Lei06

Crypto Market Participants & Web3 Content Creators. Study on-chain data, track hot narratives, and make transactions that you can understand. I believe that good content requires patience just like good positions.

1.1KFollowing

1.2Kfollowers

Feed

"Will BSB become the second RAVE?" Today, I looked at two sets of numbers together, and my first reaction was: they are the same kind of animal. First, let's lay out the structure: Before RAVE's collapse, its market cap was around $200 million, with on-chain liquidity of a few million dollars—at that time, RAVE's liquidity was extremely thin relative to its market cap. Then RAVE experienced a price surge that was suspected to be orchestrated by insiders, pushing it from the bottom to $2.7, then a single candlestick dropped it back to $1.1, with $44M in long positions liquidated, and now it's at $0.858, down 68% from its peak. Today, BSB: market cap $181 million, total on-chain real liquidity $328,000, a ratio of 552 times. Today, RAVE: market cap $213 million, total on-chain real liquidity $502,000, a ratio of about 423 times. The prices of the two projects are almost the same today (BSB $0.840, RAVE $0.858), with market caps in the same range, but BSB's liquidity structure is even thinner than RAVE's now. After RAVE went through that massacre, its liquidity is actually healthier than BSB's—because after being crushed at a high position, the remaining chips went through a round of real price discovery. So, will BSB become the second RAVE? Structurally, it already is. But there is an important difference in mechanism. The reason RAVE's collapse was so severe—a single candlestick dropped 67%, $44M liquidated—was because RAVE had perpetual contracts on CEXs like Bitget, with high-leverage long positions piled on top. Insiders pushed the price, triggering FOMO, retail investors chased long positions with leverage, and then a single dump triggered a chain reaction of liquidations, resulting in a long squeeze. With thin on-chain liquidity, the contract liquidity couldn't hold up, leading to a free fall in price. Currently, I haven't found a large-scale perpetual contract market for BSB. If BSB is primarily circulating in spot markets, its decline will be more "civilized"—it won't be a single candlestick drop of -67%, but rather a longer, less noticeable process of bleeding. When it rises, there are buyers stepping in; when it falls, there are no liquidations pressing down, and the price gradually leaks out until one day you realize it has dropped 50%, but each day's decline feels "okay". This kind of death is harder to guard against than RAVE's. Another new signal worth noting today: sell orders in the Base pool (1,608 orders) are exceeding buy orders (1,222 orders), and the Base pool is the deepest liquidity pool for BSB. The main BSC pool still has more buy orders (10,497 vs 9,507), but in the Base pool, which has the highest quality liquidity, selling pressure has started to dominate today. This is not a collapse signal, but it is an early directional data point. The 552 times market cap/liquidity ratio, during the time I've been tracking BSB, has dropped from 1,873 times to 583 times, and today it has dropped to 552 times. Every time I write about BSB, it has been rising, and this ratio has been there too. A coin that can rise while I repeatedly write about liquidity risks indicates that the buying pressure coming in now does not care about this ratio—they care about whether it's "more expensive or cheaper than yesterday". This is the last logic that can keep the price going up: the next buyer is more expensive than you. This logic holds when there are buyers stepping in, but when there are no buyers, a liquidity ratio of 552 times means that at the moment you try to cash out, the "market" simply does not exist. At the high point of RAVE, it was also like this: every buyer was waiting for the next buyer, until there was no next one. Whether BSB will become RAVE depends on two things: whether there is a similar centralized catalyst to push the price to an absolutely absurd position, and who will be the last batch of people to take the fall. If BSB rises quietly and falls quietly, it will be a quiet RAVE; if one day someone sets it on fire, it has the potential to perform a less quiet version. Structurally, it is already in place. Do you still hold BSB? Do you think BSB will replicate RAVE's script, or will it end in another way? $RAVE $BSB

When the market is stalling in the Fear zone, today RLS and BIO are doing something completely different. First, let's talk about RLS (Rayls). It opened today at $0.00347, surged to a high of $0.01098, an increase of +216%, then pulled back a bit, currently at $0.00826, which is still +138% from the opening. Bitget's single platform 24-hour trading volume hit $3.95 million. However, looking at the on-chain data, the combined DEX liquidity across BSC and ETH is only about $93,000. This number indicates something important: today's surge in RLS mainly occurred on centralized exchanges, not on decentralized chains. $3.95 million in CEX trading volume versus $93K in on-chain liquidity—these two numbers are not operating in the same market. CEX prices can be pushed up by fewer buy orders, while on-chain liquidity is a true reflection of carrying capacity. What is Rayls? It is a Layer 1 project focused on financial privacy, developed by the Brazilian crypto company Parfin, aimed at providing privacy-compliant blockchain infrastructure for traditional financial institutions. This direction is not a hot narrative, and I currently have not found clear first-hand news regarding the specific catalyst behind today's surge—but regardless of what the catalyst is, a project with a market cap of $12.5 million and on-chain liquidity of $93K being pushed by $3.95 million in daily CEX trading volume can have significant price elasticity, both upwards and downwards. Next is BIO (Bio Protocol). It rose from $0.02805 to a high of $0.03928 today, currently at $0.03727, an increase of +33%. Compared to RLS, this is a "much more civilized" way of rising. BIO is a representative project in the DeSci (decentralized science) space, which gained attention from Vitalik in its early years and is set to launch on Binance Launchpool in early 2025. What it does is tokenize the IP of biotech research, allowing retail investors to invest in drug development and scientific projects. The DeSci narrative has been quiet for a while under the pressure of the AI narrative, and today’s +33% for BIO can be seen as a small signal of narrative return. Putting RLS and BIO together against the backdrop of BTC -2%, ETH -1%, and a fear and greed index of 33, I see a specific market state: the main funds are waiting, but the existing funds in the market are rotating. Bitcoin and Ethereum are sitting there, and those holding them are not able to sell much or enter many positions; however, the funds already in the market are starting to look for assets with stories to tell. RLS has a privacy chain narrative, and BIO has a DeSci narrative, neither of which is mainstream today, but in the silence of the mainstream, the non-mainstream stands out. This kind of rotation has a historical pattern: it usually occurs during the energy accumulation phase before the market truly breaks out, and also happens in the "whack-a-mole" stage before the market takes a downturn—each sector takes turns pulling up, providing liquidity for those at high positions to exit. The two situations have the same appearance but completely different outcomes. RLS surged 216% today, now back to 138%, having retracted -24.7% from the peak. The $93K on-chain liquidity means that if you are someone holding a position on CEX, trying to find a stable price benchmark to judge the "reasonable price level," this on-chain number is hard to give you confidence. BIO is relatively rational, with +33% supported by actual CEX liquidity, making the pullback more controllable. Two coins, on the same day, in the same big context, but with completely different risk structures. In this market rotation where the big market is stalling, will you choose to follow or observe? $RLS $BIO

Last time I wrote about BSB, I mentioned one thing: the most dangerous aspect of this project is not whether it will drop, but that a large portion of its market cap cannot be realized. Today BSB has risen again. +12.22%, current price $0.8391, market cap shows $180.6 million. There are 10,023 buy orders and 9,274 sell orders, with buy orders outnumbering sell orders—on the surface, everything looks "healthy." Then let's look at liquidity. BSC main pool: $83,691. Base pool: $210,260. Total across the chain: about $309,000. $180.6 million market cap, $309,000 real liquidity. The ratio is 583 times. Last time I wrote about BSB, this ratio was 1,873 times—because the Base pool didn't exist then. Now that the Base pool has been added, it has diluted some, and 583 times sounds "much better." But 583 times means: if all holders decide to sell at the same time, the market only has one 583rd of the liquidity to absorb it. In other words, if you have $1,000 of BSB, there is only $1.7 in the market waiting to buy your goods. Today's trading volume is $3.34M, liquidity is $309K, trading volume/liquidity = 10.8 times. Each piece of liquidity has been flipped back and forth 10 times today—does this indicate an active market, or a market where people are constantly entering and exiting the same shallow pool? There are more buy orders (10,023) than sell orders (9,274)—is this a real accumulation of buy orders, or are small buy orders continuously being introduced during the price increase, while selling is done through a few large sell orders? This question cannot be seen from the number of buy and sell orders; it requires looking at the size of each order, and that data is hard to cleanly separate from the noise on-chain. This is the third rally cycle I have tracked for BSB. Each rally has the same structure: price rises, more buy orders, increased trading volume, but the liquidity pool remains at an extremely small scale relative to the market cap. This structure means: the price can be easily pushed up because the cost of pushing the price is low; but the price can also be easily pushed down because the ability to absorb selling pressure is equally thin. When it rises, the market cap number looks great, $180.6 million. When it drops, what you can sell is just the portion you can grab from that $309,000. One thing worth noting: today it rose +12%, but in 6 hours it dropped -0.27%, indicating a slight pullback after a spike during the day. The price did not move in one direction; someone is reducing at the high point. Is this an early selling signal, or normal price fluctuation? With BSB's liquidity structure, the difference between the two often only becomes clear after the price has already run. BSB has once again made the numbers look good today. But the 583 times ratio has not changed.

Today’s BTC and ETH candlestick charts show that no technical analysis is needed; you can read the sentiment directly. BTC opened today at $77,520 and almost immediately reached the day's highest point of $77,549. It wasn't a spike before the close, nor a breakout during lunch; it opened at the highest point and then steadily declined, dropping to $75,678, and is now fluctuating around $75,937. This candlestick is saying: today, no one is waiting; everyone who wanted to sell did so as soon as the market opened. Not because of any bad news. There were no explosions, no liquidations, no macro black swans. It’s because it rose a bit the day before, and today opened slightly higher, prompting holders to react immediately: enough, time to run. They are not greedy, not waiting, not gambling. They know that if they don’t run now, the next $77,549 might not come for a while, and even if it does, it might not break through $80K. ETH followed the same script today. High point at $2,311, now at $2,272, down -1.12%. It’s falling slower than BTC, but the direction is the same: it opened at the peak, then narrowed, and is now oscillating at a low level. The Fear and Greed Index today is at 33, indicating Fear. The number 33 is quite subtle. It’s not extreme fear (that’s below 10, reminiscent of last year’s bear market), nor is it neutral, and certainly not greedy. 33 represents a specific sentiment: I know it might rise, but I don’t believe it. It’s that state of having been faked out too many times, where real signals and false signals are processed with the same reaction—conservative, light positions, taking profits when they can. BTC has been oscillating in the $75K-$80K range for quite some time. Each time it approaches $80K, a group of people starts to reduce their positions because they feel this might be a temporary top; each time it drops near $75K, another group believes this is support and slowly adds back in. Both groups are trading, and neither is wrong, but the result is that the price keeps bouncing around in this range, and no one can capture a complete trend. This sideways movement is the most psychologically exhausting state in the market, even more uncomfortable than a one-sided decline. In a decline, you can cut losses with a stop-loss, at least there’s a clear outcome. Sideways movement brings countless small hopes and small disappointments alternating; every slight rise makes you start to expect, and every slight drop makes you start to doubt, cycling through, emotions wear down, and ultimately many people’s choice is: forget it, let’s step back and wait. Then what they wait for is the next time the market opens at the highest point. Today’s BTC candlestick is not a falling candlestick; it’s an anxious candlestick. It can’t rise, nor does it crash; it just sways there, disrupting everyone’s rhythm. $80K is a door, with many waiting to sell above; every time it gets close, it gets pushed back. Only when there is enough buying power to truly push this door open will this anxious candlestick turn into something else. Today is clearly not that day. Are you currently holding out for $80K, or have you already exited and are watching from the sidelines? 👇 $BTC $ETH $DOGE #白宫预告战略BTC储备重大公告 #鲍威尔4·29议息：任期收官之战 #加密立法倒计时：525最后窗口

Today, ZBT / ZEROBASE showed me a number that I confirmed three times to make sure I wasn't mistaken. The 24-hour trading volume displayed on CoinGecko for ZBT is $266 million. CoinGecko ranks it #498 by market cap, showing a market cap of about $47.5 million, with a price of $0.194, up +12.5% today. It sounds like a project with trading volume and popularity. Then I looked at the on-chain data. For the main trading pair ZBT/USDT on BSC, the size of the on-chain liquidity pool is $20,593. The liquidity on Ethereum is $14,981. Combined across the chain, it's about $36,000. $36,000 in liquidity matches $266 million in trading volume. This ratio is 7,222 times. To understand it another way: if this trading volume is real, the same dollar in this pool would need to be traded back and forth more than 7,000 times within 24 hours. It would need to completely enter and exit every approximately 12 seconds. This is physically impossible to be generated by real trades. $266M in trading volume with $36K in liquidity can only mean one thing: wash trading. Either it's self-trading at the contract level, or bots are high-frequency trading back and forth in a low liquidity pool, inflating the trading volume number to make it appear "active" on CoinGecko. Why wash trade? Because trading volume is the first screening indicator for many traders—"only with volume is there popularity, and with popularity, it's worth researching." A token with a high trading volume will be clicked on by more people, and once clicked, there's a chance they will buy in. The cost of wash trading is extremely low (in a low liquidity pool controlled by oneself, the fees are all circular), but it can attract real retail attention. Looking at a few more details. The contract address for ZBT ends with "777777"—this is a deliberately chosen address, and mining such a nice contract address requires a lot of computing power, which the project team intentionally did; this is a carefully packaged signal. On BSC, there were 2,438 buy orders and 2,287 sell orders in 24 hours; the numbers look very natural and organic, not like obvious bot characteristics—but the ratio of trading volume to liquidity has already revealed the essence. What is the ZEROBASE project doing, and what does the white paper say? Today, I couldn't find enough clear first-hand information to say whether its "fundamentals are good or bad." But the structure of this on-chain number is enough to say one thing: this trading volume is not the result of real demand; it is manufactured. The purpose of manufacturing it is to make you feel that this is an active market, and then bring in real money. $36K in liquidity means another thing: if you really want to buy in, even with a few tens of thousands of dollars, you will push the price up a lot yourself; if you want to sell, you will also push the price down yourself. This market depth cannot support normal position entries and exits. ZBT is up +12.5% today; I don't know if it will go up tomorrow, but this liquidity structure makes "safe exit" a very interesting question. $ZBT