Profit Drops for LIT Whale After Closing Long Position

TheNewsCryptoPubblicato 2026-01-05Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-01-05

Introduzione

A whale wallet recently closed a long position on LIT, incurring a loss of $767,403. This caused its overall profit to drop significantly from $3 million to $420k. The closure occurred despite LIT's recent price increase, currently trading at $2.72 with a 6.73% surge in the last 24 hours. Although LIT reached an all-time high of $4.04 on December 30, 2025, it has since declined by 32.63%. Forecasts for early 2026 predict a price correction, with LIT dropping to around $2.17 in the next month before rebounding to $2.21 in three months. Despite short-term bearish predictions, long-term sentiment remains bullish, with expectations for LIT to reach $5.31 by the end of 2026.

A whale wallet recently closed their long position on LIT, but faced significant loss in the process. Overall profit has dropped as well. The development notably comes at a time when Lighter tokens are marking upticks in their values and recorded an ATH a few days ago.

Whale Faces Loss Closing LIT Position

A whale wallet reportedly recorded a loss of $767,403 after closing the long position on LIT. Acquired at a 1x leverage, the 1.6-year dormant wallet has also recorded a drop in profit from $3 million to $420k.

The development within a week from increasing the long position in the token. The position was valued at around $3.59 million with a floating loss of more than $1.26 million. Simultaneously, the whale wallet was able to close a short position in ASTER with a profit of $537k before that transaction.

LIT Price Rally

Anticipations around LIT price rally gained momentum when another whale wallet deposited USDC to expand LIT holdings. Lighter tokens were trading at $2.69 at that time, but are now up to $2.72 with a surge of 6.73% over the last 24 hours. It further represents a jump of 2.3% in the last 7 days.

LIT recorded an ATL of $2.30 on December 30, 2025, and is now up by 18.47% from that value. It noted an ATH of $4.04 on the same date, but has now declined by 32.63%. Interestingly, LIT has 1 billion in total supply but has only 250 million in circulation.

LIT in 2026

The early 3 months of 2026 are forecasted to see a price correction for LIT. The token could go as low as $2.17 in the next 1 month and rebound to $2.21 as it completes the 3-month cycle from this point. The 1 month decline comes to around 20.89% from the current value. Similarly, the 3-month plunge comes to approximately 19.45%.

Its support and resistance margins are yet to be defined, but overall sentiments remain bullish with the neutral 14-Day RSI of 38 points and the FGI of 26 points. The trajectory drawn to this point, based on market conditions, expects LIT to start reclaiming its highs from September 2026. A walk on the chart could pave the way to $5.31 by the end of 2026.

Highlighted Crypto News Today:

Japan Finance Minister Backs Integration of Digital Assets Into TradFi

TagsLIT

Domande pertinenti

QWhat was the amount of loss the whale faced after closing their long position on LIT?

AThe whale faced a loss of $767,403 after closing their long position on LIT.

QHow much did the whale's overall profit drop after closing the LIT position?

AThe whale's overall profit dropped from $3 million to $420,000.

QWhat was the All-Time High (ATH) price of LIT and how much has it declined from that value?

AThe All-Time High (ATH) price of LIT was $4.04, and it has now declined by 32.63% from that value.

QWhat is the forecasted price range for LIT over the next 3 months according to the article?

AThe article forecasts that LIT could drop to as low as $2.17 in the next month and rebound to $2.21 by the 3-month mark.

QWhat is the long-term price target for LIT by the end of 2026, as mentioned in the article?

AThe long-term price target for LIT by the end of 2026 is $5.31.

Letture associate

Both Suffer Losses Exceeding $9 Billion, Which Is More at Risk: Strategy or Bitmine?

As Bitcoin and Ethereum prices drop significantly, two major corporate treasury holders, Strategy and Bitmine, are facing massive unrealized losses—approximately $100 billion and $90 billion, respectively. The article compares their financial health and underlying risks. Bitmine, holding over 5.4 million ETH, relies primarily on equity financing (like ATM offerings) and has substantial cash reserves, alongside staking income from its ETH holdings. It plans a $300 million perpetual preferred stock offering. In contrast, Strategy, holding Bitcoin, is burdened by significant convertible debt and preferred stock dividends, with cash reserves covering only about six months of its annual dividend obligations. Strategy's leverage is higher, and it faces potential liquidity pressure if BTC prices fall further, possibly forcing asset sales. While both companies are under pressure, Bitmine’s financial structure appears more resilient, whereas Strategy’s high leverage makes it more vulnerable to continued market declines.

Odaily星球日报6 min fa

Both Suffer Losses Exceeding $9 Billion, Which Is More at Risk: Strategy or Bitmine?

Odaily星球日报6 min fa

Where the AI Bubble Really Is: Which Layer of Players Are Naked

AI Bubble: Where It Really Is and Who's Swimming Naked This analysis dissects the AI industry not as a single entity but as a five-layer pyramid, arguing that bubbles are concentrated in specific tiers, not uniformly distributed. **Key Distinction from the 2000 Dot-com Bubble:** Unlike 2000, where companies had stock prices before revenue, today's leading AI players have massive, contract-backed revenue driving their valuations. Core infrastructure demand is real, with every GPU running at full capacity for paying customers. **The Five-Layer Pyramid & Bubble Assessment:** * **L0 (Fab/Manufacturing) & Top L4 (Leading AI Apps): NO BUBBLE.** Companies like TSMC, NVIDIA, major cloud providers (Microsoft, Google, Meta, Amazon), and top AI labs have real revenues and orders. Supply is tightly constrained by TSMC's disciplined capacity control and physical limits like power/land for data centers, preventing a supply glut. * **L1 (Memory): BATTLEGROUND.** Sky-high HBM margins could signal a new structural cycle or a classic "boom before bust." The oligopoly of three major players may enforce supply discipline, making this a high-stakes bet. * **L2 (Interconnect/Optical Modules): BUBBLE TERRITORY.** Companies like Lumentum and AAOI have seen stock surges (4-10x) far outpacing revenue growth. This hardware segment has lower physical barriers to expansion than fabs, allowing speculation. It mirrors the 2000 bubble's epicenter—optics. * **L3 (Infrastructure/"GPU Landlords"): VULNERABLE.** GPU leasing companies profit from the current compute shortage but own no long-term moat. Their business model relies on a temporary bottleneck that will ease as big tech expands and new tech (e.g., potential space-based data centers) emerges. * **L4 Long Tail (VC-backed Startups): STRONG BUBBLE SIGNALS.** VC funding concentration in AI is twice that of the 1999 peak. Many startups with little revenue use the valuation logic of successful giants to justify their own, creating high risk of a "valuation crunch" when funding dries up. **Critical Risks to Monitor:** 1. **GPU Depreciation & Accounting:** Companies extending the assumed useful life of GPUs artificially boost profits. The true economic life depends on future generational leaps from NVIDIA. 2. **"GPU Credit" & Off-Balance-Sheet Leverage:** Emerging structures where shell companies borrow to buy GPUs and lease them out (with chipmakers sometimes investing) move debt off major balance sheets. This echoes the "vendor financing" of 2000 and the securitization risks of 2008, though currently small-scale. 3. **TSMC Abandoning Caution:** If the primary supply bottleneck (TSMC's conservative capacity planning) breaks, runaway supply could trigger a bust. 4. **Algorithmic Efficiency Breakthrough:** A major leap in software efficiency could drastically reduce the need for raw compute hardware, undermining the investment thesis. **Conclusion:** The AI boom is expensive and has frothy areas, but its core is underpinned by real demand and physical supply constraints. The bubble risk is layered: most present in optical components, GPU leasing, and the long-tail startup ecosystem, while the foundational chip manufacturing and leading application layers remain relatively solid—for now.

marsbit14 min fa

Where the AI Bubble Really Is: Which Layer of Players Are Naked

marsbit14 min fa

Bitcoin's Decline Marks the Metamorphosis of Crypto

Bitcoin's decline signifies a structural transformation within the crypto industry. Its two traditional core functions are being usurped: AI has absorbed speculative capital that once flowed into Bitcoin, while dollar stablecoins have replaced it as the foundational on-chain currency. This decoupling is not a sign of crypto's demise but of its maturation. Projects are now valued based on fundamentals like revenue and user growth, independent of Bitcoin's price movements. Examples include the on-chain exchange Hyperliquid, with transaction volumes surpassing Coinbase, and the prediction market Polymarket, valued at $200 billion. Privacy has emerged as a critical new sector, with assets like Zcash surging and protocols like NEAR enabling private, cross-chain transfers without requiring users to hold a new token. The landscape is shifting toward a multi-chain ecosystem anchored by stablecoins. A new layer of infrastructure for cross-chain coordination, privacy, and AI-agent interaction is emerging to connect this fragmented world, a role once implicitly held by Bitcoin. The era where all altcoins moved in lockstep with Bitcoin is over. The industry's health should now be gauged by project fundamentals and the underlying infrastructure enabling private, dollar-settled, and interconnected crypto-economy.

marsbit23 min fa

Bitcoin's Decline Marks the Metamorphosis of Crypto

marsbit23 min fa

Standing in the Light: A Comprehensive Guide to the Optical Module and CPO Supply Chain

"Standing in the Light: Understanding the Optical Module and CPO Industry Chain" This article analyzes the critical role of optical communication technology, specifically optical modules and Co-Packaged Optics (CPO), as the "nervous system" for modern AI data centers. With exponential growth in AI computational demands (e.g., NVIDIA's Vera Rubin architecture), traditional electrical interconnects using copper cables face severe bottlenecks in bandwidth, power consumption, and signal integrity over distance. The core function of an optical module is to act as a "translator," converting electrical signals from chips into optical signals for transmission over fiber (and vice-versa). Key internal components include lasers, modulators, photodetectors, drivers, and DSP chips. The industry is currently transitioning from 800G to 1.6T modules. However, the future lies in CPO. This next-generation technology integrates the optical engine directly with the switch ASIC/XPU on the same package substrate, drastically reducing power consumption (by ~3.5x according to NVIDIA), overcoming bandwidth density limits, and minimizing signal attenuation compared to traditional pluggable modules. Key challenges for CPO include advanced packaging capacity (dominated by TSMC), thermal management, repairability, and standardization. The article details the broader technology landscape, including Near-Packaged Optics (NPO, a pragmatic intermediate step), Linear-drive Pluggable Optics (LPO), Optical I/O (OIO for chip-level integration), and Optical Circuit Switches (OCS). A comprehensive CPO industry chain is mapped, highlighting shifting power dynamics: * **Architecture Definers:** NVIDIA, Broadcom, and Marvell now hold greater influence. * **Advanced Packaging & Manufacturing:** TSMC is central; Fabrinet is a key EMS player. * **Lasers ("The Heart"):** A strategic bottleneck. EML lasers are led by Lumentum and Coherent (both receiving major NVIDIA investments). CW lasers, favored for CPO/silicon photonics, see strong Chinese players like Source Photonics and Sicoya. * **Silicon Photonics Chips:** The mainstream path for CPO engines, with key players like Broadcom, Intel, Marvell, and China's Accelink. * **Fiber Connectivity Components:** A major new, high-growth market created by CPO, including Fiber Array Units (FAU), Polarization-Maintaining Fiber (PMF), and MPO connectors. Companies like Tianfu Communication and US Conec are leaders. * **Fiber & Cable:** Experiencing a super-cycle (e.g., Corning, Yangtze Optical Fiber). * **PCB/Substrates:** Requiring advanced materials (e.g., Shengyi Tech). * **DSP & SerDes:** Functions are integrated into switch ASICs in the CPO era (e.g., Broadcom, Astera Labs). * **Optical Module Makers:** Transitioning from standalone module suppliers to providers of optical engines and NPO/LPO solutions while riding the current pluggable boom (e.g., Zhongji Innolight, Eoptolink). The investment timeline is segmented: Short-term (2026-2027) features the "last feast" for pluggable modules and CPO's initial rollout. Medium-term (2027-2029) will see CPO expand and NPO peak. Long-term (2029-2032+) involves CPO/OIO penetration into intra-rack scaling. In conclusion, optical interconnects are fundamental to AI infrastructure. The competitive landscape sees US firms leading in architecture and high-end chips, TSMC in advanced packaging, and Chinese firms holding strong positions in modules, connectivity components, CW lasers, and fiber/cable. The future belongs to companies that can navigate the technological shift from "selling shovels" (modules) to "building highways" (CPO/OIO infrastructure).

marsbit24 min fa

Standing in the Light: A Comprehensive Guide to the Optical Module and CPO Supply Chain

marsbit24 min fa

SEC’s 2026–2030 Plan Puts Crypto At The Center Of Its Regulatory Agenda

The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has placed cryptocurrency at the center of its draft strategic plan for fiscal years 2026-2030, aiming to modernize regulation to keep pace with rapid market and technological changes. The SEC argues that the current regulatory framework has been outpaced by growth in digital assets and distributed ledger technologies, creating legal uncertainty. Its key objectives are to establish a clearer, more coherent regulatory foundation for crypto assets, clarify how securities laws apply to them, and resolve jurisdictional questions with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The agency believes this "harmonization" is necessary to encourage compliant innovation, support on-chain infrastructure, and ensure robust investor protection and market integrity.

bitcoinist33 min fa

SEC’s 2026–2030 Plan Puts Crypto At The Center Of Its Regulatory Agenda

bitcoinist33 min fa

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片