# Сопутствующие статьи по теме Profit

Новостной центр HTX предлагает последние статьи и углубленный анализ по "Profit", охватывающие рыночные тренды, новости проектов, развитие технологий и политику регулирования в криптоиндустрии.

Holding Crypto Now Means Losing Money Continuously

"Crypto expert cyclop argues that the traditional 'buy and hold' strategy is no longer effective in today's crypto market due to extreme token dilution. Since 2017, the number of tokens has exploded, with attention per token dropping drastically as supply grew 24x per capita. Most new tokens are designed to fail with high fully diluted valuations and heavy unlocks. The winning strategy has shifted from finding a single '100x coin' to capitalizing on rapid liquidity rotations. The author details how they turned $8,000 into seven figures by mastering these rotations: starting with airdrops (e.g., Arbitrum), then early Solana memecoins (e.g., POPCAT, WIF), followed by 'real yield' protocols (e.g., Hyperliquid), and finally 'house tokens' of casino-like platforms (e.g., Pump.fun). The market cycles through phases: value (real revenue) -> helicopter money (airdrops) -> casino (memes) -> crash -> structured extraction (ICOs, points) -> repeat. Success in 2026 requires identifying these rotations early, using clear triggers for entry, practicing strict risk management with invalidation conditions, and taking profits aggressively. The key is to stack compounded gains from multiple rotations rather than holding stagnant assets."

marsbit01/21 06:10

Holding Crypto Now Means Losing Money Continuously

marsbit01/21 06:10

How Do Stablecoins Touch the Most Profitable Nerve of Banks?

U.S. banks are fiercely opposing interest-bearing stablecoins, not because they cause deposit outflows, but because they threaten the core profitability of large commercial banks. When funds flow into stablecoins like USDC, the money eventually returns to the banking system as reserves held in cash or short-term liquid assets. The real concern is the total amount of deposits, but a shift in deposit structure. Large U.S. banks rely heavily on "low-rate banking," where they hold massive amounts of non-interest or ultra-low-interest transaction deposits (used for payments, transfers, and settlements). These deposits are extremely cheap for banks, costing only 0-11 basis points in interest, while the Fed funds rate is 3.5%-3.75%. This spread, along with transaction fees, generates over $360 billion in annual revenue for banks. Interest-bearing stablecoins directly compete with these transaction deposits. If stablecoins offer yield, users may move funds from traditional bank transaction accounts into stablecoins for both utility and returns. Although the money remains in the banking system, stablecoin issuers would likely place most reserves in higher-yielding non-transaction accounts, forcing banks to pay market rates for these funds. This erodes banks' profit margins and reduces their fee income from payment services. The battle over the CLARITY法案 revolves around this profit redistribution. Banks want to ban all forms of yield on stablecoins to protect their lucrative low-cost deposit base and dominant position in the payment ecosystem.

比推01/19 14:58

How Do Stablecoins Touch the Most Profitable Nerve of Banks?

比推01/19 14:58

Why Must Banks Ban Stablecoin Yields?

The article "Why Banks Are Determined to Ban Yield-Bearing Stablecoins?" explores the ongoing debate around the U.S. cryptocurrency market structure bill (CLARITY), particularly the fierce opposition from large banks against interest-bearing stablecoins. Banks argue that such stablecoins could cause deposit outflows, but the author refutes this, explaining that funds used to purchase stablecoins like USDC ultimately flow back into the banking system as reserves held by issuers like Circle. The real concern for banks is not the total volume of deposits but a shift in deposit structure. U.S. major banks (e.g., Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase) rely heavily on "low-interest banking," where transaction deposits (used for payments, transfers) pay near-zero interest, creating a significant spread between deposit rates and the Fed’s benchmark rate. This model generates massive profits—over $360 billion annually from interest differentials and transaction fees. Stablecoins directly compete with transaction deposits by offering similar utility (payments, settlements). If stablecoins can generate yield, users may shift funds from bank transaction accounts to stablecoins to earn higher returns. While the money remains in the banking system (as stablecoin reserves), it moves from low-cost transaction deposits to higher-yield instruments, squeezing bank profit margins and reducing fee income. Thus, banks oppose yield-bearing stablecoins to protect their lucrative low-cost deposit base and maintain control over profit distribution, making it a central issue in the CLARITY legislative battle.

marsbit01/19 09:43

Why Must Banks Ban Stablecoin Yields?

marsbit01/19 09:43

Why Must Banks Ban Stablecoin Yields?

The article explores why U.S. banks are strongly opposing interest-bearing stablecoins, despite claims that such assets could cause bank deposit outflows. It argues that funds flowing into stablecoins like USDC do not leave the banking system—instead, they are held as reserves in highly liquid assets like cash or Treasury bills, which eventually return to banks. The real concern for large banks is not the total volume of deposits, but a shift in deposit structure. U.S. megabanks rely heavily on low-cost transactional deposits (used for payments and transfers), which pay near-zero interest. These deposits allow banks to profit from the spread between the Fed funds rate and what they pay depositors, as well as from transaction fees. Interest-bearing stablecoins threaten this model. They offer similar transactional utility but also provide yield, incentivizing users to move funds out of traditional bank transactional accounts. While the money may return to the banking system, it would likely be placed in higher-yielding deposit accounts, increasing banks’ funding costs. Additionally, stablecoins could disrupt banks’ fee income from payment services. The core issue is profit redistribution: stablecoins—especially those offering yield—could reduce banks’ low-cost funding advantage and erode their transaction revenue, explaining the fierce opposition to interest-bearing models in proposed legislation like the CLARITY Act.

Odaily星球日报01/19 09:26

Why Must Banks Ban Stablecoin Yields?

Odaily星球日报01/19 09:26

Predicting Market True and False Gambling Gods: Debunking the 8300x Miracle; Price Manipulation Nets $230,000

The article exposes two controversial cases on the prediction market platform Polymarket, highlighting issues of manipulation and deception. First, a trader named "ascetic" claimed to have turned $12 into over $100,000—an 8300x return—through 16 consecutive successful bets on Bitcoin volatility. However, another trader, "Moses," accused ascetic of using multiple fake accounts (a "Sybil farm") to fabricate the results. Moses provided evidence suggesting ascetic operated several accounts that started with small amounts and only promoted the one that succeeded, while others failed. Despite denials, the credibility of the "miracle" was heavily questioned. Second, a different trader exploited Polymarket’s "15-minute XRP price prediction" by manipulating the market. Using $1 million in capital on Binance, the trader bought XRP shortly before the prediction window closed, artificially inflating the price by 0.5% to ensure a winning "up" bet. After cashing out $233,000 in profit on Polymarket, the trader quickly sold the XRP, incurring minimal cost in slippage and fees. This manipulation drained liquidity from automated trading bots on Polymarket, one of which lost $160,000 in annual profits. The piece warns users to be cautious of sensational claims and manipulative strategies in prediction markets, where rules and outcomes can be exploited.

marsbit01/19 05:09

Predicting Market True and False Gambling Gods: Debunking the 8300x Miracle; Price Manipulation Nets $230,000

marsbit01/19 05:09

Predicting Market True and False Gambling Gods: Debunking the 8300x Miracle; Price Manipulation Nets $230,000

This article exposes two controversial cases on the prediction market platform Polymarket, highlighting issues of manipulation and deception. The first case involves a trader, ascetic, who claimed an 8,300x return—turning $12 into over $100,000 through 16 consecutive successful bets on Bitcoin's short-term volatility. However, he was accused by another trader, Moses, of operating a "Sybil farm"—using hundreds of accounts with small initial deposits to artificially create the illusion of a miraculous winning streak. Moses provided evidence of multiple accounts with similar trading patterns, suggesting the story was a fabricated marketing ploy. The second case details a more sophisticated manipulation: a trader known as a4385 exploited low liquidity during weekend trading to profit $233,000. He heavily bought "Yes" shares in a 15-minute XRP price prediction market, driving up the price of the shares. Then, just minutes before the market settled, he purchased $1 million worth of XRP on Binance, artificially inflating its price by 0.5% to ensure his Polymarket bet would win. After settlement, he quickly sold the XRP. This maneuver, with a minimal cost of around $6,200 in fees and slippage, effectively drained the liquidity from automated trading bots on Polymarket, one of which lost its entire annual profit of $160,000. The article concludes by warning users to be cautious and discerning, as not all spectacular gains are genuine, and platform rules can be exploited for manipulation.

Odaily星球日报01/19 05:03

Predicting Market True and False Gambling Gods: Debunking the 8300x Miracle; Price Manipulation Nets $230,000

Odaily星球日报01/19 05:03

MACD Real Backtest: Can Technical Indicators Lead You to Profit?

Based on a comprehensive 5-year backtest of the MACD trading strategy on BTC and ETH, this analysis delivers a sobering reality check for traders. The key finding is that 90% of short-term trading activity, particularly lower timeframes (15m, 30m, 1h), underperforms a simple "buy and hold" strategy due to transaction costs, noise, and psychological strain. The "benchmark" returns for simply holding the assets were +48.86% for BTC and +53.00% for ETH. The data reveals that MACD strategy performance is highly dependent on timeframe and leverage: * **Short Timeframes (15m, 30m, 1h):** Nearly all configurations resulted in significant losses or complete liquidation (-100%), severely underperforming the buy-and-hold benchmark. * **4-Hour Timeframe:** This was the only timeframe where the MACD strategy consistently generated alpha. * **BTC 4h (1x leverage):** ~+96% return, successfully outperforming buy-and-hold by avoiding major bear markets. * **ETH 4h (1x leverage):** ~+205% return, dramatically outperforming its buy-and-hold benchmark due to ETH's strong trend-following characteristics. * **Leverage Impact:** Leverage (2x, 3x) on the 4h timeframe amplified these gains effectively (e.g., ETH 4h 3x leverage yielded +552%). However, higher leverage (5x) often led to diminished returns due to funding fees and volatility decay, despite increased risk. The "Death Matrix" of results shows that short-term, high-leverage trading is akin to gambling" with a near-certain outcome of failure. The final recommendation is clear: for most investors, a buy-and-hold strategy is superior to active trading on low timeframes. For those seeking to outperform, the only viable approach is applying moderate leverage (2x-3x) exclusively on the 4-hour timeframe, with ETH presenting the best opportunity for significant excess returns.

marsbit01/17 08:45

MACD Real Backtest: Can Technical Indicators Lead You to Profit?

marsbit01/17 08:45

Earning $430K in 30 Days: The ‘Sitting P Junior’s’ Golden Dog Sniping Technique

"Kusuo P Xiaojiang," a prominent meme trader, gained significant attention on X (formerly Twitter) after earning $78,400 in a single day during a live stream on January 13, 2026. Over 30 days, he reportedly accumulated $430,000 in profits through highly systematic meme coin trading, primarily on the BNB chain. Originally learning strategies from foreign Solana traders like @clukzSOL, he adapted and optimized these methods for BNB memecoin markets. His approach combines advanced hardware—such as a Zowie 600Hz monitor and a Razer gaming mouse—with low-latency network setups, allowing him to execute trades within milliseconds. Using the GMGN platform, he monitors social media trends and new token launches, often entering trades within 5 seconds of a token’s launch and exiting within 48–61 seconds. He typically uses small positions (around 5.1 BNB, or $1,500–$2,000) to minimize risk, executing 10–50 trades per day. His strategy focuses on high-frequency, short-term gains rather than long-term holds, though he occasionally takes larger positions when confident in a token. Despite criticism about the speculative nature of meme trading, his disciplined, tech-enabled approach has made him one of the most watched figures in the space.

marsbit01/16 04:06

Earning $430K in 30 Days: The ‘Sitting P Junior’s’ Golden Dog Sniping Technique

marsbit01/16 04:06

Bitcoin Sell-Side Risk Ratio Falls To Lowest Since Oct ’23: What It Means

Bitcoin's Sell-Side Risk Ratio has recently plummeted to its lowest level since October 2023, indicating subdued investor conviction behind selling at current price levels. This on-chain metric, which measures the ratio of realized profits and losses against Bitcoin's Realized Cap, had spiked during November's price crash but has since declined sharply. The drop suggests reduced market activity and lower volatility. Additionally, retail investor demand remains weak, with a key metric tracking small transactions staying negative despite recent price gains. At the time of writing, Bitcoin is trading around $94,300, up over 3% in 24 hours.

bitcoinist01/14 12:33

Bitcoin Sell-Side Risk Ratio Falls To Lowest Since Oct ’23: What It Means

bitcoinist01/14 12:33

DASH spikes on privacy sector strength – A breakout is still uncertain

Dash (DASH) surged 20.48% in 24 hours, with Open Interest rising 55%, likely driven by enthusiasm in the privacy sector following Monero's new all-time highs. Despite high spot demand, negative Funding Rates suggest a potential short squeeze. However, DASH faces strong resistance at the $50-$52 zone, which previously rejected buyers in early December. Low trading volume and a bearish outlook from its recent drop below $40 make a sustained breakout uncertain. Traders are advised to consider taking profits near $50 and remain cautious due to volatility, as similar conditions in late December failed to result in a breakout. A daily close above $53.42 would signal a momentum shift for swing traders.

ambcrypto01/13 13:01

DASH spikes on privacy sector strength – A breakout is still uncertain

ambcrypto01/13 13:01

活动图片

Популярные категорииright-arrow

Популярные тегиright-arrow

Industry News

Indepth Research