Don't just focus on the crypto circle when watching it. Tomorrow, Trump is going to launch an AI-driven government website America.gov, with giants like Jensen Huang and Elon Musk attending to endorse it. I'm not commenting on whether the website is good or not; what I care about is another layer of signal: when a narrative heats up so much that even the White House personally gets involved and industry leaders gather to back it, it often means the sentiment has already reached a very high level. Historically, when governments and celebrities cluster to endorse a certain sector, it is often close to a phase peak rather than a starting point. AI is a real trend, I don't deny that. But "real trend" and "worth chasing at the current price" are two different things. Risk assets are correlated, and those watching $BTC should also keep an eye on this signal.

Here's an easily overlooked but very telling signal: volume. Today, the volume ratios across most timeframes are hovering around just a few tenths, extremely low volume. In plain language: big money is basically on the sidelines; no one is willing to throw a lot of cash at this level. And an extremely low-volume choppy market is exactly a meat grinder for retail accounts—you think you're buying low and selling high, but you're actually just paying fees to the exchange. Without any clear direction, going back and forth will only slowly erode your principal. $BTC has been grinding within a narrow range these past few days. My approach is pretty boring: if there's no clear breakout signal, I trade less. Liquidity is even thinner on weekends, so it's especially important to keep your hands off during times like these. Watching the show is also a position.

$SOL led the gains today, bouncing more than 3% in 24 hours, leaving $BTC and $ETH behind. Many people's first reaction was "catching up, chasing a bit," but I advise you to first understand why it is strong. Three points: First, its holdings increased by 7% against the trend today, indicating real new capital entering, not just circulating existing funds; second, in the recent day, the ratio of short positions liquidated was nearly four to one, short squeeze is the fuel for this move; third, it is one of the few major coins with bullish alignment across short, medium, and long-term cycles. The structure is indeed the smoothest. But the parabolic move caused by the short squeeze comes fast and goes fast—strong as it is, don't catch the last wave at the peak of the hype.

Closing out Friday, speaking from the heart: This week I closed my $ETH perpetual short leg, took a small loss, and didn’t stubbornly hold on through the weekend. One of the most common mistakes retail traders make is that after getting the direction right once, they insist on proving they’re "always right" with a single position. Card players don’t think like that—when the cards change, they switch hands. Taking a small loss isn’t shameful; stubbornly holding until you blow up is. Right now, I mainly hold longs in spot, basically no perpetual shorts over the weekend, keeping it light. There are plenty more hands to play next week, no need to rush. This week, were you pushed by the market, or did you decide when to step away yourself?

These days $BTC has been oscillating between 83,000 and 86,000, and both camps in the comments are suffering: those chasing longs are getting proven wrong, and those chasing shorts are also getting proven wrong. I want to say something counterintuitive: during range-bound oscillations, the best action is "to do less." When playing cards and holding a mediocre hand, the most costly mistake isn’t folding, but betting without an advantage, slowly grinding away your chips hand by hand. The market is the same—without a clear breakout direction, frequent entries and exits only hand over your fees and emotions. The real opportunity is to wait for it to choose a direction and break out of this range with volume. Before that moment, holding no position is also a position—and a high-probability one at that. Patience itself is an edge.

Don't just focus on the crypto circle when watching the crypto circle. Here's a piece of news tonight that's easy to overlook: OpenAI admitted it is still investigating abnormal activities of its AI agents, having found about 24 cases so far and counting, including the leak of dozens of user images. The entire investigation is expected to drag on for several months. Why am I focusing on this? Because the main driver that has simultaneously drained funds and risk appetite this round is the AI narrative. When it rises, all tech assets rise with it; once cracks start to appear—security incidents, regulation, monetization falsification—the pullback is also chain-reactive. I'm not bearish on technology; I'm reminding you: when a sector becomes "the market's faith," its flaws are no longer just its own business. When faith cracks, the risk assets standing nearby catch a cold first.

Fed's Harker said a blunt truth tonight: The US Treasury yield soaring above 5%, hitting a new high since 2007, is not because the market has lost confidence in inflation, but due to three things — rising real interest rates, an unsustainable fiscal path, and AI and the tech sector competing with the bond market for money. What does this mean for $BTC? In the past, we used to interpret high interest rates as "rate hike expectations," betting that once it peaks, it's over. But this time it's different; it's a structural drain: money worldwide is flowing into "risk-free 5%" and AI, squeezing risk assets from both ends. She also added a final point — the current US fiscal path is unsustainable. To translate: this high interest rate environment can't be switched off with a single click in the short term. Don't rush to buy assets that grew relying on low interest rates.

Many people look at my positions confused: holding ETH-related longs on spot while simultaneously having $ETH shorts on perpetuals. Schizophrenic? No. This is called multi-leg expression. What I’m really betting on is never "whether ETH will go up or down tomorrow," but the net exposure—after offsetting the two legs, which side am I actually on and how heavily. Spot forms the base, perpetuals fine-tune the direction; between a rise and a fall, what remains is the slight net exposure I want. It’s the same with playing cards. Experts don’t go all-in every hand; they’re always managing the risk of the entire table, not just the win or loss of a single hand. The most common mistake retail traders make is treating every trade like an all-in that decides life or death. Position size is used to express a viewpoint, not to gamble your life.

To say something different from a few days ago: the macro support for my short position is softening. I've been emphasizing these days that the confidence to be bearish on risk assets comes from macro factors—rising interest rates, increasing oil prices, and a strong dollar, several signals pressing down together. But tonight it changed: crude oil reversed and dropped more than 3 points, inflation expectations cooled down, and European and American stock markets turned positive. Among those signals, two no longer support my view. The only one still strong is the 10-year US Treasury yield, at 5.23%, hitting a new high since 2007; this dark cloud still hangs over risk assets like $BTC. So what is my current stance? Not firmly short, nor turning bullish. When signals are split, the most costly mistake is to stubbornly hold your ground. When the cards change, admit it, adjust your position according to the signals, and don't fight yourself.