Strategy repurchased about $139 million STRC but did not increase BTC holdings for the second consecutive week. This matter reveals the company's change more than "how many coins were bought again." Today's Strategy is not just a Bitcoin holding company but more like a small capital market system operating around BTC: common stock, different classes of preferred stock, variable dividends, cash reserves, and repurchase plans all working together. Repurchasing STRC at a discount can reduce future dividend burdens, stabilize prices, and also demonstrate to the market that the company is willing to maintain its financing instruments. But this flywheel is not without cost. Repurchase funds, preferred stock dividends, and BTC volatility all ultimately fall on the same balance sheet; if any link fails, financing costs will quickly spread to other securities. I would not simply interpret the repurchase as bullish or bearish on BTC. A more accurate statement is: Strategy has begun to prioritize maintaining its financing machinery. After all, only if the machine keeps running does it have the qualification to talk about the next round of coin purchases. #Strategy回购约1.39亿美元STRC

The Strategic Bitcoin Reserve Act has entered committee review. The real discussion is no longer "Will the US buy BTC?" but rather who will control this batch of BTC. The existing reserve established by executive order mainly comes from government-forfeited assets. If congressional legislation continues to advance, it must answer a series of unglamorous but far more important questions than hype: who holds the private keys, who is responsible for auditing, under what circumstances transfers can occur, whether Congress can restrict sales, and whether forfeiture proceeds should prioritize compensating victims or go into the national reserve. I am particularly concerned about enforcement incentives. If forfeiting BTC directly strengthens the national reserve, then every future crypto enforcement action may carry both judicial and asset objectives. If the rules are vague, the larger the reserve, the harder it is to ignore conflicts of interest. Committee review is just the entry point; formal legislation is still far off. A truly mature reserve system cannot just "hold long-term"; it must also let the public know who holds the keys, the ledger, and the power respectively. #美战略比特币储备法案进入委员会审议

Robinhood says that stock tokens will support physical redemption and voting in the future. This direction is promising, but don’t rush to interpret "will support" as "already have." The current structure disclosed by the company to the SEC is very clear: these tokens are issued by a Jersey entity and are essentially tokenized debt securities. They currently do not grant holders legal ownership or voting rights of the underlying stocks. Physical redemption and voting are still on the roadmap. What’s truly interesting is that once these rights are implemented, stock tokens can no longer be just on-chain certificates tracking price. Shareholder registers, voting deadlines, taxes, sanctions reviews, dividends, and corporate actions all need to be synchronized. The closer tokens get to real stocks, the more traditional systems need to be integrated behind the scenes. This is not a bad thing. It shows that RWA is finally moving from "putting prices on-chain" to "putting rights on-chain." But before rights are officially delivered, I won’t treat marketing promises as ownership. #Robinhood股票代币拟支持实物赎回及投票

The 10-year US Treasury yield surpassing 5% is like the global capital market installing a heavier "gravity plate." When an asset with almost no credit risk can offer around 5% yield, investors naturally ask: why take on the risk of a cash-burning tech company, commercial real estate project, or overvalued stock? Assets that once told stories based on "future growth" now must deliver higher cash flow to compete against this suddenly raised yield benchmark. This affects more than just stock valuations. Mortgages, corporate bonds, M&A financing, and venture capital exits will all be repriced along with long-term interest rates. Especially as AI companies are massively borrowing to build data centers, the stronger the capital demand, the more it may push bond yields higher, creating a brutal self-competition. In the past, the market believed cheap money would always return. The 5% 10-year US Treasury is reminding everyone: capital has a price again, and that price is not low. #10年期美债收益率突破5%

OpenAI says it won't IPO this year, yet it is reported to be discussing pre-IPO financing with a valuation exceeding $1.2 trillion. To be honest, what makes this number most uncomfortable to me is not the high price, but that price discovery is becoming increasingly privatized. The company's fastest growth and biggest valuation jumps are shared by a few sovereign wealth funds and large institutions; by the time ordinary investors can finally buy on the public market, they may be handed a bill that has been marked up layer by layer. Pre-IPO financing has another clever aspect: it can both supplement the massive computing power expenses and delay public market scrutiny of governance, cash flow, and risk disclosure. Security concerns can be used as a reason to postpone the IPO, but they have not stopped private capital from continuing to offer higher bids. The most absurd scene of this AI feast may not be the valuation soaring to trillions, but that the public bears the externalities of the technology yet can only get a ticket to enter after the valuation matures. #OpenAI拟IPO前融资，估值目标达1.2万亿美元

At the hearing, Bernanke simultaneously discussed Treasury repurchases, yen intervention, fiscal deficits, and AI risks. It sounds like there are many tools, but a closer look reveals a growing sense of anxiety: the Treasury is taking on market stabilization tasks originally belonging to multiple agencies. He said the Treasury repurchase was successful, but also acknowledged that the rise in the 10-year yield reflects fiscal deficit issues; he emphasized that moderate resources can send signals to the yen market. However, what the market ultimately watches is not what officials say, but that long-term rates still hover around 5%. What I see as "multiple signals" is actually the blurring of boundaries between fiscal and monetary policy. The Fed is raising rates, while the Treasury is improving liquidity through repurchases, trying to suppress long-term rates; the U.S. also hopes to reduce pressure from overseas selling of U.S. debt through exchange rate coordination. This has become a multi-agency joint stabilization effort. More tools do not necessarily mean more reassurance. Sometimes it precisely indicates that a single tool can no longer contain the problem. #贝森特听证释放多重信号

What is currently affecting BTC may not be some news within the crypto market, but a damaged oil pipeline. The East-West oil pipeline in Saudi Arabia plays a crucial role in bypassing the Strait of Hormuz and delivering crude oil to the Red Sea. After the attack, repairs could take several weeks. The issue is not just about how many barrels of oil are lost, but that the market has lost a backup route originally used to diversify risk. When oil prices rise, transportation, chemical, power, and food costs spread along the supply chain; inflation rises again, making it harder for the Federal Reserve to ease; interest rates remain high, putting pressure on BTC, tech stocks, and other long-duration assets. A failure in an energy facility can ultimately transmit through inflation and interest rates into everyone's positions. Therefore, I don't quite agree with the idea that "Middle East risks are only a matter for crude oil traders." When energy security starts to determine monetary policy, the oil barrel itself becomes a macro asset. What the market fears most is not a one-time spike, but the risk turning from temporary news into a sustained cost. #中东能源风险推高油价

AI panic is turning into a business, and the companies best positioned to turn panic into a moat are precisely the leading ones. On one side, companies like Anthropic and OpenAI call for slowing down the development of cutting-edge models, while on the other, Jensen Huang insists that safety is an engineering issue that does not require new laws. Although the two sides seem opposed, they both know that regulation will ultimately focus on computing power thresholds, model testing, auditing, and licensing. This is also where I am most cautious. Regulation is certainly necessary, but as long as compliance costs are high enough, the first to be blocked at the gate will not be the giants, but open-source teams and small companies. Big firms have lawyers, computing power, and policy teams, and can even participate in defining "what counts as safe"; newcomers can only compete on tracks laid out by others. Don't just ask whether AI will get out of control, but also ask who has the authority to define what out of control means. If fear is written into a system only the giants can afford, regulation may protect not only humanity but also the market share of existing companies. #AI发展焦虑升温，监管讨论升级

49 votes to 50, CLARITY failed to cross the 60-vote threshold. But this failure was only for the procedural vote to end debate, not that senators have rejected the bill's content line by line. This distinction is very important because it shows that what U.S. crypto regulation lacks most is not the text itself, but the political coalition to bring the text to a final vote. I am quite disappointed by this. The rules remain in limbo, and the most comfortable are never retail investors and entrepreneurs, but large companies that can afford lawyers, lobbying teams, and former regulators. The gray area superficially gives the industry "freedom," but in reality, it is an expensive invisible license. Small teams don’t know which step might cross the line, while large institutions can turn uncertainty into a moat. The industry has been waiting so long for regulatory clarity, but now it is held back by elections, ethical controversies, and partisan struggles. The real irony is: the bill is called CLARITY, but the market still ends up waiting. #CLARITY法案投票受阻引争议

This rate hike is truly hard on not the people shouting long or short in front of their screens, but those who receive credit card bills, mortgage quotes, and corporate loan renewal notices every month. The Federal Reserve raised rates by 25 basis points for the first time in three years, lifting the rate range to 3.75%-4.00%, with a unanimous 12-0 vote. The signal it sends is very clear: even though inflation caused by the energy shock is hard to solve with interest rates, the Fed must first maintain credit. But rate hikes have never been a fair cooldown. Those with more cash and less debt can continue to earn interest; small businesses relying on loans for consumption, home buying, and expansion will immediately feel the cost. The market likes to condense rate hikes into a single candlestick, but I care more about the wealth transfer behind it—the money is flowing from those urgently needing funds to those who already have plenty. BTC and ETH's short-term rebound does not mean the tightening has been fully absorbed. The real test is who still has cash left after credit costs continue to rise in the coming months. #美联储三年来首次加息25个基点