粤大魔

Fries! Fries! | Daily update market analysis OKX node | ❌：@YUEDAMO

22Following

2.8Kfollowers

Feed

Regarding the final stage of the OpenAI trial, there are several key pieces of information worth carefully sorting out. #OpenAI庭审进入闭幕陈述 Microsoft was forced to disclose a figure far beyond public perception during the trial: by mid-2026, the total investment in OpenAI will exceed $100 billion, nearly eight times the previously known $13 billion. This number was not voluntarily disclosed in financial reports but was revealed under questioning in court. This has a dual impact on the narrative around OpenAI's valuation. On the positive side, one of the world's richest tech companies willing to bet at this scale is a strong endorsement of the technology path and commercial prospects, making the IPO story more solid. On the risk side, the premise is a smooth listing. Currently, Republican lawmakers are launching investigations, and attorneys general from six states have jointly requested the SEC to review. If the IPO process is hindered, this $100 billion investment will become Microsoft's largest risk exposure. The moat or the black hole—the boundary is not so clear. More attention should be paid to Musk's decision to forgo the rebuttal phase. After the opposing party finished presenting evidence, his legal team directly stated they would not rebut and moved to closing arguments. The legal explanation is a strategic contraction after assessing the chances of winning; only two charges remain in the trial, and continuing to contest may not be worthwhile. But the business logic is more convincing. This lawsuit has lasted nearly two years, objectively dragging OpenAI's commercialization transformation into a public opinion vortex each round, with every financing and IPO rumor reopening the wound of "betraying the nonprofit mission." During the same period, Musk's own xAI has merged with SpaceX without delay. What he may have needed was never a victory judgment but a time window to hold back the opponent. Giving up rebuttal does not equal conceding defeat. Meanwhile, he himself has already left the U.S. this week. Musk traveled to China with Trump but did not obtain approval from the federal judge handling this case. The judge had explicitly required him to "be ready to appear in court at any time," meaning he is still under subpoena, and leaving the judicial jurisdiction itself poses a real risk of contempt of court. If the judge decides to pursue this, options range from fines and travel restrictions to more extreme coercive measures. Should it come to that, the entire case's focus will shift completely from OpenAI's business ethics to whether Musk personally challenges judicial authority. Of course, he has several layers of protection: the judge has not issued a written travel ban, leaving procedural gray areas; as the plaintiff who has waived rebuttal, the substantive impact of the violation is partially mitigated; and traveling with the U.S. president also requires the judge to consider international implications before taking action. Putting these three clues together, the logic is clear. Microsoft was forced to reveal its hand, both endorsing OpenAI and putting pressure on itself. Musk uses the combination of waiving rebuttal and leaving the jurisdiction to shift the battlefield from the courtroom to public opinion and the timeline, weakening the legal nature of the case while amplifying its symbolic significance. If the risk of contempt of court escalates, the core discussion will shift from AI business ethics to a more ancient topic—the boundary between personal behavior and judicial authority. The direction of this matter is no longer purely a legal issue. $OPENAI $SPACEX $ANTHROPIC

Walsh got approved, 54 to 45. Whether the 54:45 vote count is Walsh's binding constraint or his talisman, honestly, I don't know. #沃什Fed时代：降息门槛大幅提高 The narrowest vote margin since 1977, with only one Democrat crossing over. Greenspan was unanimous back then, Powell had at least 80 votes twice. Walsh’s start has half of Congress waiting to see him fail. But what really caught my attention about this vote count isn’t how weak he is, it’s how this number collides with several other things. The House is pushing a bill called the "2025 Price Stability Act." The name sounds boring, but the content is simple: remove "maximum employment" from the Federal Reserve Act, leaving only "price stability." Since the rule set in 1977, the Fed has had to do two things simultaneously: control inflation and maintain employment. These two are naturally contradictory, but this contradiction gave past chairmen room to maneuver. If employment data was weak, there was reason to cut rates. If inflation rose, tighten up again. Powell’s era played this game best, and the market got used to it—if employment falters, the faucet is assumed to open. Now someone wants to block this fallback. Once the bill passes, no matter how bad employment data gets, what legal basis is there for a rate cut? The law explicitly only lets you manage prices, not employment. Then look at current inflation data. April PPI surged to 6%, core PCE’s three-month annualized rate jumped from 2.4% to 4.4%, and with the conflict in Iran ongoing, oil prices remain sky-high. If a recession hits and employment collapses now, would you cut rates? By the old rules, yes. By the new rules, you have no authority to cut. Powell was already laying the groundwork before stepping down. At the Jackson Hole meeting, the average inflation targeting regime was officially abandoned, meaning plainly: no compensatory easing for overshooting inflation, and weakening employment alone is not sufficient reason to cut rates. But that was just a framework shift; now legislation aims to lock it in. I’ve reviewed the old 1970s script many times. The Fed bounced between inflation and employment; every time it eased a bit, inflation expectations jumped, and finally Volcker slammed a recession to end it. The old system allowed this swing; the new system welds the swing space shut in advance. Next time stagflation hits, the Fed’s hands will be tied. Now about Walsh himself. I don’t think he’s Trump’s puppet. What he said at the hearing—that price stability is the North Star and without stable prices, full employment is impossible—is exactly what he’s said publicly for over a decade. He truly believes this. That’s the problem. A true hawk in that position, facing a president who completely disrespects independence. How did Trump treat Powell? Twitter pressure, public humiliation, personnel threats—he used every tactic. This time he’s smarter: instead of appointing a dovish chair he can bash daily, he picked a naturally hawkish one. Normally, you do your thing; at critical moments, you obey. When is that "critical moment"? The 2026 midterm elections are looming, and the Republican majority in Congress is uncertain. If the economy falters before the election, how hard will Trump push Walsh to cut rates? I don’t doubt Walsh’s stance. I doubt if he can hold firm. The 54:45 political margin is too thin; he lacks Greenspan’s bipartisan trust talisman and almost immediately carries a partisan label. When political pressure mounts, he stands behind a divided Congress, not a consensus. The market seems completely unconcerned about this. By the end of 2025, the FOMC’s hawkish rate cut narrative sends Bitcoin from 115,000 down to 113,300. Then interest rates stay above 4.25% all year, core PCE nears 3%, yet the crypto market still holds up. Where does this stability come from? My judgment is the market is still using Powell-era formulas: weak employment means rate cuts, the faucet opens, risk assets take off. But what if that formula itself fails? After the dual mandate is legally dismantled, no matter how bad employment data gets, it won’t trigger rate cuts. When you value risk assets now, how much is the implicit policy backstop option really worth? I’m not saying a crash is coming. But this pricing logic really needs to be reexamined. Finally, a point that really troubles me. The system is turning hawkish, the laws are changing, the chair is hawkish, inflation can’t be suppressed—the direction is clear. But politics is turning dovish, the midterm countdown has started, the president’s respect for independence is zero, and the chair’s political base is the thinnest ever. So what really matters isn’t whether Walsh will cut rates, but whether the market believes he can hold the line. Once he’s forced to ease before inflation is under control, his personal credibility shatters, and the Fed’s ability to anchor inflation expectations will wobble. The direction is hawkish, the endurance is unknown. This isn’t a conclusion, more like a risk still being digested. $BTC $ETH $SOL

To be honest, watching the CLARITY Act committee vote today, I had only one thought — all of us spend every day analyzing technology, narratives, liquidity, but in the end, what decides the fate is a housing bill wanted by a Louisiana senator. #CLARITY法案今日委员会投票 Can you believe it? Kennedy kept silent, and there were all kinds of guesses in the circle, saying he was waiting for the equivalent code, laying out plans. But the truth was revealed: last night, a 309-page new text slipped in a “Build Now Act” housing provision, Article 904, and he immediately signed to support it. That’s it. Whether crypto legislation can move forward doesn’t depend on how reasonable the market structure is, nor on how consumer protection clauses are written, but on whether someone conveniently sneaks their own agenda on board. The more I think about it, the more it feels like dark humor. Today it’s housing, tomorrow it might be agricultural subsidies, the day after that a dam funding for some state. Crypto legislation on Capitol Hill is just a hitchhiking ride; anyone can throw luggage on the car. This time we were lucky, the luggage got on, and the car moved. Next time? What if a senator insists on stuffing something completely conflicting with crypto interests onto the car? Would you have to endure it too? Is this what we call “regulatory certainty”? Built on such a fragile single vote? Then there are those 100+ Democratic amendments. They look scary, but if you look closely, they’re either not meant to all pass or are just for showdowns. Warren and Reed laid all their demands on the table, playing procedural exhaustion games. But the Republicans now hold 13 to 11 in the committee, and Chairman Scott can kill them one by one. The real deal-breakers are these three bombs: First, whether to keep the word “solely” in the stablecoin clause. If removed, Coinbase and Circle’s revenue models become outright illegal. This is a chokehold. Second, the ethics clause, whether to regulate crypto holdings of the president and senior officials. This is very interesting, directly targeting the Trump family’s WLF and USD1 holdings. Third, developer exemptions, whether non-custodial software developers count as money transmission businesses. If this cut goes through, DeFi is done. See, each one could be fatal. But the most heartbreaking is the ethics clause. Gillibrand said straight at Consensus Miami: “No ethics clause, no one will vote yes.” This isn’t about regulation; it’s about political donations and conflict of interest avoidance. The Republicans are in the toughest spot here: do you save the White House’s face or save the bill’s life? There are 60 votes in the full House, Republicans have 53 seats, so they need to sway 7 Democrats. The list is already clear: Gallego and Alsobrooks are relatively negotiable and pushing for compromise; Warner, Cortez Masto, Kim, Warnock voted for the GENIUS Act but want added AML and consumer protections, so they have price tags; the most troublesome is Lisa Blunt Rochester, whose voting record is all over the place — supporting crypto frameworks but opposing GENIUS — such swing votes are the hardest to predict, you never know what will finally sway her. Last night’s bipartisan talks collapsed over the BRCA clause, but Lummis left a sentence that left me with mixed feelings. She said: “We have agreed on 99% of the content. If something like FTX happens again in the future, we can only blame ourselves.” Think about it, really think about it. Everyone knows this needs to be done and it’s almost done, but because of that 1% political calculation, it might all fall apart. And then if another scandal breaks, no one can claim innocence. The committee will most likely pass it today, but the real gauntlet is the full House. If the ethics clause becomes a deadlock, this bill will turn into a political show of “walking out laughing, being carried back two months later.” Then don’t talk about regulatory clarity; the market will still be stuck in speculation and fear. DYOR, just my personal rant. $BTC $ETH $SOL

#超级事件周 To be honest with everyone, stop obsessing over fragmented news this week; all the market uncertainties are concentrated in these seven days. Inflation, the Fed leadership change, regulatory legislation, tariff implementation, and major court trials—any one of these could move the market, and they’re all packed into the same trading week. Honestly, the market simply can’t digest this density of information. Don’t believe in rational pricing or value reversion; at this kind of critical juncture, the market only moves in two ways: either long and short positions hedge out and the market grinds sideways with confusing signals, or emotions explode and volatility is amplified infinitely, with no middle ground. I’ve analyzed markets for many years, and whenever a super event-packed week like this comes along, there’s never a mild digestion. Either panic is flushed out all at once at the open, with a decisive drop, or funds hold back and watch, delaying reactions to good or bad news, which then leads to an even more irrational lagging move later. This week’s market can no longer be judged by any single data point. Many people are still analyzing each event separately, but they completely miss the point. These five events seem independent but are actually interconnected behind the scenes. Tariff hikes directly push commodity prices up, making inflation data stubbornly high; with inflation high, the new Fed team dares not mention rate cuts; add strict regulations and negative court rulings, and risk appetite is crushed. One link after another, it’s not isolated bad news—it’s a chain reaction. What the market underestimates most is not the impact of any single event, but the destructive power of two sets of resonating factors. Inflation plus tariffs fully fuel stagflation expectations; leadership change plus strict regulation kill liquidity and valuation logic simultaneously. Once these two pairs hit together, volatility doubles, and most people haven’t realized this risk yet. Finally, here’s the bluntest judgment: after this week, there are only two possible outcomes, no third option. Either all events push the market in one direction, expectations converge into a perfect storm, and a one-sided move runs its full course; or longs and shorts offset each other, with no surprise or panic, and the market shrinks in volume and grinds sideways, using time to exhaust all uncertainties. Judging by current fund sentiment, the chance of a storm this week is much higher than a grinding market. Don’t stubbornly hold on this week, don’t go all-in betting on a direction early, don’t fight the market. In a super week, staying steady and avoiding losses is more important than anything. $BTC $ETH $SOL