昨天收到一些社群的詢問，問我為什麼去年 10 月到 12 月罵幣安罵得那麼兇，現在反而替他們說話？ 我的核心觀點一直沒有改變。 1011 這件事，幣安始終欠行業一個交代，我認為幣安要負大部分的責任。 現在風向如此，我當然可以站在道德制高點繼續批判幣安，政治正確又能博眼球，何樂而不為？ 但我覺得過去三個月，我該表達的立場已經表達完了。站在從業人員的角度，一直停留在批評而不往前走，是不成熟的，也沒有任何意義。 幣安從成立到現在，早期確實受到很多同業的攻擊。 但現在幣安早就是世界第一了。任何一個正常有腦的同行都知道，商戰不可能贏得市佔，真正贏的方式是流動性，是產品，是品牌，而不是攻擊對手。 有些事情是行業結構性問題，不該把所有責任都扣在幣安身上。但有些事情確實是幣安的責任，該接受檢討就接受檢討。 從何一的回應可以感覺出來，幣安在面對 FUD 的時候，第一時間不是反省自己，而是去思考「這個攻擊從何而來」。 這是一種從古早交易所商戰時期就延續至今的應激反應。何一作為幣安當時風口浪尖的第一道防線，會有這種應激反應，我覺得很正常。 但現在已經是 2026 年了，想法不應該還這麼 defensive。 這幾天幣安從西方圈這幾天燒起來的這些炎上事件，都是過去的因所種下的果。 我並不確定這到底是不是有組織、有預謀的行為。 但就算真的是有組織、有預謀，也得要有前因後果，這把火才燒得起來。 如果你們不反省，這種火以後只會越燒越大。 幣安的核心思維永遠都是防禦性的，永遠在想如何維持自己的賺錢能力跟行業地位，看誰都是潛在競爭對手，看誰做大了就要用自己的資源去碾壓。 你們有一個根深蒂固的想法：在上幣這件事上，絕對不能讓別人來「白嫖」用戶的流動性。 但有沒有想過，靠著這種偏頗的上幣邏輯來維持地位，讓你們錯失了多少用戶真正想買、想交易的幣？ 我就舉平台幣 HYPE 為例，市場上有多少交易所同行已經上架現貨了？ 但你們就是硬不上，原因很簡單，因為 Hyperliquid 是競爭對手，威脅到你們了。 按這樣的邏輯，我相信即便 HYPE 衝到市值 Top 10，你們也不會上。 White Whale 也是一樣的概念，from bottom up 的社區幣，有熱度有交易量有故事，但 SOL = BSC 的敵人，所以不上。 反過來看，DOYR、我踏馬來了，這種扣完字眼就火速退潮的幣，大家都以為死了，結果轉頭 Alpha 就給上了。 如果說這兩個幣在你們喊完之後自己活下來了，幣價健康、社群活躍、討論有熱度，那也就算了。 但它們都死了啊？死了的幣你們到底在上啥？唯一能找的角度就只有何一提過、CZ回應過而已，這種上幣邏輯怎麼可能服眾？ 美股還有七巨頭互相制衡競爭、彼此砥礪進步。 但在幣圈，幣安是絕對龍頭，當這個量體的企業的把追求利潤放在第一，把扶持自家生態鏈放在第一，對整個行業都不是好事。 我可以理解CZ想要為 BSC 創造動能，但直接或間接喊單 TST、Mubarak、Broccoli、Giggle、Aster ，真的是好事嗎？ 你的個人行為跟平台影響力高度耦合，喊單是讓散戶自己去遐想、自己去下注。 這件事如果是其他 KOL 做，頂多被罵一波就過去了。但你是 CZ，你做這件事就是球員兼裁判。 今天有人因為你的話衝進去，明天套牢了，這個帳一定會算在你頭上。每一次都在消耗信任。 你以為你在幫 BSC 造勢，但這種靠喊單撐起來的繁榮是假的。真正的結果是什麼？是讓所有人開始質疑幣安的中立性。 你覺得各國監管單位看到你這些行為，會有什麼想法？ 打開幣安APP，一整排的幣安人生、我踏馬來了、老子幣、DOYR，他們會怎麼想？ 這就是為什麼行業很多人賺到錢了，但始終賺不到外界的尊重。 你是行業龍頭，你的 APP 首頁就是這個行業的門面。當門面長這樣，你要怎麼說服傳統金融、說服監管、說服主流社會，我們是一個值得被認真對待的產業？ 我不是要幣安當聖人。 商業公司追求利潤天經地義，我自己也是開公司的，我懂。 但當你是行業龍頭的時候，你的每一個決策都在定義這個行業的遊戲規則。 你選擇上什麼幣，不上什麼幣，市場就會往那個方向長。 你選擇喊單什麼幣，散戶就會追什麼幣。 你們給誰頒「行業貢獻獎」，大家就會覺得這個人是行業認可的領軍人物。 你們的審美，會影響這個行業的審美，也會影響外界對行業的觀感。 這是權力，也是責任。 我對幣安沒有私人恩怨，我也不覺得幣安是壞人。 我只是覺得，一個世界第一的交易所，應該有世界第一的格局。 不要再用 2017 年商戰時期的思維來應對 2026 年的市場了。 你們已經贏了，現在該想的是怎麼讓整個行業一起變好。 這樣你們才能贏更久。

Name & Symbol: mubarak ($mubarak)
Address: 0x5c85d6c6825ab4032337f11ee92a72df936b46f6

昨天收到一些社群的詢問，問我為什麼去年 10 月到 12 月罵幣安罵得那麼兇，現在反而替他們說話？ 我的核心觀點一直沒有改變。 1011 這件事，幣安始終欠行業一個交代，我認為幣安要負大部分的責任。 現在風向如此，我當然可以站在道德制高點繼續批判幣安，政治正確又能博眼球，何樂而不為？ 但我覺得過去三個月，我該表達的立場已經表達完了。站在從業人員的角度，一直停留在批評而不往前走，是不成熟的，也沒有任何意義。 幣安從成立到現在，早期確實受到很多同業的攻擊。 但現在幣安早就是世界第一了。任何一個正常有腦的同行都知道，商戰不可能贏得市佔，真正贏的方式是流動性，是產品，是品牌，而不是攻擊對手。 有些事情是行業結構性問題，不該把所有責任都扣在幣安身上。但有些事情確實是幣安的責任，該接受檢討就接受檢討。 從何一的回應可以感覺出來，幣安在面對 FUD 的時候，第一時間不是反省自己，而是去思考「這個攻擊從何而來」。 這是一種從古早交易所商戰時期就延續至今的應激反應。何一作為幣安當時風口浪尖的第一道防線，會有這種應激反應，我覺得很正常。 但現在已經是 2026 年了，想法不應該還這麼 defensive。 這幾天幣安從西方圈這幾天燒起來的這些炎上事件，都是過去的因所種下的果。 我並不確定這到底是不是有組織、有預謀的行為。 但就算真的是有組織、有預謀，也得要有前因後果，這把火才燒得起來。 如果你們不反省，這種火以後只會越燒越大。 幣安的核心思維永遠都是防禦性的，永遠在想如何維持自己的賺錢能力跟行業地位，看誰都是潛在競爭對手，看誰做大了就要用自己的資源去碾壓。 你們有一個根深蒂固的想法：在上幣這件事上，絕對不能讓別人來「白嫖」用戶的流動性。 但有沒有想過，靠著這種偏頗的上幣邏輯來維持地位，讓你們錯失了多少用戶真正想買、想交易的幣？ 我就舉平台幣 HYPE 為例，市場上有多少交易所同行已經上架現貨了？ 但你們就是硬不上，原因很簡單，因為 Hyperliquid 是競爭對手，威脅到你們了。 按這樣的邏輯，我相信即便 HYPE 衝到市值 Top 10，你們也不會上。 White Whale 也是一樣的概念，from bottom up 的社區幣，有熱度有交易量有故事，但 SOL = BSC 的敵人，所以不上。 反過來看，DOYR、我踏馬來了，這種扣完字眼就火速退潮的幣，大家都以為死了，結果轉頭 Alpha 就給上了。 如果說這兩個幣在你們喊完之後自己活下來了，幣價健康、社群活躍、討論有熱度，那也就算了。 但它們都死了啊？死了的幣你們到底在上啥？唯一能找的角度就只有何一提過、CZ回應過而已，這種上幣邏輯怎麼可能服眾？ 美股還有七巨頭互相制衡競爭、彼此砥礪進步。 但在幣圈，幣安是絕對龍頭，當這個量體的企業的把追求利潤放在第一，把扶持自家生態鏈放在第一，對整個行業都不是好事。 我可以理解CZ想要為 BSC 創造動能，但直接或間接喊單 TST、Mubarak、Broccoli、Giggle、Aster ，真的是好事嗎？ 你的個人行為跟平台影響力高度耦合，喊單是讓散戶自己去遐想、自己去下注。 這件事如果是其他 KOL 做，頂多被罵一波就過去了。但你是 CZ，你做這件事就是球員兼裁判。 今天有人因為你的話衝進去，明天套牢了，這個帳一定會算在你頭上。每一次都在消耗信任。 你以為你在幫 BSC 造勢，但這種靠喊單撐起來的繁榮是假的。真正的結果是什麼？是讓所有人開始質疑幣安的中立性。 你覺得各國監管單位看到你這些行為，會有什麼想法？ 打開幣安APP，一整排的幣安人生、我踏馬來了、老子幣、DOYR，他們會怎麼想？ 這就是為什麼行業很多人賺到錢了，但始終賺不到外界的尊重。 你是行業龍頭，你的 APP 首頁就是這個行業的門面。當門面長這樣，你要怎麼說服傳統金融、說服監管、說服主流社會，我們是一個值得被認真對待的產業？ 我不是要幣安當聖人。 商業公司追求利潤天經地義，我自己也是開公司的，我懂。 但當你是行業龍頭的時候，你的每一個決策都在定義這個行業的遊戲規則。 你選擇上什麼幣，不上什麼幣，市場就會往那個方向長。 你選擇喊單什麼幣，散戶就會追什麼幣。 你們給誰頒「行業貢獻獎」，大家就會覺得這個人是行業認可的領軍人物。 你們的審美，會影響這個行業的審美，也會影響外界對行業的觀感。 這是權力，也是責任。 我對幣安沒有私人恩怨，我也不覺得幣安是壞人。 我只是覺得，一個世界第一的交易所，應該有世界第一的格局。 不要再用 2017 年商戰時期的思維來應對 2026 年的市場了。 你們已經贏了，現在該想的是怎麼讓整個行業一起變好。 這樣你們才能贏更久。

Name & Symbol: Giggle Fund ($GIGGLE)
Address: 0x20d6015660b3fe52e6690a889b5c51f69902ce0e

昨天收到一些社群的詢問，問我為什麼去年 10 月到 12 月罵幣安罵得那麼兇，現在反而替他們說話？ 我的核心觀點一直沒有改變。 1011 這件事，幣安始終欠行業一個交代，我認為幣安要負大部分的責任。 現在風向如此，我當然可以站在道德制高點繼續批判幣安，政治正確又能博眼球，何樂而不為？ 但我覺得過去三個月，我該表達的立場已經表達完了。站在從業人員的角度，一直停留在批評而不往前走，是不成熟的，也沒有任何意義。 幣安從成立到現在，早期確實受到很多同業的攻擊。 但現在幣安早就是世界第一了。任何一個正常有腦的同行都知道，商戰不可能贏得市佔，真正贏的方式是流動性，是產品，是品牌，而不是攻擊對手。 有些事情是行業結構性問題，不該把所有責任都扣在幣安身上。但有些事情確實是幣安的責任，該接受檢討就接受檢討。 從何一的回應可以感覺出來，幣安在面對 FUD 的時候，第一時間不是反省自己，而是去思考「這個攻擊從何而來」。 這是一種從古早交易所商戰時期就延續至今的應激反應。何一作為幣安當時風口浪尖的第一道防線，會有這種應激反應，我覺得很正常。 但現在已經是 2026 年了，想法不應該還這麼 defensive。 這幾天幣安從西方圈這幾天燒起來的這些炎上事件，都是過去的因所種下的果。 我並不確定這到底是不是有組織、有預謀的行為。 但就算真的是有組織、有預謀，也得要有前因後果，這把火才燒得起來。 如果你們不反省，這種火以後只會越燒越大。 幣安的核心思維永遠都是防禦性的，永遠在想如何維持自己的賺錢能力跟行業地位，看誰都是潛在競爭對手，看誰做大了就要用自己的資源去碾壓。 你們有一個根深蒂固的想法：在上幣這件事上，絕對不能讓別人來「白嫖」用戶的流動性。 但有沒有想過，靠著這種偏頗的上幣邏輯來維持地位，讓你們錯失了多少用戶真正想買、想交易的幣？ 我就舉平台幣 HYPE 為例，市場上有多少交易所同行已經上架現貨了？ 但你們就是硬不上，原因很簡單，因為 Hyperliquid 是競爭對手，威脅到你們了。 按這樣的邏輯，我相信即便 HYPE 衝到市值 Top 10，你們也不會上。 White Whale 也是一樣的概念，from bottom up 的社區幣，有熱度有交易量有故事，但 SOL = BSC 的敵人，所以不上。 反過來看，DOYR、我踏馬來了，這種扣完字眼就火速退潮的幣，大家都以為死了，結果轉頭 Alpha 就給上了。 如果說這兩個幣在你們喊完之後自己活下來了，幣價健康、社群活躍、討論有熱度，那也就算了。 但它們都死了啊？死了的幣你們到底在上啥？唯一能找的角度就只有何一提過、CZ回應過而已，這種上幣邏輯怎麼可能服眾？ 美股還有七巨頭互相制衡競爭、彼此砥礪進步。 但在幣圈，幣安是絕對龍頭，當這個量體的企業的把追求利潤放在第一，把扶持自家生態鏈放在第一，對整個行業都不是好事。 我可以理解CZ想要為 BSC 創造動能，但直接或間接喊單 TST、Mubarak、Broccoli、Giggle、Aster ，真的是好事嗎？ 你的個人行為跟平台影響力高度耦合，喊單是讓散戶自己去遐想、自己去下注。 這件事如果是其他 KOL 做，頂多被罵一波就過去了。但你是 CZ，你做這件事就是球員兼裁判。 今天有人因為你的話衝進去，明天套牢了，這個帳一定會算在你頭上。每一次都在消耗信任。 你以為你在幫 BSC 造勢，但這種靠喊單撐起來的繁榮是假的。真正的結果是什麼？是讓所有人開始質疑幣安的中立性。 你覺得各國監管單位看到你這些行為，會有什麼想法？ 打開幣安APP，一整排的幣安人生、我踏馬來了、老子幣、DOYR，他們會怎麼想？ 這就是為什麼行業很多人賺到錢了，但始終賺不到外界的尊重。 你是行業龍頭，你的 APP 首頁就是這個行業的門面。當門面長這樣，你要怎麼說服傳統金融、說服監管、說服主流社會，我們是一個值得被認真對待的產業？ 我不是要幣安當聖人。 商業公司追求利潤天經地義，我自己也是開公司的，我懂。 但當你是行業龍頭的時候，你的每一個決策都在定義這個行業的遊戲規則。 你選擇上什麼幣，不上什麼幣，市場就會往那個方向長。 你選擇喊單什麼幣，散戶就會追什麼幣。 你們給誰頒「行業貢獻獎」，大家就會覺得這個人是行業認可的領軍人物。 你們的審美，會影響這個行業的審美，也會影響外界對行業的觀感。 這是權力，也是責任。 我對幣安沒有私人恩怨，我也不覺得幣安是壞人。 我只是覺得，一個世界第一的交易所，應該有世界第一的格局。 不要再用 2017 年商戰時期的思維來應對 2026 年的市場了。 你們已經贏了，現在該想的是怎麼讓整個行業一起變好。 這樣你們才能贏更久。

Name & Symbol: DOYR ($DOYR)
Address: 0x925c8ab7a9a8a148e87cd7f1ec7ecc3625864444

昨天收到一些社群的詢問，問我為什麼去年 10 月到 12 月罵幣安罵得那麼兇，現在反而替他們說話？ 我的核心觀點一直沒有改變。 1011 這件事，幣安始終欠行業一個交代，我認為幣安要負大部分的責任。 現在風向如此，我當然可以站在道德制高點繼續批判幣安，政治正確又能博眼球，何樂而不為？ 但我覺得過去三個月，我該表達的立場已經表達完了。站在從業人員的角度，一直停留在批評而不往前走，是不成熟的，也沒有任何意義。 幣安從成立到現在，早期確實受到很多同業的攻擊。 但現在幣安早就是世界第一了。任何一個正常有腦的同行都知道，商戰不可能贏得市佔，真正贏的方式是流動性，是產品，是品牌，而不是攻擊對手。 有些事情是行業結構性問題，不該把所有責任都扣在幣安身上。但有些事情確實是幣安的責任，該接受檢討就接受檢討。 從何一的回應可以感覺出來，幣安在面對 FUD 的時候，第一時間不是反省自己，而是去思考「這個攻擊從何而來」。 這是一種從古早交易所商戰時期就延續至今的應激反應。何一作為幣安當時風口浪尖的第一道防線，會有這種應激反應，我覺得很正常。 但現在已經是 2026 年了，想法不應該還這麼 defensive。 這幾天幣安從西方圈這幾天燒起來的這些炎上事件，都是過去的因所種下的果。 我並不確定這到底是不是有組織、有預謀的行為。 但就算真的是有組織、有預謀，也得要有前因後果，這把火才燒得起來。 如果你們不反省，這種火以後只會越燒越大。 幣安的核心思維永遠都是防禦性的，永遠在想如何維持自己的賺錢能力跟行業地位，看誰都是潛在競爭對手，看誰做大了就要用自己的資源去碾壓。 你們有一個根深蒂固的想法：在上幣這件事上，絕對不能讓別人來「白嫖」用戶的流動性。 但有沒有想過，靠著這種偏頗的上幣邏輯來維持地位，讓你們錯失了多少用戶真正想買、想交易的幣？ 我就舉平台幣 HYPE 為例，市場上有多少交易所同行已經上架現貨了？ 但你們就是硬不上，原因很簡單，因為 Hyperliquid 是競爭對手，威脅到你們了。 按這樣的邏輯，我相信即便 HYPE 衝到市值 Top 10，你們也不會上。 White Whale 也是一樣的概念，from bottom up 的社區幣，有熱度有交易量有故事，但 SOL = BSC 的敵人，所以不上。 反過來看，DOYR、我踏馬來了，這種扣完字眼就火速退潮的幣，大家都以為死了，結果轉頭 Alpha 就給上了。 如果說這兩個幣在你們喊完之後自己活下來了，幣價健康、社群活躍、討論有熱度，那也就算了。 但它們都死了啊？死了的幣你們到底在上啥？唯一能找的角度就只有何一提過、CZ回應過而已，這種上幣邏輯怎麼可能服眾？ 美股還有七巨頭互相制衡競爭、彼此砥礪進步。 但在幣圈，幣安是絕對龍頭，當這個量體的企業的把追求利潤放在第一，把扶持自家生態鏈放在第一，對整個行業都不是好事。 我可以理解CZ想要為 BSC 創造動能，但直接或間接喊單 TST、Mubarak、Broccoli、Giggle、Aster ，真的是好事嗎？ 你的個人行為跟平台影響力高度耦合，喊單是讓散戶自己去遐想、自己去下注。 這件事如果是其他 KOL 做，頂多被罵一波就過去了。但你是 CZ，你做這件事就是球員兼裁判。 今天有人因為你的話衝進去，明天套牢了，這個帳一定會算在你頭上。每一次都在消耗信任。 你以為你在幫 BSC 造勢，但這種靠喊單撐起來的繁榮是假的。真正的結果是什麼？是讓所有人開始質疑幣安的中立性。 你覺得各國監管單位看到你這些行為，會有什麼想法？ 打開幣安APP，一整排的幣安人生、我踏馬來了、老子幣、DOYR，他們會怎麼想？ 這就是為什麼行業很多人賺到錢了，但始終賺不到外界的尊重。 你是行業龍頭，你的 APP 首頁就是這個行業的門面。當門面長這樣，你要怎麼說服傳統金融、說服監管、說服主流社會，我們是一個值得被認真對待的產業？ 我不是要幣安當聖人。 商業公司追求利潤天經地義，我自己也是開公司的，我懂。 但當你是行業龍頭的時候，你的每一個決策都在定義這個行業的遊戲規則。 你選擇上什麼幣，不上什麼幣，市場就會往那個方向長。 你選擇喊單什麼幣，散戶就會追什麼幣。 你們給誰頒「行業貢獻獎」，大家就會覺得這個人是行業認可的領軍人物。 你們的審美，會影響這個行業的審美，也會影響外界對行業的觀感。 這是權力，也是責任。 我對幣安沒有私人恩怨，我也不覺得幣安是壞人。 我只是覺得，一個世界第一的交易所，應該有世界第一的格局。 不要再用 2017 年商戰時期的思維來應對 2026 年的市場了。 你們已經贏了，現在該想的是怎麼讓整個行業一起變好。 這樣你們才能贏更久。

Name & Symbol: Aster ($ASTER)
Address: 0x000ae314e2a2172a039b26378814c252734f556a

昨天收到一些社群的詢問，問我為什麼去年 10 月到 12 月罵幣安罵得那麼兇，現在反而替他們說話？ 我的核心觀點一直沒有改變。 1011 這件事，幣安始終欠行業一個交代，我認為幣安要負大部分的責任。 現在風向如此，我當然可以站在道德制高點繼續批判幣安，政治正確又能博眼球，何樂而不為？ 但我覺得過去三個月，我該表達的立場已經表達完了。站在從業人員的角度，一直停留在批評而不往前走，是不成熟的，也沒有任何意義。 幣安從成立到現在，早期確實受到很多同業的攻擊。 但現在幣安早就是世界第一了。任何一個正常有腦的同行都知道，商戰不可能贏得市佔，真正贏的方式是流動性，是產品，是品牌，而不是攻擊對手。 有些事情是行業結構性問題，不該把所有責任都扣在幣安身上。但有些事情確實是幣安的責任，該接受檢討就接受檢討。 從何一的回應可以感覺出來，幣安在面對 FUD 的時候，第一時間不是反省自己，而是去思考「這個攻擊從何而來」。 這是一種從古早交易所商戰時期就延續至今的應激反應。何一作為幣安當時風口浪尖的第一道防線，會有這種應激反應，我覺得很正常。 但現在已經是 2026 年了，想法不應該還這麼 defensive。 這幾天幣安從西方圈這幾天燒起來的這些炎上事件，都是過去的因所種下的果。 我並不確定這到底是不是有組織、有預謀的行為。 但就算真的是有組織、有預謀，也得要有前因後果，這把火才燒得起來。 如果你們不反省，這種火以後只會越燒越大。 幣安的核心思維永遠都是防禦性的，永遠在想如何維持自己的賺錢能力跟行業地位，看誰都是潛在競爭對手，看誰做大了就要用自己的資源去碾壓。 你們有一個根深蒂固的想法：在上幣這件事上，絕對不能讓別人來「白嫖」用戶的流動性。 但有沒有想過，靠著這種偏頗的上幣邏輯來維持地位，讓你們錯失了多少用戶真正想買、想交易的幣？ 我就舉平台幣 HYPE 為例，市場上有多少交易所同行已經上架現貨了？ 但你們就是硬不上，原因很簡單，因為 Hyperliquid 是競爭對手，威脅到你們了。 按這樣的邏輯，我相信即便 HYPE 衝到市值 Top 10，你們也不會上。 White Whale 也是一樣的概念，from bottom up 的社區幣，有熱度有交易量有故事，但 SOL = BSC 的敵人，所以不上。 反過來看，DOYR、我踏馬來了，這種扣完字眼就火速退潮的幣，大家都以為死了，結果轉頭 Alpha 就給上了。 如果說這兩個幣在你們喊完之後自己活下來了，幣價健康、社群活躍、討論有熱度，那也就算了。 但它們都死了啊？死了的幣你們到底在上啥？唯一能找的角度就只有何一提過、CZ回應過而已，這種上幣邏輯怎麼可能服眾？ 美股還有七巨頭互相制衡競爭、彼此砥礪進步。 但在幣圈，幣安是絕對龍頭，當這個量體的企業的把追求利潤放在第一，把扶持自家生態鏈放在第一，對整個行業都不是好事。 我可以理解CZ想要為 BSC 創造動能，但直接或間接喊單 TST、Mubarak、Broccoli、Giggle、Aster ，真的是好事嗎？ 你的個人行為跟平台影響力高度耦合，喊單是讓散戶自己去遐想、自己去下注。 這件事如果是其他 KOL 做，頂多被罵一波就過去了。但你是 CZ，你做這件事就是球員兼裁判。 今天有人因為你的話衝進去，明天套牢了，這個帳一定會算在你頭上。每一次都在消耗信任。 你以為你在幫 BSC 造勢，但這種靠喊單撐起來的繁榮是假的。真正的結果是什麼？是讓所有人開始質疑幣安的中立性。 你覺得各國監管單位看到你這些行為，會有什麼想法？ 打開幣安APP，一整排的幣安人生、我踏馬來了、老子幣、DOYR，他們會怎麼想？ 這就是為什麼行業很多人賺到錢了，但始終賺不到外界的尊重。 你是行業龍頭，你的 APP 首頁就是這個行業的門面。當門面長這樣，你要怎麼說服傳統金融、說服監管、說服主流社會，我們是一個值得被認真對待的產業？ 我不是要幣安當聖人。 商業公司追求利潤天經地義，我自己也是開公司的，我懂。 但當你是行業龍頭的時候，你的每一個決策都在定義這個行業的遊戲規則。 你選擇上什麼幣，不上什麼幣，市場就會往那個方向長。 你選擇喊單什麼幣，散戶就會追什麼幣。 你們給誰頒「行業貢獻獎」，大家就會覺得這個人是行業認可的領軍人物。 你們的審美，會影響這個行業的審美，也會影響外界對行業的觀感。 這是權力，也是責任。 我對幣安沒有私人恩怨，我也不覺得幣安是壞人。 我只是覺得，一個世界第一的交易所，應該有世界第一的格局。 不要再用 2017 年商戰時期的思維來應對 2026 年的市場了。 你們已經贏了，現在該想的是怎麼讓整個行業一起變好。 這樣你們才能贏更久。

Name & Symbol: CZ'S DOG ($Broccoli)
Address: 0x6d5ad1592ed9d6d1df9b93c793ab759573ed6714

172 days ago the Stream team messaged me to complain about a snarky tweet I had made about their vault code. This was the last message I sent them. Obviously they did not listen and we are in fact worse off because of it. Contrary to what many seem to feel, none of what happened came out of nowhere. As with any good bubble/blow up it has been slowly brewing and was simply a matter of time till it burst. It took one conversation with their and 5 minutes of scrolling their Debank to realize that this was going to end poorly. And while Stream was the most egregious, they are far from the only ones out there with bodies to hide. So while I have my 15 minutes of CT's attention here are a few long, but hopefully final, thoughts on our latest saga. First on Stream in particular. Even I was surprised at the size of their loses, and while we wait to see what the official reason for the hole is, I think its pretty obvious you don't delegate 9 figures of user capital to "external managers". And the only way you loose that amount of money is leverage trading shitters. Seems clear these kids started directionally trading with user capital while lying about it. This isn't a phenomenon unique to DeFi, it's a tale as old as time. And ironically one of the primary original selling points of the benefits of DeFi, to not allow this. Nonetheless, I still don't think the market has fully grasped the extent of the insolvency. At time of writing this xUSD is trading at about $0.25 or 20% of its PPS of 1.27 and deUSD is at $0.99 still. So lets do some math. If we look at the current state of Stream's assets their total DeBank bundle claims $138m and liabilities of their dashboard says $160m of user deposits. However, seams safe to write off all of the value in 0x15 at this point, given its almost all xUSD and deUSD levered positions that they have no ability to ever unwind. And assume their new msig 0x14b is all of the returnable funds which is currently $63m. Then we come to the liabilities, which is where the recursive looping and unbacked minting kicks everything up. Since they have no viable path to repay their xUSD loans we can assume that all will eventually end in liquidation in some capacity. Which given the limited on chain liquidity likely leads to lenders taking possession of the xUSD posted as collateral, which fully breaks their recursive accounting and causes a 2X+ of the outstanding xUSD liabilities and creditors that will be looking for repayment and redemptions. My best estimate from Debank is they have a total of close to 300m xUSD currently leveraged across their wallets. At current PPS of 1.27 this increases their outstanding liabilities by about $380m to $540m. Which would then give an expected redemption value of 63/540 for close to a 90% loss or $0.14 per xUSD. Of course this also means deUSD will take at minimum 20-30% bad debt, assuming their 1:1 agreement won't hold up given Stream doesn't have enough to pay Elixir back in full even if they did abide by it. And anything lent or backed against xUSD or deUSD takes on their equivalent amount of bad debt. Fun thought experiment for the reader is how do you price the 6.2m deUSD 0x14 currently holds given its redemption price is dependent on xUSD's. Now, I have no idea when or if these liquidations will actually occur. Given all the oracles are hardcoded, lenders only recourse is to wait till the interest accrual liquidates them. Places like Elixir's Morpho market on Plume this is likely to happen soon given Morpho's adaptive IR curve the borrow rate is already 190%. On Euler, especially Plasma, it could take months given the hardcoded caps on the IR curves. While I would expect the redemption process to take weeks to months, it is also possible they keep these positions alive long enough to just serve withdraws to circulating shares and therefore all lenders to xUSD will take a 100% loss in order to reduce the losses for current xUSD holders. This exact reason is why, regardless of their shitcoin trading practices, what they were doing with collateralizing the self looped shares was extra levels of retardio even for this industry. And as always is another friendly reminder that leverage is a fickle bitch and magnifies in both directions. _____________ While I will leave most of the pontificating about the long term effects to DeFi to the clearly ever so alert CT crowd, obviously we have some issues. At Yearn we have been speaking about this for quite some time, but seams the rest of DeFi has now woken up. While any new meta such as Curation or Vaults, will have people pile in and there are bound to be bad actors or those that cut corners. This clearly goes far beyond that. Almost every major "risk manager" showed themselves to be baphoon's in some capacity far beyond just those that directly allocated to Stream assets. Due diligence is the primary slower of growth and therefore gets thrown out first. Users see vaults labeled as Prime, Core, Horizon, High Yield, etc all with a Curator name that means nothing to them and just end up chasing yields inevitably pushing the industry up the risk curve. We need standardization, we need proper transparency and due diligence, and we need to understand when you treat financial markets like a high growth SAAS tech play, things like this are bound to happen. A risk managers job is to say NO. If you are not doing that, or just waiting till shit goes sideways to try and pull your funds faster than others. Your not a risk manager you're a clown. Hopefully as the system absorbs nine figures of bad debt it makes those leading the charge think a bit harder before they list the next shiny new shitcoin. Outside of improvements to curation my top personal hope is this makes all vault providers currently using the black box method of off chain pricing their shares to change course. This is one of the most terrifying widespread adoptions of this cycle, in which multisig's are arbitrarily setting the PPS of their vaults based on undisclosed off chain pricing logic. And to be clear Stream is not the exception here, this is now standard practice from almost every vault provider, including basically all of the largest players. If you are in a blah, blah USD or "Vault yada yada", "YieldCoin Whats its Nuts" or whatever, you are almost certainly subject this. As the industry continuous to move to a less cypher punk value set, we should make sure there is a distinction between decentralization and transparency. Even in places where we move to more centralized/trusted systems, transparency should still exist in its full force. Otherwise we really are just banking but worse. While events like this always remind me why I am embarrassed to tell people I work in crypto, so far there does seem to be a positive response and recognizing our shortfalls. Though I am sure next cycle a new group of kids will come along claiming they've got the best risk adjusted yields around and we will run it back once again. Our only hope is each time this happens a few more people learn to demand more out of those they trust their money to.

Name & Symbol: Morpho Token ($MORPHO)
Address: 0x58d97b57bb95320f9a05dc918aef65434969c2b2

172 days ago the Stream team messaged me to complain about a snarky tweet I had made about their vault code. This was the last message I sent them. Obviously they did not listen and we are in fact worse off because of it. Contrary to what many seem to feel, none of what happened came out of nowhere. As with any good bubble/blow up it has been slowly brewing and was simply a matter of time till it burst. It took one conversation with their and 5 minutes of scrolling their Debank to realize that this was going to end poorly. And while Stream was the most egregious, they are far from the only ones out there with bodies to hide. So while I have my 15 minutes of CT's attention here are a few long, but hopefully final, thoughts on our latest saga. First on Stream in particular. Even I was surprised at the size of their loses, and while we wait to see what the official reason for the hole is, I think its pretty obvious you don't delegate 9 figures of user capital to "external managers". And the only way you loose that amount of money is leverage trading shitters. Seems clear these kids started directionally trading with user capital while lying about it. This isn't a phenomenon unique to DeFi, it's a tale as old as time. And ironically one of the primary original selling points of the benefits of DeFi, to not allow this. Nonetheless, I still don't think the market has fully grasped the extent of the insolvency. At time of writing this xUSD is trading at about $0.25 or 20% of its PPS of 1.27 and deUSD is at $0.99 still. So lets do some math. If we look at the current state of Stream's assets their total DeBank bundle claims $138m and liabilities of their dashboard says $160m of user deposits. However, seams safe to write off all of the value in 0x15 at this point, given its almost all xUSD and deUSD levered positions that they have no ability to ever unwind. And assume their new msig 0x14b is all of the returnable funds which is currently $63m. Then we come to the liabilities, which is where the recursive looping and unbacked minting kicks everything up. Since they have no viable path to repay their xUSD loans we can assume that all will eventually end in liquidation in some capacity. Which given the limited on chain liquidity likely leads to lenders taking possession of the xUSD posted as collateral, which fully breaks their recursive accounting and causes a 2X+ of the outstanding xUSD liabilities and creditors that will be looking for repayment and redemptions. My best estimate from Debank is they have a total of close to 300m xUSD currently leveraged across their wallets. At current PPS of 1.27 this increases their outstanding liabilities by about $380m to $540m. Which would then give an expected redemption value of 63/540 for close to a 90% loss or $0.14 per xUSD. Of course this also means deUSD will take at minimum 20-30% bad debt, assuming their 1:1 agreement won't hold up given Stream doesn't have enough to pay Elixir back in full even if they did abide by it. And anything lent or backed against xUSD or deUSD takes on their equivalent amount of bad debt. Fun thought experiment for the reader is how do you price the 6.2m deUSD 0x14 currently holds given its redemption price is dependent on xUSD's. Now, I have no idea when or if these liquidations will actually occur. Given all the oracles are hardcoded, lenders only recourse is to wait till the interest accrual liquidates them. Places like Elixir's Morpho market on Plume this is likely to happen soon given Morpho's adaptive IR curve the borrow rate is already 190%. On Euler, especially Plasma, it could take months given the hardcoded caps on the IR curves. While I would expect the redemption process to take weeks to months, it is also possible they keep these positions alive long enough to just serve withdraws to circulating shares and therefore all lenders to xUSD will take a 100% loss in order to reduce the losses for current xUSD holders. This exact reason is why, regardless of their shitcoin trading practices, what they were doing with collateralizing the self looped shares was extra levels of retardio even for this industry. And as always is another friendly reminder that leverage is a fickle bitch and magnifies in both directions. _____________ While I will leave most of the pontificating about the long term effects to DeFi to the clearly ever so alert CT crowd, obviously we have some issues. At Yearn we have been speaking about this for quite some time, but seams the rest of DeFi has now woken up. While any new meta such as Curation or Vaults, will have people pile in and there are bound to be bad actors or those that cut corners. This clearly goes far beyond that. Almost every major "risk manager" showed themselves to be baphoon's in some capacity far beyond just those that directly allocated to Stream assets. Due diligence is the primary slower of growth and therefore gets thrown out first. Users see vaults labeled as Prime, Core, Horizon, High Yield, etc all with a Curator name that means nothing to them and just end up chasing yields inevitably pushing the industry up the risk curve. We need standardization, we need proper transparency and due diligence, and we need to understand when you treat financial markets like a high growth SAAS tech play, things like this are bound to happen. A risk managers job is to say NO. If you are not doing that, or just waiting till shit goes sideways to try and pull your funds faster than others. Your not a risk manager you're a clown. Hopefully as the system absorbs nine figures of bad debt it makes those leading the charge think a bit harder before they list the next shiny new shitcoin. Outside of improvements to curation my top personal hope is this makes all vault providers currently using the black box method of off chain pricing their shares to change course. This is one of the most terrifying widespread adoptions of this cycle, in which multisig's are arbitrarily setting the PPS of their vaults based on undisclosed off chain pricing logic. And to be clear Stream is not the exception here, this is now standard practice from almost every vault provider, including basically all of the largest players. If you are in a blah, blah USD or "Vault yada yada", "YieldCoin Whats its Nuts" or whatever, you are almost certainly subject this. As the industry continuous to move to a less cypher punk value set, we should make sure there is a distinction between decentralization and transparency. Even in places where we move to more centralized/trusted systems, transparency should still exist in its full force. Otherwise we really are just banking but worse. While events like this always remind me why I am embarrassed to tell people I work in crypto, so far there does seem to be a positive response and recognizing our shortfalls. Though I am sure next cycle a new group of kids will come along claiming they've got the best risk adjusted yields around and we will run it back once again. Our only hope is each time this happens a few more people learn to demand more out of those they trust their money to.

Name & Symbol: Plasma ($XPL)
Address: 0x405fbc9004d857903bfd6b3357792d71a50726b0

172 days ago the Stream team messaged me to complain about a snarky tweet I had made about their vault code. This was the last message I sent them. Obviously they did not listen and we are in fact worse off because of it. Contrary to what many seem to feel, none of what happened came out of nowhere. As with any good bubble/blow up it has been slowly brewing and was simply a matter of time till it burst. It took one conversation with their and 5 minutes of scrolling their Debank to realize that this was going to end poorly. And while Stream was the most egregious, they are far from the only ones out there with bodies to hide. So while I have my 15 minutes of CT's attention here are a few long, but hopefully final, thoughts on our latest saga. First on Stream in particular. Even I was surprised at the size of their loses, and while we wait to see what the official reason for the hole is, I think its pretty obvious you don't delegate 9 figures of user capital to "external managers". And the only way you loose that amount of money is leverage trading shitters. Seems clear these kids started directionally trading with user capital while lying about it. This isn't a phenomenon unique to DeFi, it's a tale as old as time. And ironically one of the primary original selling points of the benefits of DeFi, to not allow this. Nonetheless, I still don't think the market has fully grasped the extent of the insolvency. At time of writing this xUSD is trading at about $0.25 or 20% of its PPS of 1.27 and deUSD is at $0.99 still. So lets do some math. If we look at the current state of Stream's assets their total DeBank bundle claims $138m and liabilities of their dashboard says $160m of user deposits. However, seams safe to write off all of the value in 0x15 at this point, given its almost all xUSD and deUSD levered positions that they have no ability to ever unwind. And assume their new msig 0x14b is all of the returnable funds which is currently $63m. Then we come to the liabilities, which is where the recursive looping and unbacked minting kicks everything up. Since they have no viable path to repay their xUSD loans we can assume that all will eventually end in liquidation in some capacity. Which given the limited on chain liquidity likely leads to lenders taking possession of the xUSD posted as collateral, which fully breaks their recursive accounting and causes a 2X+ of the outstanding xUSD liabilities and creditors that will be looking for repayment and redemptions. My best estimate from Debank is they have a total of close to 300m xUSD currently leveraged across their wallets. At current PPS of 1.27 this increases their outstanding liabilities by about $380m to $540m. Which would then give an expected redemption value of 63/540 for close to a 90% loss or $0.14 per xUSD. Of course this also means deUSD will take at minimum 20-30% bad debt, assuming their 1:1 agreement won't hold up given Stream doesn't have enough to pay Elixir back in full even if they did abide by it. And anything lent or backed against xUSD or deUSD takes on their equivalent amount of bad debt. Fun thought experiment for the reader is how do you price the 6.2m deUSD 0x14 currently holds given its redemption price is dependent on xUSD's. Now, I have no idea when or if these liquidations will actually occur. Given all the oracles are hardcoded, lenders only recourse is to wait till the interest accrual liquidates them. Places like Elixir's Morpho market on Plume this is likely to happen soon given Morpho's adaptive IR curve the borrow rate is already 190%. On Euler, especially Plasma, it could take months given the hardcoded caps on the IR curves. While I would expect the redemption process to take weeks to months, it is also possible they keep these positions alive long enough to just serve withdraws to circulating shares and therefore all lenders to xUSD will take a 100% loss in order to reduce the losses for current xUSD holders. This exact reason is why, regardless of their shitcoin trading practices, what they were doing with collateralizing the self looped shares was extra levels of retardio even for this industry. And as always is another friendly reminder that leverage is a fickle bitch and magnifies in both directions. _____________ While I will leave most of the pontificating about the long term effects to DeFi to the clearly ever so alert CT crowd, obviously we have some issues. At Yearn we have been speaking about this for quite some time, but seams the rest of DeFi has now woken up. While any new meta such as Curation or Vaults, will have people pile in and there are bound to be bad actors or those that cut corners. This clearly goes far beyond that. Almost every major "risk manager" showed themselves to be baphoon's in some capacity far beyond just those that directly allocated to Stream assets. Due diligence is the primary slower of growth and therefore gets thrown out first. Users see vaults labeled as Prime, Core, Horizon, High Yield, etc all with a Curator name that means nothing to them and just end up chasing yields inevitably pushing the industry up the risk curve. We need standardization, we need proper transparency and due diligence, and we need to understand when you treat financial markets like a high growth SAAS tech play, things like this are bound to happen. A risk managers job is to say NO. If you are not doing that, or just waiting till shit goes sideways to try and pull your funds faster than others. Your not a risk manager you're a clown. Hopefully as the system absorbs nine figures of bad debt it makes those leading the charge think a bit harder before they list the next shiny new shitcoin. Outside of improvements to curation my top personal hope is this makes all vault providers currently using the black box method of off chain pricing their shares to change course. This is one of the most terrifying widespread adoptions of this cycle, in which multisig's are arbitrarily setting the PPS of their vaults based on undisclosed off chain pricing logic. And to be clear Stream is not the exception here, this is now standard practice from almost every vault provider, including basically all of the largest players. If you are in a blah, blah USD or "Vault yada yada", "YieldCoin Whats its Nuts" or whatever, you are almost certainly subject this. As the industry continuous to move to a less cypher punk value set, we should make sure there is a distinction between decentralization and transparency. Even in places where we move to more centralized/trusted systems, transparency should still exist in its full force. Otherwise we really are just banking but worse. While events like this always remind me why I am embarrassed to tell people I work in crypto, so far there does seem to be a positive response and recognizing our shortfalls. Though I am sure next cycle a new group of kids will come along claiming they've got the best risk adjusted yields around and we will run it back once again. Our only hope is each time this happens a few more people learn to demand more out of those they trust their money to.

Name & Symbol: Plume ($PLUME)
Address: 0x4c1746a800d224393fe2470c70a35717ed4ea5f1

it's surprising to me that smart money still does not understand Morpho market structure not a knock on @dcfgod because even curators are in the comments confidently stating wrong things about how the market structure works!

Name & Symbol: Morpho Token ($MORPHO)
Address: 0x58d97b57bb95320f9a05dc918aef65434969c2b2

Pump should relaunch on MetaDAO - contribute all cash to a closed ICO raise - distribute ICO ownership tokens to Pump tokenholders pro rata - link up revenue to a treasury controlled by Futarchy I believe this would trade at a higher valuation than Pump’s existing token on day one. Right now Pump trades at a discount because outsiders like me don’t know exactly what is going on with the cash raised / how much of the revenue will go to buybacks vs equity going forward. You may believe this is not an issue at all (and you may be completely right! The point is that I don’t know) but I promise the market is haircutting valuation based on these concerns. Why not send those concerns to 0.00 with haste. Embrace the Futarchy

Name & Symbol: Pump.fun ($PUMP)
Address: pumpCmXqMfrsAkQ5r49WcJnRayYRqmXz6ae8H7H9Dfn

Only four assets out of the 429 in total on Binance (spot only) are up from the pre-crash prices. Zcash - up 17% RDNT - up 15% Succinct - up 12% Morpho - up 3% The remaining 425 assets are all down https://t.co/CaF3augxv2

Name & Symbol: Succinct ($PROVE)
Address: 0x7ddf164cecfddd0f992299d033b5a11279a15929

Only four assets out of the 429 in total on Binance (spot only) are up from the pre-crash prices. Zcash - up 17% RDNT - up 15% Succinct - up 12% Morpho - up 3% The remaining 425 assets are all down https://t.co/CaF3augxv2

Name & Symbol: Morpho Token ($MORPHO)
Address: 0x58d97b57bb95320f9a05dc918aef65434969c2b2

Very impressed with how solid defi protocols were during the dump (perhaps contagion soon). Withdrew all funds just in case and everything works perfectly. Shout out to aave euler fluid morpho pendle Felix hyperlend hypurfi. Defi is obviously the backbone of the industry. So can we stop bidding fucking Chinese memecoins and start building again. Hyperliquid

Name & Symbol: Morpho Token ($MORPHO)
Address: 0x58d97b57bb95320f9a05dc918aef65434969c2b2

Very impressed with how solid defi protocols were during the dump (perhaps contagion soon). Withdrew all funds just in case and everything works perfectly. Shout out to aave euler fluid morpho pendle Felix hyperlend hypurfi. Defi is obviously the backbone of the industry. So can we stop bidding fucking Chinese memecoins and start building again. Hyperliquid

Name & Symbol: Fluid ($FLUID)
Address: 0x6f40d4a6237c257fff2db00fa0510deeecd303eb

Plasma is what Berachain should be

Name & Symbol: Plasma ($XPL)
Address: 0x405fbc9004d857903bfd6b3357792d71a50726b0

'sell the news' only works if there's no actual fundamental improvements that occur because of the news, and if there's no more news coming ENA has the most bullish news cycle on alts right now DAT coming with stablecoin narrative and open market buys (I will bet my left bollock they raise again in Q4 for this btw) HIP-3 USDe markets coming, inevitably going to go hard for this and the revenue will be 100s of mil annualised from that alone Converge chain and strong ties to tradfi and RWA issuance via securitise, blackrock, Franklin Templeton etc Boosts to APR /USDe minting/revenue with every rate cut as markets go risk on All of these things aren't sell the news and they're all coming so selling the news on them will inevitably lead to suffering as people ramp up for the next thing

Name & Symbol: Allo ($RWA)
Address: 0x9c8b5ca345247396bdfac0395638ca9045c6586e

if $ONDO is $10B you best believe $ENA is $50B

Name & Symbol: Ondo ($ONDO)
Address: 0xfaba6f8e4a5e8ab82f62fe7c39859fa577269be3

All fundamental metrics at ATH except for the price. You know what will happen eventually.

Name & Symbol: Aethir Token ($ATH)
Address: 0xbe0ed4138121ecfc5c0e56b40517da27e6c5226b

Created a token via @boopdotfun yesterday mainly to claim the $BOOP airdrop, didn't expect it to attract so much attention and volume. That said I am happy that a DeFi memecoin can generate enough interest and will be interesting to see how far can this movement spread. BuNonfvszzm6dJuzigNbde7qGNmcSYxT64erw3Wboop Disclaimer: This memecoin is for entertainment purposes only. It has no intrinsic value, no roadmap, and no utility. Nothing I say should be considered financial advice. There should be no expectation of profit from buying, holding, or trading this coin.

Name & Symbol: Make DeFi Great Again ($DeFi)
Address: BuNonfvszzm6dJuzigNbde7qGNmcSYxT64erw3Wboop