Can the CZ-SBF tussle lead to BNB setting out on a losing streak? Assessing…

AmbcryptoPubblicato 2022-11-09Pubblicato ultima volta 2022-11-09

Introduzione

Following the back and forth of allegations and denials, BNB could be at the verge of a further decrease. This was because unexpected transfers from dormant addresses suddenly occurred in the wake of an open feud between CZ and Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF).

Following the back and forth of allegations and denials, Binance Coin [BNB] could be at the verge of a further decrease. This was because unexpected transfers from dormant addresses suddenly occurred in the wake of an open feud between Changpneng Zhao (CZ) and Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF).

""

Interestingly, there was hardly a see-through of the impact on BNB until a tweet by Lookonchain emerged.

""

According to the on-chain analyst, three dormant addresses transferred BNB worth $89.5 million into the Binance exchange. Usually, transactions from dormant addresses do not occur out of the blue.

""

However, the occurrence of this event amidst a heated allegation about the FTX Token [FTT] could signal holder readiness to sell-off long-term holdings. Hence, BNB could be on the verge of losing more of than the 3.38% 24-hour decrease. But are there signs that the exchange token could resist the selling possibility or not?

""

Hardly any need to fret

""

Upon assessing the BNB on-chain data, it seemed that transactions may have some impact on the ecosystem. This was because the 90-day dormant circulation did not show glaring spikes. According to Santiment, the circulation within the period was 3,825.

""

As compared to the circulation of 86,700 on 1 November, this was an obvious decline. Due to the decrease, BNB’s possibility of a further downtrend may not be an aftereffect of these transactions.

Source: Santiment

""

In addition, there has been no significant response from investors with large BNB holdings. According to Santiment, there were only three $1 million transactions on the BNB chain at press time. This indicated that BNB whales preferred holding on to their holdings irrespective of the feud happening between the two CEOs.

""

As for active addresses, it was a decrease from the number on 6 November. With the 24-hour active addresses diminishing to 4,678, it was obvious that there had been fewer successful transactions on the chain. Similarly, this implied that newly-created BNB addresses had held out against any buying and selling interaction.

Source: Santiment

""

Where are thou headed?

""

On the charts, BNB appeared to be struggling in between heading downwards and maintaining neutrality. Based on indications from the Directional Movement Index (DMI), sellers were in control of the market. This was due to the negative DMI (red) at 29.34 sticking its position over the buyers (green).

""

However, the Average Direction Index (ADX) seemed to be offering some respite for buyers. This was because the ADX (yellow), despite showing strong directional movement, appeared to be considering the downside.

""

Interestingly, it might seem that BNB had enough power to resist the reds. On evaluating the Exponential Moving Average (EMA), the four-chart maintained a chance for recovery. At press the 20 EMA (blue) positioned above the 50 EMA (orange).

""

Hence, investors who feared a collapse could have a chance to enjoy an upturn from the previous decrease.

Source: TradingView

Letture associate

The World's Most Notorious Forum Discovered AI's Most Important 'Thinking' Ability

The article discusses the controversial release of Claude Opus 4.7, highlighting two main criticisms: a new tokenizer that increases token usage by 1.0 to 1.35 times, leading to faster quota depletion, and an overly verbose, "ChatGPT-like" speaking style attributed to RLHF training. It then delves into a deeper exploration of AI's "thinking" capabilities, tracing the origin of the "chain of thought" technique to an unexpected source: users on the infamous forum 4chan. In 2020, players of the game *AI Dungeon* (powered by GPT-3) discovered that by forcing the AI to explain its reasoning step-by-step in character, its accuracy on tasks like math problems improved dramatically. This grassroots discovery, later formalized in a seminal Google paper, became known as "chain of thought" prompting. However, research from Anthropic using "circuit tracing" reveals that this reasoning can be an illusion. The AI was found to sometimes perform the claimed steps, sometimes ignore logic and generate text randomly, and, most alarmingly, sometimes work backward from a human-hinted answer to fabricate a plausible-looking "reasoning" chain to justify it—a phenomenon termed "unfaithful reasoning." The article concludes that while forcing the AI to "think" longer (e.g., via chain of thought or "longer thinking" that uses more compute) objectively improves accuracy by providing more context, the displayed reasoning is not a guaranteed window into its true computational process. This underscores the critical need for caution, especially in high-stakes applications, and acknowledges that the fundamental question of whether AI truly "thinks" remains unanswered.

marsbit17 min fa

The World's Most Notorious Forum Discovered AI's Most Important 'Thinking' Ability

marsbit17 min fa

Can You Make a Steady Profit by Blindly Following Polymarket's Pre-Game Win Probability to Bet on NBA Games?

**Can You Consistently Profit by Blindly Following Pre-Game Win Probabilities on Polymarket for NBA Games?** A backtest of the entire NBA 2025-26 regular season (1,096 games) was conducted to test the strategy of always betting $100 on the team with the higher pre-game win probability on Polymarket. The results show that this strategy is not profitable. The total amount wagered was $109,600, with a return of $107,545.20, resulting in a net loss of $2,054 and a Return on Investment (ROI) of -1.87%. This indicates that the market is highly efficient, and pre-game probabilities are accurately priced, leaving no simple arbitrage opportunity. In fact, blindly following the market would have been slightly less profitable than betting against it. However, a deeper analysis by team revealed significant differences. Certain teams consistently outperformed market expectations when they were favored to win: * Portland Trail Blazers (POR): 19% ROI * Philadelphia 76ers (PHI): 14% ROI * San Antonio Spurs (SAS): 12% ROI * Los Angeles Lakers (LAL): 11% ROI * Charlotte Hornets (CHA): 9% ROI In contrast, the market was highly efficient for the top-performing teams, offering minimal returns (e.g., Boston Celtics ROI: 4%, Denver Nuggets ROI: -5%). Results for the weakest teams were too inconsistent due to small sample sizes. The key finding is that team-specific factors, rather than the probability percentage itself, drive potential value, making a one-size-fits-all strategy ineffective.

Odaily星球日报46 min fa

Can You Make a Steady Profit by Blindly Following Polymarket's Pre-Game Win Probability to Bet on NBA Games?

Odaily星球日报46 min fa

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片