Firmus, a company that started Bitcoin mining in Tasmania five years ago, has recently completed a $2 billion financing round, bringing the company's overall valuation to $10.5 billion. Its business focus has shifted to AI infrastructure. This is currently one of the larger publicly disclosed cases in the narrative of mining companies transitioning to AI computing power. The power and cooling infrastructure for Bitcoin mining is being recognized by the capital market as real assets that can be directly repurposed for AI computing centers. Therefore, the valuation of such transitioning companies should not follow the traditional mining company valuation logic, nor simply apply AI company valuation logic. Instead, it should consider the actual utilization rate of their power capacity and data center assets, and whether they have secured real computing power leasing contracts. This information is more critical than the financing amount itself. In the past, when discussing the future of mining companies, the default answer was usually that profits would be squeezed after halving, making mining companies increasingly difficult to operate. However, the Firmus case shows that the most valuable asset in the hands of mining companies may not be mining itself, but the power and cooling infrastructure they have already built. This asset has become a scarce resource amid the current shortage of AI computing power. So, if you are investing in stocks, rather than focusing on first-hand data like AI chips or computing power leasing (which is hard for ordinary people to obtain), it is better to look at whether traditional energy-intensive industries (such as mining companies) are willing to transition to AI infrastructure as a secondary signal. If even mining companies are moving in this direction, it indicates that the shortage of AI computing power is severe enough to attract cross-industry capital to reallocate assets. This signal is much easier to obtain than first-hand data but still carries significant information. If you are already following mining-related targets, the key indicators to watch next should shift from hash rate share to power capacity and AI computing power contract status. Using old indicators to evaluate such companies will lead to incorrect conclusions.

Polymarket adopted the TWAP mechanism on August 7 to replace single-point snapshot settlement. I wonder if any friends have been paying attention to this. One of the reasons behind this is that some accounts profited about $8.2 million through price manipulation, such as placing large orders on Binance in the last few seconds before the settlement window closed to push Bitcoin's price past the exercise threshold. Of these losses, 93% fell on retail traders. For the sake of retail traders' interests (not really), prediction markets are increasingly aligning with serious finance. This process will inevitably eliminate a batch of front-end users, arbitrageurs, and rough settlement designs. This will be a devastating blow to those ecosystem projects that rely on early dividends to survive.

Unexpectedly, the BIP-110 issue is still fermenting: BIP-110 attempts to limit large on-chain data through a soft fork, but miner support is only 2.53%, and some minority chains stalled after producing just two blocks; moreover, the removal of Luke Dashjr's editing rights from the Bitcoin BIP editorial team is reportedly also related to the BIP-110 controversy 😂 This is the strongest aspect of $BTC — even with such disputes, the main chain continues as usual. Keep in mind that proposals with low support can still create real risks. Although the main chain's price seems almost unaffected; in the protocol world, some events change not the price but trust, such as the removal of Luke Dashjr's editing rights. So if you write about Bitcoin, you can't just say it's immutable; you have to explain who can propose changes, who can edit the process, who judges neutrality, and how the community rejects minority factions pushing through changes. Above is my take

SushiDAO has released an RFC proposal planning to restructure the $SUSHI economic model by cutting xSUSHI buybacks, introducing a SUSHI Reserve, allocating funds for Sushi Ops, and planning to deploy $10M-$20M protocol liquidity to Robinhood Chain. This move is very much in the spirit of veteran DeFi players. It's not that the old protocol has nothing to do, but rather it's rethinking who the fees should ultimately benefit. Should buybacks go to holders, or be kept as reserves? Should liquidity stay on the original chain, or move to new distribution channels like Robinhood Chain? In my view, DeFi protocols are now entering a corporatization phase: previously, when protocols made money, the most popular news was buybacks and burns. But now protocols need to expand chains, build markets, support teams, and open new channels. If all the money is distributed, the team runs out of ammunition; if all the money stays in the treasury, holders feel diluted. This can be seen as a harsh test of shareholder mentality: do you want a dividend stock or a growth stock? Different allocation methods have completely different impacts on token value, so this liquidity migration doesn't necessarily mean a price increase. On the contrary, it may trigger dissatisfaction among original xSUSHI holders regarding profit distribution, which is a risk that cannot be ignored.

$WLD has recently seen an increase in both trading volume and open interest; $XMR's price also once touched $400, and a whale opened a $36M leveraged long position. These two coins are rising simultaneously—one focuses on identity, the other on privacy. Although these directions seem opposite, they both stem from the same anxiety: in the AI era, how do people prove themselves and protect themselves? Perhaps in the future, when paying attention to AI/identity/privacy themes, we can pay more attention to people's genuine emotions and usage scenarios

$ETH dropped about 2.3% in 24 hours, but on the same day, BitMine received another 13,000 ETH from BitGo, expanding its holdings to 5.81M ETH, approximately 4.8% of the supply. Along with yesterday's continued net inflow into ETFs, this indicates that institutional buying of ETH is still ongoing, just not as smooth as Bitcoin's. However, today's real conflict for ETH is not about price, but about yield rights. Grayscale was reported to have turned over $1.1B of staked crypto into a recurring reward-sale machine for ETF holders, meaning staking rewards are regularly converted into cash and distributed to shareholders. On the other hand, EIP-8363 proposes that as the ETH staking ratio rises, validator rewards will be gradually burned, reaching up to 100% burn when staked supply hits 50%. This proposal has already sparked opposition within the community. Ajian believes ETH is increasingly like a residential community. Some people buy houses to collect rent, some use houses as collateral for financing, some want to cap rent, and others want to package rent into financial products. In the future, as ETH becomes more institutionalized, disputes may grow because institutions are not buying faith; they are buying predictable cash flows. Once staking reward rules change, many balance sheets will need to be recalculated.

Today, the price of Bitcoin remains relatively stable, but considering yesterday's ETF net outflow of $91M, the buying momentum has shifted from continuous net inflows to a brief pullback. One particularly noteworthy point is that BlackRock has lowered the minimum threshold for IBIT's in-kind BTC conversion from $25M directly down to $1M, with plans to reduce it further. This could be a true sign of ETF maturity—not just daily inflows of a few hundred million, but increasingly refined, cheaper, and more traditional financial-like channels for subscriptions/redemptions, rebalancing, custody, and arbitrage. At the same time, the number of whale addresses holding over 10,000 $BTC has risen to 90, a six-month high, increasing by 7.1% over 8 weeks; since July, large holders have cumulatively bought about $1.5B. My view? Bitcoin doesn't lack buying interest now; rather, the buying has become more institutional and quieter. Retail investors see red and green candlesticks, while institutions focus on subscription/redemption thresholds, coin swap efficiency, and custody frictions. The most dangerous situation is when you assume that someone will catch the price and it won't fall, but although some are willing to buy at certain prices, it doesn't mean they are willing to push the price higher for you. Consider these aspects: If ETFs are flowing out but the price doesn't break down, who is absorbing it? If ETFs are flowing in but the price doesn't rise, who is selling? If whales are increasing but retail investors are selling, is it a shift of chips upward or the final round of distribution?

Just now: The Ravencoin official stated that a critical consensus vulnerability was exploited at block 4,487,776. Miners holding over 50% of the hash rate are forking to exclude the problematic block, but this may bring about a reorg risk of about 3 days. Exchanges are advised to temporarily suspend $RVN deposits and withdrawals. This kind of issue may not necessarily affect the price of mainstream coins, but it’s a good lesson for ordinary traders: a chain is not secure just because it uses PoW; hash power, clients, and exchange confirmation counts are all part of security. Sharing a security framework: First layer: Identify where the vulnerability is. Consensus layer, bridges, oracles, front-end, contracts — the risks are completely different. Second layer: Check if assets can still move freely. Suspending deposits/withdrawals, pausing the network, or restricting cross-chain paths means the risk has reached the user layer. Third layer: Look at finality. PoW chains require attention to reorgs; cross-chain assets require checking the mapping ledger. The risk with small chains is often not price drops, but that you think the funds have arrived when the chain has actually reorganized. When small mining coins or small PoW chains have vulnerabilities, don’t rush to bottom-fish; first check if exchanges have suspended deposits/withdrawals, if block explorers are stable, and if miners have reached consensus. Avoid chains that are currently issuing announcements; don’t take unknown bridge risks for a few tens of USDT rewards

Two leading Korean CEXs are also about to launch DappOS $null DOS today. Although it can't be said to blindly rush in, the characteristic of the Korean market is strong opening sentiment, quick capital response, and rapid pullback. For this kind of short-term liquidity event, there's no need to discuss technical analysis; there will definitely be trading entry points in the short term