KOLs and streamers driving FOMO. C. Financialization of Cards Tokenization → fractional trading. Collateralized lending → unlocks capital efficiency. Liquidity pools → give collectibles instant marketable value. 2. Pitfalls: A. Overheated Speculation Many crypto users enter without collector sentiment. Once returns fade, they may exit rapidly and dump. B. Fragmented Liquidity The traditional market (eBay, card shows, OTC) is already scattered. If every RWA protocol builds its own system, fragmentation worsens. C. Emotional Value Is Hard to Tokenize Collectors like the physical: holding the card in hand. On-chain tokenization can’t solve “sentiment,” which may limit long-term acceptance. D. Price Manipulation Risk As with NFTs, some may wash-trade to push prices up. Aggregator data can be maliciously exploited. Conclusion: On-Chain Pokémon — Cross-Over Speculation and Genuine Collecting On-chain Pokémon isn’t a story pulled from thin air; it’s the product of nostalgia + celebrity push + crypto finance acting together. It may replicate NFT-style frenzy, or burn out like some GameFi episodes. But what’s different this time is the backing of a 30-year-old IP and a market demand long since validated. For crypto natives, it’s a new-narrative speculation arena. For collectors, it’s just another fluctuation amid the hype. The craze will come and go, but the cards will remain in some people’s drawers, carefully preserved. Perhaps that is Pokémon’s true magic: traversing dimensions and finance, it is both an asset and a feeling.

#Blockchain #GDP#Trump On August 28, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced that, starting from July 2025, it would publish real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) data on nine blockchains. This is a landmark move that inevitably brings to mind the “killer app” the blockchain space has long been searching for. From Bitcoin payments, to DeFi financial experiments, to NFTs and GameFi, people have been trying to connect the real world with the on-chain world. Now, as an official agency of the world’s largest economy chooses to use blockchains to publish key economic data, the significance is indeed profound. What does this mean? Why is the United States doing this? What far-reaching impacts might it have on the crypto industry, the DeFi ecosystem, and even traditional financial markets? This article breaks it down. Click to register SuperEx Click to download the SuperEx APP Click to enter SuperEx CMC Click to enter SuperEx DAO Academy — Space U.S. Department of Commerce: Writing the GDP File Hash onto Blockchains On August 28, 2025, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) released the revised growth data for real GDP in Q2 2025–3.3%. This is the “Second Estimate” for quarterly GDP, i.e., the version revised on the basis of the advance estimate. But unlike in the past, this time the data did not remain only as a PDF on the official website; it was also simultaneously “attested on-chain.” The Department of Commerce performed a SHA-256 hash on the PDF file and obtained a unique hash value: c70972a12908b73c2407d9cc6842ba2a02203a690f3090cd29f30c45f0cfd93d This hash was then written to nine blockchains: Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, TRON, Stellar, Avalanche, Arbitrum, Polygon, and Optimism. On the Ethereum chain, you can even directly verify via a smart contract address that this hash indeed exists. In other words, anyone can verify whether the file has been tampered with by comparing the hash generated from the PDF. The transaction hashes or smart contract addresses for each blockchain are as follows: Bitcoin transaction hash: fcf172401ca9d89013f13f5bbf0fc7577cb8a3588bf5cbc3b458ff36635fec00 Ethereum smart contract address: 0x36ccdF11044f60F196e981970d592a7DE567ed7b Solana transaction hash: 43dJVBK4hiXy1rpC5BifT8LU2NDNHKmdWyqyYDaTfyEeX8y3LMtUtajW3Q22rCSbmneny56CBtkictQRQJXV1ybp TRON transaction hash: 3f05633fb894aa6d6610c980975cca732a051edbbf5d8667799782cf2ae0404 Stellar transaction hash: 89e4d300d237db6b67c 510f71c8cd2f690868806a6b40a40a5a9755f4954144a Avalanche smart contract address: 0x36ccdF11044f60F196e981970d592a7DE567ed7b Arbitrum One smart contract address: 0x36ccdF11044f60F196e981970d592a7DE567ed7b Polygon PoS smart contract address: 0x36ccdF11044f60F196e981970d592a7DE567ed7b Optimism smart contract address: 0x36ccdF11044f60F196e981970d592a7DE567ed7b This may look like a “small step,” but in fact it is an official acknowledgment of blockchain’s value in “tamper resistance and public transparency”: Tamper-proof: once the GDP file is on-chain, the data can be verified no matter who questions it in the future. Multi-chain publication: selecting nine chains avoids reliance on a single platform and further enhances credibility. Trust enhancement: against a backdrop of long-standing skepticism about the authenticity of U.S. economic data, this is a “notarization-style operation.” Why is the United States putting GDP data on-chain? This is the core question many people care about: why the United States, and why in 2025? From logic and context, the motivations can be summarized on several levels. First, enhancing the credibility of the data. For a long time, U.S. economic data — especially GDP and CPI — has often been questioned. Some investors, media, and even politicians have publicly suspected “window dressing” or “methodological bias.” In such a climate, carving the data “in stone” amounts to a kind of “cryptographic notarization.” As long as the PDF file matches the on-chain hash, no one can claim the data was altered after the fact. It’s a way to bolster market trust. Second, aligning with the trend of digital governance and transparency. The United States has sought to lead in digitalization and data governance. GDP is one of the most core macro indicators. Putting it on-chain sends a signal: the government is willing to use blockchain technology to improve governance transparency. This is not just a “technical action,” but an “institutional statement,” implying more official data may go on-chain in the future — such as unemployment, federal budget outlays, or even fiscal deficit figures. Third, international competitive pressure in financial markets. The United States is not the only country experimenting. China, the EU, and Japan have all explored putting government data on-chain to varying degrees. As the core of the global financial system, the U.S. needs to ensure it still holds discourse power in the “Web3 era.” Putting GDP on-chain, in a sense, signals to the world: the U.S. intends to lead not only traditional finance, but also on-chain finance. Fourth, preparation for future financial innovation. Mere “data disclosure” is only the first step. More profoundly, these on-chain data points can become the underlying support for various financial products. For example, if the Federal Reserve were to experiment with issuing on-chain Treasuries in the future, GDP growth could serve as a reference indicator for debt sustainability; or in DeFi, derivatives protocols could directly use official GDP data as an underlying variable to design new on-chain contracts. These scenarios may still be conceptual, but once the data are on-chain, the possibilities open up. Fifth, easing the public’s crisis of trust in the government’s statistical system. GDP statistics are not a one-off result but a gradual revision process: first the Advance Estimate, then a month later the Second Estimate, and later the Final Estimate. This often leads markets to question: if the data keep being revised, what’s the point of the earlier numbers? Now, fixing each stage’s data on-chain provides a “fully traceable” mechanism — ensuring openness and transparency while allowing the public to see the entire revision trajectory. In summary, the U.S. move to put GDP data on-chain is by no means a small technical trial balloon; it is a bundle of multiple goals: a political signal and an institutional innovation; an experiment with blockchain technology and a laying of groundwork for the future financial order. In other words, it is a multi-pronged strategy of strengthening trust, staking a claim to the future, and maintaining financial discourse power. Potential impacts on the crypto market 1. New momentum for prediction markets If economic data can be put on-chain in real time via oracles, prediction markets (such as Polymarket) will have more authoritative data sources, avoiding disputes caused by data authenticity. 2. Inflation-linked stablecoins and DeFi innovation Imagine a stablecoin not pegged to the U.S. dollar but to the U.S. PCE price index — products like this are entirely possible. 3. Further integration of Web3 and traditional finance This implies a tighter fusion of traditional finance and on-chain applications. For example, on-chain derivatives markets could directly reference GDP data as a fundamental variable. Cold reflection: On-chain ≠ absolute truth While this is a milestone event, its limitations must also be seen: On-chain guarantees only immutability: if erroneous data are uploaded, the blockchain itself will not correct them. Methodology issues remain: GDP itself undergoes multiple revisions (advance, second, final); its authority still relies on the statistical agency. Politics cannot be ignored: even on-chain, public doubts about data authenticity cannot be completely eliminated. Conclusion The U.S. government’s move to put GDP data on-chain is not merely a technical experiment but an institutional signal — the world’s largest economy is beginning to acknowledge the value of blockchain and attempting to apply it to the most core economic indicators. Of course, on-chain data do not equal absolute truth, but they at least make a more transparent financial system possible. In other words, this step may not be the end, but the beginning of a new era for the on-chain economy.

#WLFI #Trump #Crypto On September 1, 2025, the World Liberty Financial (WLFI) token — deeply involved with the Trump family — officially launched on multiple exchanges worldwide, including Binance, OKX, Bybit, Kraken, Bitget, MEXC, Gate.io, SuperEx, and other mainstream platforms. The event quickly sparked global discussion: the #WLFI tag trended on X, 24-hour trading volume surpassed US$4.6 billion, and its market cap once surged to US$6.5 billion on day one, briefly ranking among the top 25 crypto assets globally. However, within just a few hours, WLFI’s price experienced extreme volatility — from a spike to a sharp halving: the opening high reached US$0.47, then fell to as low as US$0.20, a drop of more than 56%. This pattern not only recalls previous “story token” cases, but also left the market oscillating between excitement and doubt. This article, combining public data and market feedback, takes a deep look at WLFI’s listing landscape: why did it attract such massive attention? What logic underlies the large price swings? And where do the opportunities and risks lie for ordinary investors and exchanges respectively? Click to register SuperEx Click to download the SuperEx APP Click to enter SuperEx CMC Click to enter SuperEx DAO Academy — Space Background and Positioning of WLFI: More Than Just a “Political Token” WLFI stands for World Liberty Financial. The project began in 2023, spearheaded by real estate tycoons Steve Witkoff and his son, with deep involvement from the Trump family. Donald Trump himself serves as “Chief Crypto Advocate,” while Eric, Don Jr., and Barron appear as “Web3 Ambassadors,” giving the project a strong political and traffic halo. But WLFI does not position itself as a mere meme or political token; instead, it emphasizes becoming a bridge between TradFi and Web3. Its ecosystem narrative includes: Stablecoin USD1: a fully reserved dollar-pegged stablecoin, already integrated with Solana, with future cross-chain support; Multi-chain deployment: covering Ethereum, Solana, and BNB Chain to ensure higher liquidity and ecosystem penetration; Community governance: WLFI holders can participate in protocol governance, with each wallet’s voting power capped at 5% to prevent whale dominance; Anti-CBDC stance: advocates that a U.S. dollar stablecoin can serve as a decentralized alternative, emphasizing financial freedom and American values. In other words, WLFI positions itself as a composite narrative of “politics + finance + Web3,” leveraging the Trump family’s traffic effect while seeking alignment with mainstream DeFi via stablecoin, lending, and governance functions. Listing Panorama: Global Coverage + Community Expectations WLFI’s launch was not confined to a few platforms but was an all-around exchange debut: Binance, OKX, Bybit, Bitget, SuperEx, Kraken, MEXC, Gate.io, HTX, KuCoin, LBank, Bitrue, Flipster, as well as Uniswap and Raydium, ensuring on-chain tradability. By region: Korean exchanges Upbit and Bithumb joined, attracting substantial Asian capital; Coinbase followed a bit later, covering U.S. users. This near “full-coverage” listing strategy gave WLFI massive liquidity support in a short time. According to Coinglass data, open interest on launch day once approached US$1 billion, with combined spot and derivatives volume exceeding US$4.6 billion. For exchanges, such a globally watched hot asset carries huge risks, but also represents a concentrated explosion of liquidity and trading demand. On September 1, 2025 at 13:30 (UTC), SuperEx opened trading for the WLFI/USDT pair, becoming one of the first/day-one exchanges to list it. Circulating Supply Exceeded Expectations: The Fuse for the Day-One “Halving” The most contentious focus after WLFI’s launch was that the initial circulating supply far exceeded market expectations. Total supply: 100 billion tokens; Initial circulating supply: 24.67 billion tokens, about 24.7%; Market’s prior expectation: 3–5 billion tokens. This discrepancy directly led to heavy selling pressure post-listing. In particular, early investors bought tokens at US$0.015 and US$0.05 during two 2024 financing rounds, with an average cost of about US$0.027. When the token price briefly spiked to US$0.47 intraday, early investors’ paper gains approached US$1.9 billion, about 3.5× their input. Faced with such windfall profits, whale profit-taking was hardly surprising. Data show that 80% of the top ten public-sale investors partially or fully sold. This also explains why WLFI dropped by more than 56% within just a few hours. The Trump Family’s Wealth Effect: 83% Liquidity Control Among all holders, the biggest winners are undoubtedly the Trump family. Tokens directly or indirectly controlled by the Trump family total about 20.6 billion, accounting for 83.7% of circulating supply; among these, 10 billion are held by the project treasury, 7.78 billion allocated to strategic partner Alt5 Sigma (a Trump family holding company), and 2.88 billion for marketing and liquidity. In addition, the Trump family raised about US$1.5 billion in cash via token sales, with the valuation of unvested tokens around US$8.2 billion. From a wealth-efficiency perspective, WLFI enabled the Trump family to achieve unprecedented capital magnification in a very short time. At the same time, the very high concentration has raised doubts about the project’s decentralization. Violent Turbulence in the Derivatives Market WLFI’s sharp swings hit not only the spot market but also the derivatives market directly. Within hours of listing, total liquidations across the network reached US$12.36 million; Of that, long liquidations were US$8.51 million and short liquidations US$3.85 million; A large number of leveraged longs that chased the rally were forcibly closed, exacerbating the decline. Notably, of the first unlocked 4 billion tokens for early investors, about 720 million remain unclaimed, which means selling pressure has not been fully released and may continue to affect price action going forward. Divergent Market Views: Opportunities and Risks Coexist WLFI’s listing split the market into two sharply different camps: Bulls: argue that WLFI’s narrative is unique — political backing from the Trump family plus DeFi functionality such as stablecoin, lending, and governance. In the short term it may break US$0.30 again, and in the medium to long term it could gain institutional tailwinds under a U.S. financial narrative. Bears: question opacity in the token-economic model, especially since details were released only one hour before listing; the initial float far exceeded expectations; and the project exhibits a severe “wealth transfer effect,” possibly making it a short-term hyped “story token.” Based on historical experience, WLFI could become a narrative-driven star asset — or cool rapidly under the double pressure of sell-offs and regulation. Conclusion WLFI’s launch is undoubtedly one of the landmark events in the 2025 crypto market. It blends political narrative, financial design, and Web3 concepts, creating enormous short-term wealth effects and market volatility. However, the rapid halving in price, high concentration, unlock-driven selling pressure, and regulatory uncertainty all make its long-term outlook challenging. Ultimately, WLFI’s success or failure depends not only on the Trump family’s traffic and narrative, but also on whether it can truly deliver in its stablecoin, lending, and governance ecosystems. That is the key the market will keep pressing for.

#BitcoinAsia #Bitcoin #Trump Just a couple of days ago, we did a deep dive into the Tokyo WebX Summit — often hailed as Asia’s most important crypto event — a stage that brought together global regulators, industry leaders, and policymakers. Heath Tarbert, former CFTC Chairman and now Circle’s Chief Legal Officer, along with Satsuki Katayama, Japanese Senator and Chair of the Budget Committee, represented two of the world’s most important economies and engaged in a fiery dialogue on crypto regulation and the development of stablecoins. If the 2025 Tokyo WebX Summit ignited the atmosphere for Asia’s crypto industry, then the 2025 Hong Kong Bitcoin Asia Conference was nothing short of a complete upgrade. Unlike previous conferences that often spoke vaguely about “blockchain applications,” this event kept the spotlight firmly on Bitcoin itself — and the grand narratives it represents: global reserve asset, institutional adoption, protocol evolution, and wealth preservation. From the Trump family on stage, to CZ, Balaji, and countless institutions and startups, Bitcoin is no longer just “digital gold.” It is being positioned as the underlying logic of future financial order. And this time, the story is no longer an echo chamber of insiders — it is a symphony of global institutions, national capital, and top-tier enterprises. This article will break down the core signals of Bitcoin Asia 2025, and show how Bitcoin is moving from idealism to reality. Click to register SuperEx Click to download the SuperEx APP Click to enter SuperEx CMC Click to enter SuperEx DAO Academy — Space Macro Narrative: Bitcoin’s “Victory Moment” 1. The Trump Family: From “De-banked” to Full Bitcoin Embrace One of the biggest highlights of the conference came from Eric Trump’s remarks. As Executive Vice President of the Trump Organization, he shared an ironic story: for political reasons, the Trump family was “de-banked” by U.S. financial institutions. In other words, they were marginalized by the traditional banking system, even denied normal financial services. And that ironically became their entry point into Bitcoin. Eric bluntly stated that Bitcoin hitting $1 million is just a matter of time, and he advised investors to “buy and hold for five years.” Even more interestingly, he floated a wild idea — maybe one day, tariffs could be paid in Bitcoin. Behind this is a strong political signal: When the traditional financial system shuts the door on certain groups, Bitcoin becomes the alternative. In the dilemma of being “de-banked,” Bitcoin is no longer just a wealth allocation tool, but a kind of financial refuge. Eric also revealed that he now spends 90% of his time in the Bitcoin community, and he highly praised his father’s administration for its digital asset policy pivot. In just 7 months, progress in U.S. digital assets has exceeded that of the past 10 years. The signal is very clear: Bitcoin is shifting from rebel outsider to policy tool, entering a true state-level narrative. 2. Balaji: Bitcoin’s Algorithmic Revolution and New Challenges Another heavyweight guest, Balaji, presented an even more extreme vision: Bitcoin will end the Federal Reserve’s control, replacing human decision-making with algorithmic monetary policy. Imagine a world where there are no longer “Fed rate hikes or cuts” as macro gambles, but instead completely transparent algorithmic rules. What would the global financial system look like then? Balaji even predicted that when Bitcoin’s price breaks from $100,000 to $1 million, half of the world’s billionaires will come from crypto. The traditional wealth structure will be completely overturned. But he didn’t ignore risks either: Quantum computing could threaten Bitcoin’s cryptographic foundation. 51% attacks remain a potential black swan. Developer security and system backdoors are issues that must be solved in the future. This reminds us: Bitcoin’s victory is not the end of the story, but the beginning of new challenges. Market Sentiment: Bullish Consensus vs. Altcoin Awkwardness 1. The Signal of a “Long Bull” for Bitcoin Podcast host Stephan Livera predicted that this Bitcoin cycle will last longer than any before. He even cited the “power law model,” arguing that by 2045, Bitcoin could reach $10 million per coin, with a market cap of $200 trillion. Sounds like fantasy? Don’t forget: Central banks like Switzerland’s are already holding Bitcoin ETFs. More and more countries are experimenting with “sovereign mining.” This means Bitcoin demand is no longer just “speculation,” but has entered the level of national strategic reserves. 2. The “Value Dilemma” of Altcoins Compared to Bitcoin’s spotlight, most altcoins appear awkward. Livera was blunt: “The utility token theory is wrong. Just because a token is used as gas doesn’t mean it has value.” In other words, 99% of altcoins are either speculative plays or just tech experiments. Very few can truly sustain long-term value. Meanwhile, Mike Jarmolish from Lightning Ventures was even more extreme in his optimism: “There are no bearish reasons.” He argued that Bitcoin’s OTC buyer base is so massive that it’s impossible to go back to the kind of deep pullbacks we saw in the past. The core signal here: in 2025, the main storyline is Bitcoin — everything else is just side quests. CZ’s Forward-Looking Thoughts: Stablecoins, RWA, DEX, and AI Stablecoins: Every Country Will Have Its Own CZ’s first point cut straight to the heart: stablecoins are blockchain’s native application, and in the future, every country will have at least a few. The logic is simple: stablecoin = digital dollar at the national level. It’s not a matter of if, but when. RWA: Liquidity Challenges and Regulatory Hurdles CZ described Real-World Asset tokenization (RWA) as something that must be explored, but hasn’t yet proven itself. The main problems are: Insufficient liquidity. Complex regulation. Obvious flaws in product mechanisms. This means RWA still has a long way to go before it becomes an institutional narrative on par with Bitcoin. DEX: Inevitable Rise Over CEX Even though Binance remains the largest centralized exchange, CZ openly admitted: within 5–10 years, DEXs will surpass CEXs. Why? DEXs offer higher transparency and no KYC. User demand for self-custody is getting stronger. Though DEXs today have issues with UX and fees, technological progress is inevitable. AI + Web3: Crypto as AI’s Native Currency Perhaps the most eye-catching point was CZ’s view on AI: in the future, AI agents will generate massive volumes of micropayments, and crypto is the only viable payment form. In other words, AI’s financial system will inevitably be blockchain-based. This isn’t just a merging of two tracks, but potentially the most important tech convergence of the next few decades. Institutional Wave Another standout highlight of Bitcoin Asia 2025 was the repeated emphasis on the concept of “Bitcoin Treasury Companies.” Since 2020, the U.S. money supply has grown 30%. Bitcoin is the most effective hedge against inflation. And yet, currently only about 175 listed companies globally have adopted Bitcoin treasury strategies — a mere 0.3%. In other words, this wave has only just begun. Tech Upgrades: New Directions for the Bitcoin Protocol Eric Wall, founder of Taproot Wizards, raised a thought-provoking point: Bitcoin is undergoing an “enterprise acquisition.” What does that mean? As more institutions and listed companies join in, influence over Bitcoin protocol upgrades is shifting from community to enterprise. He highlighted the potential of the op_cat upgrade, as well as using Stark/ZK proofs to improve privacy and scalability. This sends a crucial signal: the Bitcoin of the future won’t just be “digital gold,” but an evolving financial operating system. Conclusion Looking back at the whole conference, several clear threads emerge: Macro level: Bitcoin has upgraded from “people’s money” to a strategic asset for nations and institutions. Market level: The bullish consensus is overwhelming, while altcoins are gradually being sidelined. Tech level: Protocol upgrades, AI integration, and DEX growth are all pushing the Bitcoin ecosystem to new heights. Institutional level: Bitcoin treasury companies and ETFs are prying open the gates of traditional capital markets. In one sentence: Bitcoin Asia 2025 didn’t just let people see the future of price — it showed us that Bitcoin is already starting to shape a new financial order.

#Solana #TreasuryRevolution #Bitcoin Remember back in 2020, when Michael Saylor led MicroStrategy (then Strategy) to boldly put Bitcoin onto its balance sheet? At that time, many people were whispering: “Are they crazy?” And the result? Reality slapped the doubters in the face. Bitcoin skyrocketed, MicroStrategy’s market cap soared to $100 billion, and it became the flagship name of the “Bitcoin corporate play.” Soon, more and more companies followed suit, and a brand-new term appeared — “Treasury Company.” Today, it’s Solana’s turn to step onto the stage. Solana treasury companies are rising with unstoppable momentum. Some even say this is the new round of “Treasury Revolution” after Bitcoin. What Is a Treasury Company, and Why Is It Becoming Popular? Let’s clarify the concept first. A “treasury company” refers to a publicly listed enterprise or large institution directly holding cryptocurrencies (such as BTC, ETH, SOL) on its balance sheet as strategic reserve assets. The logic behind it is actually very straightforward: 1. Hedging against inflation Fiat money keeps depreciating — cash left idle just evaporates. Instead of holding fiat, why not replace it with digital gold or high-growth crypto assets? Traditionally, corporate treasuries relied on U.S. bonds or gold for hedging. But increasingly, companies now regard BTC and ETH as the “gold of the 21st century,” capable of resisting inflation over the long term. 2. Valuation premium from capital markets MicroStrategy has already proven the point: once your financial report says “we hold Bitcoin,” the stock market instantly assigns a valuation premium. Investors see you as forward-looking and reward you with higher multiples. That’s why “treasury companies” once became such a hot capital market narrative. 3. Brand endorsement Being a treasury company is essentially telling the market: “We stand with crypto natives.” This not only attracts younger crypto investors but also adds brand hype. Especially for tech firms, it’s a way of declaring: “We don’t just understand future trends, we’re willing to bet on future assets.” 4. Liquidity management Many listed companies have huge cash piles — think Apple, Tesla. In the past, this money went into buybacks or dividends. Crypto assets now offer a brand-new option. Compared with the low interest rates of traditional financial markets, holding BTC or other crypto assets provides high-risk, high-reward alternative allocation. So when Bitcoin treasury companies went viral back then, it wasn’t without reason. It was both a financial innovation and a capital markets marketing play. For enterprises, this was a way to turn cold cash into a strategic lever that could boost valuation and tell a better story. The Precedent of Bitcoin Treasuries Real-world cases are always more convincing than theory. Let’s quickly review the timeline of Bitcoin treasury adoption: 2020: MicroStrategy was the first mover, stuffing Bitcoin into its treasury. Traders immediately treated MicroStrategy as a proxy for Bitcoin: when Bitcoin rose, its stock price followed. At one point, MicroStrategy’s market cap soared to $100 billion, even though its revenue was only $115 million. In comparison, Starbucks had $7.8 billion in revenue at the time, but the market didn’t care about revenue — it cared about the narrative. Soon after, other companies began imitating. In 2024, even a Japanese budget hotel chain announced support for Bitcoin payments. According to Architect Partners’ data, just this year, 184 listed companies announced they had purchased cryptocurrencies, with a combined value close to $132 billion. In one sentence: Bitcoin treasuries = turning enterprises into amplifiers of cryptocurrency. The Rise of Solana Treasury Companies So here’s the key question: why is everyone’s attention now shifting to Solana (SOL)? 1. SOL breaks above $200 Just yesterday, SOL broke through the $200 mark, now trading at $200.02, with a 24-hour gain of 6.49%. This kind of momentum undoubtedly gave treasury companies a major boost of confidence. 2. SOL treasury holdings surpass $820 million According to Sentora data, the total funds held in SOL-related treasuries have surpassed $820 million. For comparison, Ethereum treasuries were at a similar level back in April this year, but have since soared to $20 billion. This means SOL treasuries are currently at the stage Ethereum was just months ago — with massive room to grow. 3. Backed by capital giants The newly established “Solana Co” was jointly launched by Pantera Capital, Summer Capital, and Avenir Group. Pantera Capital: a veteran crypto fund managing tens of billions. Summer Capital: involved in digital assets since 2017, invested in Hashkey, Immutable, Upbit, Animoca, and other leading projects. Avenir Group: founded by Li Lin, with a focus on financial innovation and global reach. What’s even more explosive is that Pantera is raising $1.25 billion to acquire listed companies and convert them into SOL treasury companies. In other words, capital giants are directly stepping in to expand Solana’s footprint. Market Impact: A New Wealth Effect? Let’s imagine the potential future scenario: as more listed companies announce “we bought SOL”, investors may begin to treat these companies as proxies for Solana stock — just like they once viewed MicroStrategy as a proxy for Bitcoin. This could push SOL’s price to new highs. Picture this: when today’s $820 million treasury holdings swell to $20 billion, what kind of astronomical market cap could SOL achieve? Secondary market FOMO in full swing: Retail investors seeing institutions pile in will naturally follow, triggering a self-reinforcing cycle. In short, Solana treasury companies are not just about asset allocation — they could become the next catalyst for a massive wealth effect.But don’t forget, wealth effects don’t appear out of thin air. They’re amplified by several factors: 1. Information spillover effect When a leading company publicly announces “we bought SOL”, peer companies will face pressure from shareholders and the market: “Why haven’t you?” This creates a chain reaction, driving more firms to follow suit. 2. Capital markets’ magnifying lens In secondary markets, corporate treasury size isn’t valued at face value — it’s amplified. For example, if a company holds $500M worth of SOL, investors might grant it a $5B valuation premium. What they’re buying isn’t just assets, but the narrative and growth potential. 3. Retail investors’ wealth fantasy When corporations openly accumulate, retail investors naturally think: “Maybe SOL is the next Bitcoin.” This accelerates SOL’s journey from being seen as a tech token to a reserve asset in the public imagination. In other words, the Solana treasury company model isn’t just asset strategy — it’s a narrative-driven wealth amplifier. It creates a closed loop between capital markets and crypto markets: Companies buy → Market hype → Price surges → Corporate valuations rise → More companies follow → Price rises further. This spiral of positive feedback, once set in motion, could trigger a “fast-forward effect” similar to Bitcoin’s 2020 bull run. And the Solana treasury story might just be the core engine of the next wealth boom. Potential Risks: Don’t Only See the Glamour Of course, every new trend comes with risks, and Solana treasuries are no exception. 1. High Price Volatility SOL is far more volatile than Bitcoin. For treasury companies holding SOL, a sudden price crash could wreak havoc on their balance sheets. 2. Regulatory Risks While Bitcoin can still be framed as “digital gold,” SOL is positioned much closer to securities in nature. Whether it will face regulatory crackdowns in the future remains unknown. 3. Ecosystem Stability Solana has suffered multiple outages in the past — this remains its Achilles’ heel. For treasury companies, the question isn’t just short-term price swings, but whether Solana can sustain long-term strategic reserves without critical failures. Conclusion: Will Solana Treasuries Become the Next Bitcoin Treasuries? Looking back at history, the rise of Bitcoin treasuries created the legendary story of MicroStrategy. Today, Solana treasuries are retracing a similar path — but with some fresh elements: backing from capital giants and the acceleration of a fast-growing ecosystem. Can Solana evolve into the next $20 billion-class treasury phenomenon? At this stage, no one can say for certain.What is clear, however, is that Solana treasury companies have already ignited both market curiosity and capital appetite.

#Trump #Cook #Crypto Disclaimer: This article provides an in-depth analysis of market hot topics only. It does not involve or represent any political stance or political views. A butterfly flaps its wings in South America, and the result might be a tornado in Texas. At this moment, the butterfly effect has been vividly demonstrated: what seemed like a trivial mortgage issue triggered a storm leading to the attempted removal of a Federal Reserve Governor. This is essentially a political clash over “who gets the final say”: the President seeking to fire a Governor, while the Fed insists that “Governors cannot be arbitrarily dismissed.” What looks like a power struggle quickly spilled over into financial markets — and even shook the crypto world. Some joked: “The Fed’s meeting minutes matter less than one sentence from Trump.” Others warned: “The politicization of crypto markets has reached a new high.” So how exactly did this “Trump vs. Cook” drama unfold, and why did it ripple through both Wall Street and crypto? Let’s break it down step by step. Click to register SuperEx Click to download the SuperEx APP Click to enter SuperEx CMC Click to enter SuperEx DAO Academy — Space The Timeline: Trump’s Attempt to Remove Cook 1. The Trigger: Mortgage “Fraud” Accusation → Trump Strikes The story didn’t begin with monetary policy, but rather with what seemed like a trivial “butterfly” — a home loan. According to media reports, FHFA Director Bill Pulte accused Fed Governor Cook of applying for mortgages on two properties, declaring each as her primary residence to secure lower interest rates. Cases like this aren’t rare in the U.S., but when it involves a high-profile official, it becomes political ammunition. Trump seized the opportunity. On social media, he immediately amplified the report and bluntly declared: “Cook should resign immediately.” Remember, Trump has long held grievances against the Fed. Since taking office, he’s repeatedly blasted the central bank for not cutting rates, even calling out Chair Powell as “slow to act.” After years of stalemate, Trump shifted his sights from Powell to the Governors. Cook — neither his appointee nor free of controversy — became the perfect target. Thus, Trump moved quickly, announcing his intention to remove her. 2. The Fed Pushes Back: Governors Cannot Be Arbitrarily Fired But here’s the key question: Can the President actually fire a Fed Governor? The answer: not so simple. Under the Federal Reserve Act, Governors serve 14-year terms precisely to guarantee central bank independence and shield it from short-term political cycles. Legally, the President can only remove a Governor “for cause.” But what counts as “cause”? The law doesn’t clearly define it. Typically, only serious misconduct or major ethical violations qualify. Whether Cook’s mortgage issue rises to that level is for the courts to decide. The Fed responded swiftly: A Governor’s term is fixed; the President cannot dismiss at will. Cook remains a sitting Governor and will participate in rate decisions unless a court rules otherwise. Cook, through her lawyer, announced plans to sue immediately to defend her rights. This means at the upcoming Sept. 16–17 FOMC meeting, Cook will almost certainly still be present. Even if Trump ultimately prevails, his action won’t take immediate effect. 3. Trump’s Real Goal: Rate Cuts Trump’s public feud with the Fed isn’t really about Cook — it’s about pushing rate cuts. For years, Trump has argued that high rates are shackles on the U.S. economy, hurting stocks and jobs. He wants easier money to fuel growth, lower government debt costs, and — politically — to showcase a booming economy under his watch. Markets understand this logic: rate cuts lower financing costs, boost equities and housing, and ease fiscal stress. For a president who equates prosperity with political strength, this is vital. But Chair Powell and most Governors insist on a “data-dependent” approach: only if inflation subsides and employment holds steady will cuts be considered. This cautious stance clashes directly with Trump’s political urgency. So Trump bypassed policy debate and turned to personnel and public pressure instead. By targeting Cook, he sent a blunt signal: “If you don’t comply, I’ll reshape the Fed’s power structure step by step.” The risks? Market doubts about Fed independence could rise, raising long-term inflation expectations. Wider rifts inside the Fed would make future policy harder to predict, fueling volatility. In short: Trump’s rate-cut gamble is a double-edged sword. Short-term, he may win cheers from markets and voters. Long-term, the Fed’s credibility — and the dollar’s global standing — may quietly erode. Market Reaction: Stocks and Crypto Rally While the political drama unfolded, markets already voted. On the very day Trump declared Cook’s ouster and hinted rate cuts were inevitable: U.S. equities surged: Dow +1.89%, S&P 500 +1.52%, Nasdaq +1.88%. Crypto soared even more: BTC rebounded to $117,000; ETH broke above $4,800, and by Aug. 25 touched a new ATH at $4,956. Why? Because traders read Trump’s move as political pressure that makes rate cuts nearly certain. Liquidity easing = risk assets rally. Both Wall Street and crypto followed the script. Ripple Effects in Crypto: Capital Shifts & New Hotspots For crypto, the impact goes beyond price spikes — it’s about capital allocation. 1. BTC flows into ETH On-chain data shows about $2B in BTC rotated into Ethereum during the dip-and-rally cycle, suggesting institutions see ETH as a stronger play in this environment. 2. Institutions quietly accumulate ETH In the last 12 hours, BitMine received 131,736 ETH from custodians like BitGo, Galaxy Digital, and FalconX — clear evidence of big money doubling down. 3. New project tokens get a boost Liquidity expectations also lifted certain DeFi governance tokens, which spiked in volume and price. This is the butterfly effect in action: one political move, cascading into global crypto flows. Conclusion Some say Trump and crypto are in a “mutual exploitation” relationship: crypto leverages Trump’s publicity and policy shocks, while Trump points to market rallies — stocks and coins alike — as proof he’s “reviving the economy.” This Cook episode is just the latest example. Regardless of how the courts rule, Trump has already succeeded in putting the Fed on the political stage — and dragging crypto into the storm of power struggles. Perhaps that was his real goal all along.

#WebX2025 #Japan #Crypto At the end of summer in Tokyo, the WebX 2025 conference arrived as scheduled. Known as “Asia’s most important crypto summit,” the stage once again gathered global regulators, industry leaders, and policymakers. And the highlight this year was undoubtedly a roundtable on “Stablecoin Regulation and Applications in the U.S. and Japan.” On one side sat Heath Tarbert, former chairman of the U.S. CFTC and now Chief Legal Officer of Circle. On the other, Satsuki Katayama, Japanese Senator and Chair of the Budget Committee. Representing the world’s two most important economies, they engaged in a fiery dialogue on crypto regulation and stablecoin development. Some said this dialogue was like a “debate on the future of finance.” Others saw it as a microcosm of the battle between stablecoins and CBDCs. Either way, the signals revealed from this roundtable were enough to make the entire industry hold its breath. The U.S. Perspective: From “War” to “Embrace” If you remember the U.S. crypto environment just a year or two ago, the word was “winter.” Regulators and the industry were locked in confrontation, lawsuits were everywhere, and nearly every emerging project felt the heavy weight of uncertainty. Now, Heath Tarbert delivered a striking line on stage: “For the first time in history, the United States is truly embracing crypto assets.” 1. The Genius Act: Stablecoins Finally Gain Recognition At the core of this “embrace” is the passage of the Genius Act. The significance of this law lies in the fact that, for the first time, stablecoins were legally recognized as equivalent to cash. This means future U.S. dollar stablecoins must meet three requirements: 1:1 High-Quality Reserves: Each stablecoin must be backed by equivalent cash or Treasuries. Transparency and Auditing: Issuers must regularly disclose reserves and undergo third-party audits. Compliance-Only Issuance: Algorithmic stablecoins or those backed by risky collateral are strictly excluded. In short, the U.S. has finally given the industry a clear “moat”: compliance, transparency, and credibility. 2. America’s Dilemma: The Road Is Open, But Details Lag Behind However, Heath also admitted this is just the beginning. The U.S. still faces unresolved issues: Digital asset classification: Which are securities, which are commodities? Custody and exchange rules: Who takes responsibility, and how to protect users? Market structure legislation: How will digital assets be fully integrated into the mainstream financial system? More subtly, although the Genius Act has passed, its implementation rules are not yet in place. It’s like a building framework has been erected, but the wiring and plumbing are not finished. 3. Attitude Toward CBDCs: Cautious, Even Resistant On CBDCs, Heath was blunt: the U.S. is not in a rush. The main reason — privacy and surveillance concerns. In fact, the Genius Act explicitly prohibits the Fed from launching a CBDC in the near term, almost like “sealing off the exit in advance.” In Heath’s view, the future of the U.S. dollar is far more likely to exist in stablecoin form rather than as a CBDC. The Japanese Perspective: Stablecoins First, CBDCs Slowed Unlike the U.S.’s “legislative breakthrough,” Japan’s focus is more on practical applications. 1. Stablecoins vs. CBDCs: Japan Chooses the Former Satsuki Katayama stated firmly: “Japanese society harbors deep skepticism toward CBDCs, with privacy and decentralization being the main concerns.” She admitted that while the Bank of Japan is collaborating with the ECB and others on CBDC research, progress has been slow. Instead, Japan prefers to prioritize stablecoin development. 2. Tax Reform: Bringing Crypto Back to “Reasonable Rates” Another critical issue in Japan is taxation. Currently, crypto income is categorized as “miscellaneous income” with tax rates as high as 55%. This has driven away many young investors. Katayama revealed that Japan plans to reclassify crypto under the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act, reducing the tax rate to 20% — aligning it with stock trading and U.S. standards. The logic is simple: lower barriers → more youth participation → wider stablecoin adoption in daily payments. 3. Youth as the Driving Force In Japan, the crypto user profile is clear: young people. Katayama even pointed out that much of their information comes from “food and fashion idols.” It sounds lighthearted, but it reflects a fact: young people are embracing crypto in their own way. The Global Future of Stablecoin Applications During the roundtable, both U.S. and Japanese representatives emphasized the same point: Stablecoins are not just a crypto trading tool, but the new cornerstone of global finance. 1. Cross-Border Payments: As Simple as Email Currently, cross-border remittance fees average 6–7%, with settlement times of several days. Stablecoins flip this on its head: instant settlement, low cost, no forex fees. Heath even drew a vivid comparison: “Sending stablecoins across borders is like sending an email.” 2. Enterprise Adoption: A Potential B2B Revolution Imagine a Japanese automaker settling parts procurement with stablecoins. No bank settlement delays, no forex losses. The only obstacle is Japan’s current transaction size limits, restricting large-scale B2B adoption. But as Katayama noted, these rules are already under review. 3. Financial Inclusion: A “Dollar Alternative” for Non-G20 Nations In countries suffering severe currency depreciation, stablecoins could become the preferred savings tool. For citizens there, stablecoins = a portable U.S. dollar bank account. Hot Take: Stablecoins vs. CBDCs — The Strategic Divergence The biggest highlight of the roundtable was the strategic divergence between stablecoins and CBDCs. Japan: Skeptical of CBDCs, pragmatic in promoting stablecoin use. U.S.: Legally cementing stablecoins, even blocking short-term CBDC paths. In other words, both economic giants are tilting toward stablecoins — just with different approaches. For the industry, this implies: Clearer regulatory trends: Stablecoin compliance is inevitable. Improving tax environments: Especially in Japan, which may spark new adoption. Faster enterprise adoption: B2B payments and cross-border trade could lead the way. CBDCs left uncertain: Likely to remain “lab projects” rather than mainstream payment tools. Conclusion The WebX 2025 roundtable was not just a “U.S.–Japan dialogue,” but a global crypto regulatory weathervane. Japan showcased its pragmatism and caution: promoting adoption through tax reform and stablecoin use in daily life. The U.S. took a crucial legal step: granting stablecoins unprecedented recognition. Stablecoins and CBDCs may not be absolute opposites, but at least for the next five years, stablecoins will undoubtedly become the most practical and valuable cornerstone of blockchain finance. For investors, what does this mean? Spot the trend: Stablecoin compliance and applications will only grow. Watch the policies: Tax and trading rules directly shape market vitality. Position for the future: Whoever captures stablecoin applications will own the next gateway of financial internet. Tokyo’s discussion has already given us the answer. The rest is up to the market’s performance.

#USDT #SuperEx Maybe you’ve noticed that in between trades, there’s always a sum of “idle money” lying quietly in your account. It’s too small to invest, but too wasteful to ignore. This is a common issue for many users, and that’s why more and more people are starting to focus on how to “put their idle funds to work.” Instead of letting USDT sit idle in your wallet, why not use SuperEx’s wealth management products to earn extra returns? SuperEx provides its users with a wide range of wealth management plans, covering both flexible and fixed options. These not only meet the needs of flexible fund management but also help investors secure stable returns. What Is SuperEx Wealth Management? — Assigning a Reliable “Job” for Your Funds SuperEx Wealth Management is a digital asset wealth management service built by the SuperEx platform. Users can deposit idle funds into specific wealth management products to earn interest income and generate profits outside of trading. While building a safer and more trustworthy platform, SuperEx also provides users with diverse asset management options to hedge against market volatility risks. In simple terms, you can think of SuperEx Wealth Management as a kind of “finance company.” You hand over your funds, and it assigns them daily “jobs,” then pays you wages (interest) into your account at fixed times. Its greatest advantages are: Making idle funds stop sleeping and putting them into flexible or fixed “positions”; Helping you hedge against the extreme volatility of the crypto market to create more stable returns; And the process is similar to bank wealth management, but with usually more attractive interest rates. So: If you’re a trader, wealth management can serve as an additional income channel; If you’re a long-term holder, wealth management works like a “steady income net,” collecting interest for you daily. Two Major Sections of SuperEx Wealth Management: Flexible vs. Fixed SuperEx Wealth Management has two major sections: Flexible Wealth Management and Fixed Wealth Management. They are like two different job modes, each with pros and cons. 1. Flexible Wealth Management: The Free-Spirited “Part-Time Bee” Feature: No fixed term, deposit and withdraw anytime, flexible returns. Base interest rate: 2% Bonus interest rate: details available from customer support. Flexible wealth management is like a savings account: funds can be withdrawn anytime, never locked. But unlike a bank’s “barely visible interest,” SuperEx’s flexible rates are several levels higher! 2. Fixed Wealth Management: The Reliable “Full-Time Worker” Feature: Fixed terms, higher returns. Periods: 7 days, 60 days, 60 days (non-redeemable), 180 days, 365 days, 365 days (non-redeemable). Rates: Ranging from 3% to 10%, with longer terms offering higher returns. Detailed rates: 7-day product: 3% annualized, short-term “trial class.” 60-day product: 4.1% or 4.5% (non-redeemable). 180-day product: 6% annualized. 365-day product: 6.5% or 10% (non-redeemable). Reminder: Early redemption counts as “breach of contract,” and interest will be withdrawn. So fixed terms are more suitable for funds you don’t need urgently. How Is Interest Calculated in SuperEx Wealth Management? 1. Flexible Wealth Management Interest Flexible interest is calculated on a T+1 minute basis, distributed T+1 on the hour. Example: User A subscribes to flexible wealth management with 10,000 USDT at 18:37 on August 12, with an annualized rate of 3%. Daily interest = 10,000 × 3% ÷ 365 = 0.8219178082 USDT. Per-minute interest = 0.0055706256 USDT. At 19:00 on August 12, User A receives the first payout of 0.0131278539 USDT. 2. Fixed Wealth Management Interest For fixed-term products, SuperEx provides different yields. After subscription, interest is distributed after T+1 day at 00:00. Daily interest = Subscription Amount × Yield ÷ 365. Example: On August 15, User A subscribes to a 180-day fixed product with 10,000 USDT at 6% annualized. Starting August 16, User A earns 10,000 × 6% ÷ 365 = 1.6438 USDT per day. Is My Capital Safe? The first concern for many users: “Wealth management sounds good, but is my money safe?” SuperEx has never had a fund-theft incident and maintains 100% safety so far. Fund transparency: Every deposit and payout can be viewed in real time in your account. Flexible redemption: Flexible funds can be withdrawn anytime, fixed funds are automatically returned upon maturity. No penalty fees: Early redemption doesn’t incur fines (only interest is canceled, principal is returned). In short, your funds are always under your control — no black-box operations, no forced misappropriation. Who Is SuperEx Wealth Management For? Long-term holders: If you’re just letting funds sit idle waiting for a bull run, why not put them to work earning daily interest? Active traders: Keep a portion of backup funds in flexible wealth management. It won’t interfere with trading, and you still get returns. Steady investors: Prefer long-term holding without chasing quick profits? Go for the 180-day fixed option. Highest rates, peace of mind. Conclusion Many times, we’re busy chasing market ups and downs, but overlook the “quiet money” at our fingertips. SuperEx Wealth Management is like a considerate “funds manager,” arranging every idle dollar into the right role so it creates value. Whether it’s the flexible freedom of short-term deposits, or the steady solidity of fixed terms, there’s always an option that fits your fund’s personality.

#FOMC #Stablecoin #Crypto At the beginning of August, the Federal Reserve (Fed) released the minutes of its July FOMC meeting. This set of minutes was somewhat unusual: if in past years the content was mostly the old themes of inflation, employment, and interest rate balance, then this time, a brand-new “protagonist” kept showing up again and again — stablecoins. According to the full text of the minutes, the term “stablecoin” appeared eight times, its level of attention even exceeding that of some traditional topics. For the Fed, this was not a casual mention, but rather a deliberately bolded signal. One must know, in the traditional central bank lexicon, any word that gets repeatedly mentioned is basically a variable that could potentially shake the financial system. This is not a coincidence. With the passing of the GENIUS Act, stablecoins have already leapt from being a marginal “crypto niche tool” to becoming a variable that could affect monetary policy, the banking system, and even U.S. fiscal policy. This means the Fed is no longer only watching inflation and the yield curve, but has begun turning its gaze toward that crypto field they once glossed over. In other words, stablecoins have now officially entered the Fed’s strategic horizon. So, what exactly did the Fed say? And what does this mean for banks, the crypto market, and ordinary investors? Let’s break it down step by step. Key Highlights of the Minutes: Three Core Themes This meeting’s minutes mainly revolved around three blocks: 1. Macroeconomy and Interest Rates Most members believe that inflation risks still outweigh employment risks. The interest rate level may be approaching neutral, but it is still not safe enough to relax. The effects of tariffs may show up with a lag, and companies could pass the costs onto consumers. In other words, the Fed still worries that “inflation might reignite.” 2. Asset Valuation and Market Bubbles The minutes mentioned “concerns about elevated asset valuations.” This line is quite telling. It reads like a reminder to the markets: don’t just stare at rate-cut expectations, the frenzied rise in asset prices is also entering the Fed’s “watch list.” 3. The Sudden Rise of Stablecoins A considerable portion of the minutes discussed payment stablecoins. Committee members believe stablecoins could improve payment efficiency and increase demand for U.S. Treasuries, but at the same time might also impact the banking system and monetary policy. More critically, they clearly pointed out that the passing of the GENIUS Act means the legitimate scope of stablecoin use is expanding. To sum it up in one sentence: the rate path remains cautious → concerns about asset bubbles are rising → stablecoins became the biggest “keyword” in crypto. If we carefully examine the language of the minutes, we can see the Fed’s attitude toward stablecoins shifting from “peripheral observation” to “core agenda.” Scenarios mentioned: payment systems, demand for supporting assets (U.S. Treasuries), financial stability, monetary policy implementation. Tone shift: no longer just “risk reminders,” but now beginning to analyze their systemic impact on the macro and financial system. This means stablecoins are no longer just a “toy of the crypto circle,” but have entered the central bank’s strategic vision. Fed Governor Waller, in his speech, even directly pointed out: AI + stablecoins = the future of payment innovation. He even used the phrase “technology-driven revolution.” In other words, in official language, stablecoins have upgraded from “potential threat” to “potential opportunity.” The “Subtext” of the Minutes: Who Wins, Who Loses? We can treat the Fed’s minutes like an “official dress rehearsal script.” What’s written isn’t just what the central bank plans to do, but also who might benefit and who might get hurt. 1. U.S. Treasuries: The Winners The minutes explicitly stated that with the possible increase in payment stablecoin usage, this will “boost demand for U.S. Treasuries and other safe assets.” Why is this key? Because stablecoins must have a “backing,” and that backing needs to be both safe and liquid. For global investors, assets that meet both conditions are few and far between, and U.S. Treasuries are almost the “only standard answer.” This means the expansion of stablecoins will naturally drive demand for Treasuries. The subtext of the minutes is: “Treasury Department, you don’t need to worry too much about debt issuance being absorbed, because stablecoins will become new buyers.” Against the backdrop of persistent fiscal deficits and huge debt levels, this is a signal not to be ignored. Stablecoins act like an “automatic augmenter,” quietly propping up U.S. debt. From the crypto perspective, this means stablecoins are no longer just “settlement tools in the crypto circle,” but are now deeply binding with the U.S. Treasury market. In other words, behind one USDC lies not just one dollar, but also one dollar plus the credit of the U.S. Treasury. 2. Banks: The Anxious Ones The minutes noted that stablecoins could impact banks and the broader financial system. On the surface this sounds bland, but it actually reveals the anxiety within the banking system. The traditional banking profit model relies on two core elements: Deposit sources: people’s money in banks enables lending and investing. Payment channels: banks act as the infrastructure for domestic and cross-border payments, earning fees and spreads. But once stablecoins gain traction, what happens? Consumers and businesses might no longer need bank transfers, instead settling directly with stablecoins. Deposits could partly migrate into the stablecoin ecosystem. A simple example: if a company’s supply chain partners all accept USDC settlements, then it doesn’t need to keep all its funds in bank accounts, and would instead choose to hold stablecoins. Over time, banks’ deposit pools get “hollowed out,” and payment revenues get “diverted.” This explains why the minutes, though not bluntly critical, contained a hidden concern: stablecoins might cut into banks’ bread and butter. So we see an interesting contrast: The U.S. Treasury market is “smiling” because of stablecoins; The banking system is “anxious” because of stablecoins; The Fed itself is the “conflicted one.” 3. The Fed: The Conflicted Arbiter Another concern embedded in the minutes is that stablecoins could have broader effects on monetary policy implementation. Why? Because the Fed’s main tool for adjusting the economy is interest rate policy, which transmits to markets through the banking system. If more and more funds bypass banks and flow directly into the stablecoin system, the Fed’s tools become blunter. Imagine this: the Fed raises rates, intending for higher bank loan rates to reduce corporate and consumer borrowing, cooling down the economy. But if companies’ funds are mostly circulating in the stablecoin system, the sensitivity to bank loans decreases, and the efficiency of rate policy transmission is reduced. That’s the Fed’s dilemma: stablecoins can improve payment efficiency and bring financial innovation, but at the same time might weaken monetary policy effectiveness, making “hikes” and “cuts” less effective. The emphasis in the minutes on “monitoring the assets backing stablecoins” is essentially the Fed leaving itself a back door. The meaning is: I don’t oppose you playing, but I must watch you closely to ensure the whole system remains within my control. Stablecoins = A Double-Edged Sword To summarize in one sentence: stablecoins are like a double-edged sword. On one side, they cut open payment efficiency, bringing new financial imagination. On the other, they cut into the nerves of banks and monetary policy, causing discomfort to vested interests. For the crypto market, this double-edged sword effect means stablecoins won’t be allowed to “grow wild and free,” but will instead “grow with shackles.” From an investment perspective, this isn’t a bad thing. Because as long as the Fed is willing to pull stablecoins into formal discussions, it means they can’t be easily “killed off.” The only question is, in what form will they continue to exist: As Wall Street and the Treasury’s “new tool”? Or as a “decentralized force” preserving the crypto spirit? The answer may slowly emerge over the coming years. Opportunities and Risks for the Crypto Market For the crypto market, the biggest significance of these minutes is that stablecoins have officially been included in the Fed’s core discussion circle. This brings several implications: 1. Legitimacy Enhancement, Wider Applications The passing of the GENIUS Act legitimizes stablecoins. In the future, compliant stablecoins may quickly penetrate U.S. payments and settlement. This is a major boon for projects like USDC. 2. Revaluation of the Assets Behind Stablecoins If stablecoin reserves increasingly allocate to U.S. Treasuries, it means the crypto world and traditional finance will bind more tightly. In a sense, stablecoins could become the “hidden bid” for Treasuries. 3. DeFi and Traditional Finance Interfaces The “monitoring” mentioned in the minutes is not only regulatory pressure, but also potential interface opportunities. If compliant stablecoins become mainstream, DeFi’s legitimacy will also be lifted, since the underlying assets it relies on are more transparent and safer. 4. Risk: Squeezed Space for Decentralized Stablecoins Compared with centralized projects like USDC and USDT, decentralized stablecoins (such as DAI, FRAX) face bigger policy risks. Because clearly, the Fed prefers stablecoins it can control. Conclusion On the surface, the minutes were about discussions of rates and inflation, but the real “Easter egg” this time was undoubtedly stablecoins. Imagine: ten years ago, how could Fed minutes ever mention Bitcoin? Twenty years ago, who could have thought “virtual currencies” would become a central bank research topic? Yet today, stablecoins are already written into FOMC’s official documents. This feels like a “historic freeze-frame”: the crypto world is no longer just a marginal player, but is gradually becoming part of the global financial system. So if you are a participant in the crypto market, whether in Bitcoin, Ethereum, or DeFi protocols, remember this set of minutes. Because it is not an isolated document, but the prelude to the trajectory of the crypto market over the next several years.

Hello everyone, I’m SuperEx, a cryptocurrency exchange focused on Web3.

What is a crypto invoice? Does the invoice go on-chain?

#Fed #Crypto In previous articles, we mentioned that U.S. financial regulators have always had complicated feelings toward the crypto industry: they worry about risks, but also fear falling behind, and in the end gradually compromise with the development of the crypto sector. This emotional attitude has been reflected in U.S. financial regulatory policy. Over the past few years, American financial regulation has repeatedly swung between relaxation and strict control, then gradually loosened. Since 2024, major institutions in the U.S. have gradually begun to “accept” the crypto industry. Recently, the Federal Reserve officially announced the cancellation of the “Novel Activities Supervision Program,” reintegrating the supervision of banks’ crypto and fintech-related businesses back into the standard regulatory process. This news has undoubtedly stirred up no small wave in the crypto community. On the surface, this is just an adjustment to the regulatory framework. But when interpreted in the broader environment, it reveals several important signals: first, a clear softening of regulators’ attitude; second, an easing of tensions between crypto firms and banks; third, a repositioning of the U.S. financial system regarding crypto. Today, let’s analyze from several angles: What does this step by the Federal Reserve mean? What opportunities and challenges will it bring to the crypto market? And where might it lead in the future? Review: The Past and Present of the Fed’s “Special Supervision Program” To understand this change, we first need to look back at the background of this regulatory program. In 2023, the U.S. banking crisis erupted: Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), Silvergate Bank, and Signature Bank all collapsed in succession — and these just happened to be banks closely connected with the crypto industry. At that time, suspicion toward the crypto sector within the financial system reached its peak. In order to prevent “innovation risks” from triggering systemic problems, the Federal Reserve urgently set up the so-called “Novel Activities Supervision Program,” aimed at applying extra scrutiny to banks engaged in crypto, blockchain, and fintech businesses. To put it bluntly, this program functioned more like a “firewall.” It did not directly prohibit banks from participating in crypto-related business, but it dramatically raised compliance costs. For many banks considering entering crypto, simply dealing with approvals and compliance discussions consumed massive resources — some even chose to give up altogether. Thus, this became one of the most common complaints from crypto firms: U.S. regulators did not outright ban, but “persuaded banks to quit” through cumbersome processes. The Logic and Significance Behind the Fed’s Sudden Cancellation: Banks No Longer “Fear Crypto” Now, the Fed has suddenly announced the cancellation of this program, returning crypto supervision to the standard process. Behind this lie at least three layers of logic: 1. A deeper understanding of crypto business risks. In the past, regulators considered crypto a “black box”: they did not understand how risks transmitted, nor the industry’s logic, so they could only apply “special treatment.” But after more than a year of research and observation, the Fed gradually realized that crypto businesses are not a monstrous flood — their risks can be managed using conventional regulatory tools. 2. A political shift in the U.S. regulatory environment. Since Trump took office, the policy direction has clearly changed. He has repeatedly released pro-crypto signals, emphasizing that the U.S. should become a “crypto innovation center.” Against this backdrop, the Fed’s move is undoubtedly aligned with broader policy, a kind of policy echo. 3. The practical needs of the financial system and banks. As the crypto industry continues to grow, if traditional banks are kept permanently outside, they will lose market opportunities. Many banks can find new profit growth points in custody, payment settlement, and cross-border services through crypto businesses. The Fed’s “loosening” is, in a sense, giving banks breathing room. For the banking sector, these changes are very direct. Previously, many U.S. banks kept their distance from crypto clients, fearing that involvement would make them a key target of regulatory scrutiny. But now, with the special supervision program gone, banks can handle crypto-related business under conventional risk management processes. In other words, as long as basic requirements like AML (anti-money laundering), KYC (know your customer), and consumer protection are met, banks can fully decide for themselves whether to offer services. This means that in the future, more banks will reconsider providing accounts, payments, and custody services to crypto firms. For the crypto industry, this is a long-awaited positive, because “opening a bank account” has been one of their biggest pain points in recent years. The Significance for the Crypto Industry: A Clearer Path to Compliance For the crypto sector, this does not mean regulation is completely lifted, but it does mean the compliance path is clearer. In the past, firms often complained about policy ambiguity: Can we do this? What approvals are required? When might we be shut down? This uncertainty forced many projects to take detours, or even move headquarters to Europe or Asia. Particularly in the U.S., despite having the world’s largest pool of capital and users, regulatory vagueness was always a headache — you might open a bank account one day, only to be told by the compliance department the next day that it’s “frozen.” Such cases have been all too common in the crypto industry. Now things are different. With the Fed, OCC, and FDIC all expressing a unified stance, banks can decide on crypto business within the existing regulatory framework. This means crypto firms can cooperate more openly and directly with banks, lowering compliance costs and reducing uncertainty. For example, previously, a crypto company seeking custody services had to repeatedly explain its business logic, prove compliance ability, and even wait for implicit “permission” from regulators. Now, banks can make the decision themselves, based on their own risk control systems. This directly improves efficiency and reduces anxiety for firms operating in the “policy gray zone.” From a long-term perspective, this certainty will bring two clear changes: 1. Capital inflows will accelerate. Institutional and traditional investors have been cautious about crypto largely because of fears of sudden regulatory shifts leading to stranded assets or exposed legal risks. The regulators’ “unified tone” now provides the market with a signal: there is a path to compliance, and as long as you follow the framework, you won’t suddenly “step on a landmine.” For traditional funds, hedge funds, and even pension funds, this is a huge positive. 2. Business models in the industry will be healthier. In recent years, many crypto projects operated in gray areas to avoid regulation, or focused on overseas markets, which limited their growth. With clearer compliance environments, projects can put more energy into product innovation and user experience, instead of “how to bypass compliance.” This not only improves overall market transparency, but also gives users a stronger sense of security. After all, retail investors’ greatest fear is project fraud or frozen funds — these risks will decrease as compliance improves. What’s more notable is that this compliance shift will not only affect the U.S. but could trigger global policy linkage. The U.S. has always been at the core of the global financial system; if even U.S. regulators begin “drawing boundaries” for crypto, major financial centers in Europe and Asia are likely to follow suit, issuing clearer policy frameworks. This would create a chain reaction: compliance becomes the “new standard” for the industry, rather than a “choice for a few projects.” From this perspective, this is not just a U.S. market positive, but a sign that the global crypto industry is maturing. In short, the era of policy ambiguity is fading. Compliance clarity will bring the crypto industry into a phase of “equal dialogue with traditional finance.” For project teams, this means fewer worries; for institutional investors, this means greater certainty; and for the whole industry, this marks the turning point from wild growth to institutionalization and scaling. Market Opportunities: Capital, Institutions, and New Business 1. Easier institutional capital inflows. A core precondition for institutional investors entering the crypto market is reliable banking and custody services. As banks open up, crypto funds, family offices, and even pension funds will be more confident in allocating digital assets. 2. Smoother payment and settlement services. Banks re-engaging in crypto payments and cross-border transfers will make digital asset use in everyday payments and settlement more widespread. For stablecoins, this is undoubtedly a massive positive. 3. New financial products may accelerate. Bank-crypto partnerships may expand beyond accounts and payments into derivatives, loans, and collateral products. This would push crypto financialization to a new level. The Tug-of-War Between Regulation and Innovation Overall, the Fed’s cancellation of the special supervision program is a form of “compromise with the market” between regulation and innovation. It acknowledges the importance of crypto business, while attempting to bring its risks under conventional frameworks. In the coming years, three trends are worth close attention: Cooperation between banks and crypto firms will increase rapidly, especially in custody, payments, and stablecoins. Compliance will accelerate as the main theme, the era of wild growth will fade, and the survivors will be those willing to embrace regulation. Policy swings will still exist, and the industry must remain flexible, avoiding overreliance on a single market. Conclusion The Federal Reserve’s cancellation of the “crypto special supervision program” is both a reassessment of the crypto industry by the U.S. financial system and a new milestone for the entire industry’s development. For banks, it is a chance to re-enter the crypto track; for crypto firms, it is a turning point in reducing compliance uncertainty; for the market, it is a signal of further institutional inflows. But we cannot be overly optimistic. Regulation will never fully let go, and risk events could always alter policy trajectories. What is certain is that the relationship between crypto and traditional finance will only grow closer. And in the future, the competition will not just be about technology and business models — but also about mastering and adapting to the regulatory environment.

#Bessent #Gold #Bitcoin On August 14, a few seemingly off-the-cuff remarks from U.S. Treasury Secretary Bessent sent the global crypto market on an emotional roller coaster within just a few hours. First, he made it clear that the U.S. “will not increase its Bitcoin purchases,” instantly sparking investor panic and triggering a sharp sell-off. Moments later, when pressed by reporters, he added that “the plan has not been terminated,” which brought a slight recovery in market sentiment. Sometimes, you can’t help but marvel at the weight of the U.S. economy in global markets. But let’s stay on track — for those familiar with macro policy, this was far from a simple “slip of the tongue.” Rather, it felt like an accidental reveal of a policy thermometer, reflecting shifts in the U.S.’s strategic reserve asset allocation, Bitcoin’s evolving role in the national asset basket, and potential subtle adjustments in future monetary and fiscal policy. Core Event Breakdown: Three Key Remarks in Full View First wave: Gold firmly at the “store of value” center stage Bessent stated in a media interview that the U.S. is unlikely to reassess its gold reserve holdings, emphasizing that gold remains an important part of the country’s strategic reserves. He also mentioned that the value of Bitcoin reserves is roughly $15–20 billion, and that the government will stop selling its Bitcoin holdings. This statement effectively acted as a “bleeding stop” for Bitcoin — at least in the short term, there would be no further selling pressure. Second wave: Budget-neutral Bitcoin accumulation In another speech, Bessent added that the U.S. would incorporate seized Bitcoin into its strategic reserves and explore ways to acquire more Bitcoin on a “budget-neutral” basis. The key phrase here is “budget-neutral,” meaning the government will not use taxpayer funds directly to buy Bitcoin, but will look for ways to expand holdings without increasing the deficit — such as through law-enforcement seizures, asset swaps, or debt structure adjustments. Third wave: Media interpretation flip Later, in a Fox Business interview, Bessent once again mentioned “no direct purchases of additional Bitcoin,” and the market quickly took this as a sign of a pullback in the government’s Bitcoin strategy. But a few hours later, he clarified on social media that this did not mean the accumulation plan was ending — the Treasury would still explore budget-neutral paths for increasing holdings. His spokesperson further explained that it was merely an “off-hand, non-policy statement” and should not be over-interpreted by the market. Gold and Bitcoin: A Subtle Shift in Reserve Structure The most intriguing aspect of these remarks is how the U.S. is now making clear distinctions between gold and Bitcoin in its reserve strategy. Gold: The stable value anchor For nearly a century, U.S. gold reserves have held steady at around 8,000 tons, serving as a backbone of international credit. Bessent’s “no reassessment” comment is not a rejection of gold — it underscores its continued role as the defensive core of reserves, unlikely to see major changes. Bitcoin: A strategic experiment The U.S.’s current Bitcoin holdings (around $15–20 billion) mostly come from law-enforcement seizures, such as the Silk Road case, dark-web operations, and fraud cases. These sources mean acquisition costs are virtually zero, but quantities are limited. Budget-Neutral Accumulation: Technical Pathways and Practical Challenges “Budget-neutral” is the core keyword of Bessent’s speech, but also the biggest uncertainty. Possible approaches include: Law-enforcement seizures: Using agencies like the FBI and Department of Homeland Security to crack down on illegal crypto activity, seizing Bitcoin and transferring it directly into reserves. Asset swaps: Selling or exchanging non-core assets (e.g., certain Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac equity) for BTC. Mining partnerships: Collaborating with domestic Bitcoin mining firms via strategic agreements to obtain BTC revenue shares. De-leveraging portfolio adjustments: Reducing high-risk investments to make room for crypto assets. Challenges are equally clear: Limited supply: Seized BTC volumes are unpredictable and shrinking as a proportion of total supply. Market impact: If the U.S. is perceived as a steady BTC buyer, prices may rise ahead of time, increasing acquisition costs. Political resistance: Congress remains divided on the idea of national BTC holdings, with some lawmakers citing money-laundering and tax-evasion concerns. Since Trump’s executive order establishing a Bitcoin strategic reserve, the U.S. has been trying to give BTC an official role — neither currency nor pure speculation, but a reserve asset with potential strategic value. The Subtext of Evolving Reserve Structure Gold is “stock safety,” Bitcoin is “incremental game.” The government will not recklessly use taxpayer funds to make massive BTC purchases, but will use seizures and asset swaps to gradually increase the Bitcoin share — potentially forming an early “gold + Bitcoin” dual-reserve structure. Market Reaction: Tension First, Then Recovery Bessent’s morning “will not purchase Bitcoin” line briefly drove BTC prices lower, amid fears that the strategic reserve plan was dead. But after the clarification, sentiment quickly recovered. Short-term traders: Exploited emotional swings for both long and short trades, with volumes spiking. Long-term investors: Focused more on the positive signals — “no more selling” and “budget-neutral accumulation” — viewing the overall stance as Bitcoin-friendly. Institutional players: Began reassessing BTC’s role as a macro hedge, especially given the U.S.’s parallel emphasis on both gold and Bitcoin. Deeper Implications for the Crypto Market Bessent’s statements may seem straightforward, but the signals behind them are worth deeper thought. 1. Policy risk is being repriced In the past, many investors viewed U.S. Bitcoin holdings as a “potential sell-off risk” — a market sentiment barometer. But Bessent’s remarks suggest the U.S. sees BTC more as a strategic reserve than a trading asset. This means that even if market volatility occurs, investors may focus less on short-term government selling and more on the evolution of long-term reserve policy. In other words, Bitcoin is being given a gold-like, sovereign value role, with its price reflecting macro policy expectations more than pure market speculation. 2. Bitcoin could enter more international political and economic negotiations When a country places BTC in its strategic reserves, its role extends beyond value storage — it could become a bargaining chip in cross-border settlements, trade deals, and even sanctions. In the future, trade agreements or global payment arrangements may use Bitcoin, much like gold, as a measure of value and settlement medium. This would mean BTC market behavior is shaped not only by supply and demand but also by geopolitics and international finance. 3. Bitcoin-gold correlation may strengthen If both assets become national reserves, sentiment spillovers will be sharper. Historically, gold tends to rally in times of global uncertainty. If BTC is integrated into reserve portfolios, we could see a “gold up → Bitcoin up” cross-asset reaction pattern. This could change asset allocation strategies and tighten the link between crypto and traditional markets. 4. Compliance in the crypto sector will accelerate If the U.S. keeps expanding BTC reserves, it will inevitably require higher transparency and on-chain traceability for related transactions. Exchanges, wallet providers, and other infrastructure operators will need to build compliance frameworks that meet national regulatory demands. Over time, this will raise market trust and pave the way for institutional capital, accelerating the industry’s shift from “wild exploration” to “mature normalization.” Conclusion Bessent’s “remark storm” was both a media misinterpretation and a rare policy signal. It shows Bitcoin’s evolution from a grassroots speculation asset toward a sovereign strategic reserve role. For the crypto market, this brings both opportunity and pressure — opportunity from official endorsement boosting confidence, and pressure from rising compliance and regulatory thresholds. In the future, Bitcoin may no longer be the “decentralized rebel,” but a new and unavoidable member of the global reserve system.

DeFi has definitely started heating up recently.

#Trump #Fund #401(k) On August 7, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order that, while it may look dry on the surface, could reshape the crypto market landscape — allowing fixed-contribution retirement plans such as 401(k)s to invest in alternative assets, explicitly including cryptocurrencies for the first time. It’s important to note that the 401(k) is the backbone of retirement savings for America’s middle class. More than 90 million Americans participate, with total assets reaching $9 trillion. In the past, these funds were almost exclusively allocated to low-risk products like Treasuries, mutual funds, and blue-chip stocks. Now, for the first time, policy is opening the door to high-risk, high-reward alternative assets. The market quickly did the math: even if just 2% of 401(k) funds flowed into cryptocurrencies, that would represent roughly $170 billion in potential inflows — an amount equal to nearly two-thirds of the total current market cap of all spot crypto ETFs and publicly listed reserves combined. Our long-time readers may recall that in earlier articles we discussed the possibility of the $9 trillion in 401(k) retirement savings being allowed to invest in the crypto market. Back then it was just an expectation — now, with Trump’s August 7 executive order signed, that expectation is set to become reality. But hold on — this isn’t a story about billions pouring into the crypto space tomorrow morning. There’s still a series of real-world constraints, regulatory details, and market gamesmanship to navigate. Click to register SuperEx Click to download the SuperEx APP Click to enter SuperEx CMC Click to enter SuperEx DAO Academy — Space The U.S. Pension Dilemma: Why Take the Risk? The U.S. pension system is built on a “three-pillar” model: Federal mandatory pension (Social Security) — covers basic living needs, but not a comfortable retirement. Employer-sponsored supplemental pensions (401(k) and similar) — offered by employers, with voluntary employee contributions. Personal retirement savings — fully self-managed. In an ideal world, Social Security provides the baseline, 401(k) supplements it, and middle-class families can maintain a decent standard of living in retirement. Reality is much harsher. Inflation and surging healthcare costs have been eating away at purchasing power. Surveys show that now only about one-third of 401(k) participants believe they will meet their retirement goals — 10 percentage points lower than last year. Public pensions at the state and local levels are in even worse shape, with unfunded liabilities approaching $1.4 trillion. This means that sticking to the old low-risk portfolios could very well leave pensions underperforming inflation — let alone making up funding gaps. As a result, policymakers are now looking for higher-return solutions. Alternative Assets: Higher Risk, but Potentially Higher Returns Trump’s executive order defines “alternative assets” broadly: Private equity Real estate Infrastructure projects Commodities Digital assets (cryptocurrencies) Why bring these in? Two main reasons: Higher potential returns — especially in high-volatility markets like private equity and crypto. Low correlation — they don’t move in lockstep with traditional stocks and bonds, helping diversify risk. The trend in real life supports this shift: in 2001, U.S. public pensions allocated just 14% to alternative assets. By 2021, that figure was close to 40%. The California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) even plans to add more than $30 billion to private market investments over the next few years. For cryptocurrencies, this is the first time they’ve had a chance to access such a massive, long-term capital pool. What Happens If 2% Flows into Crypto? Let’s look at the scale: Total 401(k) assets: $9 trillion 2% allocation to crypto: $170 billion Current total market cap of all spot crypto ETFs + public reserves: about $250 billion In other words, even a small test allocation could expand crypto’s “regulated capital pool” by two-thirds. This kind of shift has far more structural impact than a single bull-run price pump. However, this $170 billion won’t arrive overnight — the rollout may take six months to two years: The Department of Labor will issue detailed rules — clarifying allocation limits, product requirements, and risk disclosures. Fund companies will design products — most likely spot crypto ETFs or mixed funds. Employers will choose whether to add them to investment menus — not all companies will move right away. Employees will decide for themselves whether to invest. In the near term, the crypto market will mostly see a “sentiment rally”, while actual capital inflows will come only once the rules and products are in place. Spot Crypto ETFs Could Be the Biggest Winners From a pension fund’s perspective, safety, compliance, and liquidity are top priorities. Spot Bitcoin ETFs and Ethereum ETFs meet these requirements: Regulated by the SEC Clear custody arrangements Ample liquidity Transparent pricing Compared to buying tokens directly, ETFs’ legal and audit frameworks make them much more likely to pass pension compliance reviews. It’s reasonable to expect that within a few years, Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs could appear on U.S. 401(k) investment menus. International Perspective: From “Savings Pensions” to “Investment Pensions” Trump’s policy is not just financial deregulation — it’s a philosophical shift in how pensions are managed: The first pillar (government guarantees) remains unchanged. The second and third pillars (employer and personal pensions) take on more investment risk. Encourages individuals to actively manage retirement fund allocation. For countries whose pension systems rely heavily on government funding, this is a potentially disruptive model: allowing pensions to invest in high-risk, high-reward assets to chase higher long-term returns and ease future payment pressures. Europe, Japan, and South Korea’s pension managers may in the future look to the U.S. example and allocate part of their portfolios to alternative markets — including crypto assets. Medium- to Long-Term Impact on the Crypto Market Looking at it in three stages: Short term: Market sentiment is boosted, interest in ETFs and other regulated products rises, and prices may see speculative gains. Medium term: Rules are finalized, first products enter pension menus, capital starts flowing gradually. Long term: Pensions become steady institutional investors, pushing crypto asset valuations and trading structures toward maturity. From this perspective, Trump’s executive order is not a short-lived “policy firework,” but rather the beginning of building a long-term funding pipeline — and once it’s built, inflows will be continuous. Conclusion Trump’s order allowing 401(k) plans to invest in alternative assets is, in the U.S. domestic context, aimed at solving the pension underperformance problem. But for the crypto market, it’s a newly opened door — to a $9 trillion pool of capital. Even at just a 2% allocation, the scale is enough to reshape the market landscape. While implementation will take time and risks remain, the policy undeniably adds an element of institutional endorsement for cryptocurrencies. For crypto investors, this could be a structural opportunity worth tracking over the long term — the real capital pool is still filling up.