永恒牛市-牛市开空

SEI｜Sei Looking at Sei, the biggest fear is not being unable to understand it, but rather only looking at the price without considering the underlying use cases. When this project is truly discussed, it often relates to on-chain transactions and ecosystem migration. Its market size is roughly in the billion-dollar range, and it falls within the trading-oriented public chain sector. To conclude, it currently resembles an asset that needs to be dissected to understand its structure, rather than a name that can be clarified with just a statement about its popularity. Whether the market is willing to continue valuing it is not a mystery; it still depends on whether high-frequency trading has incremental growth and whether funds are willing to stay for this line. At this stage, Sei is no longer suitable to be summarized with a simple "has a story." What truly determines whether it can still be viewed positively is whether high-frequency trading is still expanding and whether on-chain transactions and ecosystem migration can provide stable feedback. The market's patience with it has decreased compared to before; however, as long as the data remains, attention won't just vanish. Many people tend to take two extremes when writing about Sei: either they deify it or they ignore it due to its slow pace. In fact, neither is necessary. A more stable approach is to place it back in the position of a trading-oriented public chain and see if its advantages are still clear compared to projects in the same sector, and whether its shortcomings are expanding. If its advantages remain, even if the rise is slow, the market will eventually redirect its attention; if the advantages begin to dilute, even the loudest narrative won't hold up for long. My judgment on Sei leans towards neutral and tracking. It is not devoid of imagination, but the market is no longer willing to pay a high premium for pure imagination; what we need to watch moving forward is whether the differentiation of the trading chain will be amplified. This is also the most interesting aspect: analyzing the logic is sufficient; there is no need to turn it into an emotional slogan. #鲍威尔4·29议息：任期收官之战 $BTC

TIA｜Celestia Some coins become popular right away, but Celestia is not one of them. It’s more like a project that requires breaking down the logic to understand why the market still gives it space, with the core being the demand for Rollups and staking expectations. Based on common metrics, Celestia currently roughly belongs to the billion-dollar level, corresponding to the modular/DA track. To conclude, it now resembles an asset that needs to be analyzed structurally, rather than one that can be easily defined by its popularity. Whether the market is willing to continue valuing it is not a mystery; it still depends on whether data availability has increased and whether funds are willing to stay for this line. For projects like Celestia, the most useful perspective is usually quite simple: Is anyone using it? Is money staying? Are the scenarios becoming clearer? Following this line of thought, we will ultimately return to the demand for Rollups and staking expectations. Thus, its volatility is not just emotional fluctuations; it’s more like a vote on whether the market continues to believe in this logic. Many people tend to take two extremes when writing about Celestia: either they deify it or ignore it entirely due to its slow pace. In fact, neither is necessary. A more stable approach is to place it back in the modular/DA position and see if its advantages are still clear compared to projects in the same track, and whether its shortcomings are expanding. If its advantages remain, even if it doesn’t rise quickly, the market will eventually redirect its attention back; if the advantages start to dilute, no matter how loud the narrative is, it won’t hold for long. In terms of prospects, I wouldn’t view Celestia as a coin that can change its fate solely based on a wave of emotions. Whether it has room to grow depends on whether the modular narrative is a trend or the norm. If this can be validated, there will be a reason for the valuation to be raised again; if it cannot be validated, the market will quickly retract its imagination. Therefore, such coins are more suitable for continuous tracking rather than drawing conclusions based on just one or two candlesticks. #鲍威尔4·29议息：任期收官之战 $BTC

STRK｜Starknet Many coins are seen when they are hot, but Starknet seems to be re-understood in the midst of divergence. It doesn't rely on a slogan to hold the scene; what truly makes people come back repeatedly is the Cairo developers and the application landing. In terms of market size, Starknet roughly falls into the billion-dollar level, positioned in the ZK/scaling track. To conclude, it now resembles an asset that needs to be unpacked to see its structure, rather than a name that can be clarified by just its popularity. Whether the market is willing to continue giving it a valuation is not a mystery; it still depends on whether the development ecosystem has incremental growth and whether funds are willing to stay for this line. I prefer to see it as a window for observation. Watching Starknet is not just about the ups and downs, but about whether the development ecosystem can still stand firm. As long as Cairo developers and application landing continue to move forward, the market will find it hard to completely remove it from the main line; but once this area starts to loosen, the valuation can easily drop faster than the fundamentals. This is also why it often exhibits a phenomenon: when news comes out, it’s very hot, but when it comes to actual pricing, it’s very realistic. Many people tend to take two extremes when writing about Starknet: either to deify it or to ignore it directly because of the slow pace. In fact, neither is necessary. A more stable approach is to place it back in the ZK/scaling position and see if its advantages are still clear compared to projects in the same track, and whether its shortcomings are expanding. If its advantages still exist, even if the rise is not urgent, the market will eventually pull attention back; if the advantages begin to dilute, no matter how loud the narrative, it won't hold for too long. Looking ahead, Starknet's upper limit is not about whether it can tell a new story, but whether the technical barriers can be converted into user scale. As long as this main line is not broken, it will not easily fall out of the hot list; but if the external environment changes, its pressure will also come very directly. In the context of a portfolio, it resembles an analytical object that needs to focus on data, rhythm, and realization. #鲍威尔4·29议息：任期收官之战 $BTC

AR｜Arweave Projects like Arweave are most easily overlooked when the market is too noisy. This is because it doesn't tell the most exciting story, but rather addresses more fundamental needs, especially regarding data on-chain and new applications. If categorized by scale, it currently falls into the billion-dollar range, classified under storage/permanent data. To conclude, it resembles an asset that needs to be unpacked to understand its structure, rather than a name that can be easily defined by its popularity. Whether the market is willing to continue valuing it is not a mystery; it ultimately depends on whether there is growth in long-term storage and whether funds are willing to stay invested in this area. The key to whether this type of asset should continue to be included in discussions is not whether the community will talk about it, but whether long-term storage continues to occur. The market's current view of Arweave is becoming increasingly straightforward, focusing on whether the data on-chain and new applications can continue to deliver. If the delivery falls short, the price may surge initially but could easily retreat; if the delivery continues, even if the pace is slow, it may actually help solidify the foundation. Many people tend to take two extremes when writing about Arweave: either they deify it or ignore it entirely due to its slow pace. In fact, neither is necessary. A more stable approach is to place it back in the storage/permanent data category and see if its advantages compared to similar projects are still clear and whether its shortcomings are expanding. If its advantages remain, even if the price doesn't rise quickly, the market will eventually refocus its attention; if its advantages begin to dilute, even the loudest narrative won't hold up for long. My judgment on Arweave leans towards neutrality and tracking. It is not devoid of imagination, but the market is no longer willing to pay a high premium for pure imagination; what really needs to be observed is whether storage demand will transition from concept to necessity. This is also what makes it most interesting: analyzing the logic is sufficient, and there is no need to frame it as an emotional slogan. #美伊走向长期封锁：外交窗口关闭

ALGO｜Algorand The market always chases new trends, but there are always some coins that don't rely on novelty to survive, and Algorand is one of them. The reason it remains at the table ultimately revolves around whether there is real demand for collaborative projects and on-chain activity. In terms of scale, Algorand is currently roughly at the billion-dollar level, and its track can be categorized under public chains/payments. To conclude, it now resembles an asset that needs to be dissected to understand its structure, rather than a name that can be clarified by just its popularity. Whether the market is willing to continue valuing it is not a mystery; it still depends on whether compliant finance has incremental growth and whether funds are willing to stay for this line. At this stage, Algorand is no longer suitable to be summarized with just "there's a story." What truly determines whether it can still be viewed favorably is whether compliant finance is still expanding and whether collaborative projects and on-chain activity can provide stable feedback. The market's patience with it has decreased compared to before; however, as long as the data remains, attention won't just vanish. Many people tend to take two extremes when writing about Algorand: either glorifying it or ignoring it entirely due to its slow pace. In fact, neither is necessary. A more stable approach is to place it back in the public chain/payment position and see if its advantages are still clear compared to projects in the same track, and whether its shortcomings are expanding. If its advantages still exist, even if it doesn't rise quickly, the market will eventually redirect its attention back; if its advantages begin to dilute, no matter how loud the narrative is, it won't hold for long. In terms of prospects, I wouldn't view Algorand as a coin that can change its fate solely based on a wave of emotions. Whether it has room for growth depends on whether the compliant route can truly bring about growth. If this can be validated, there will be reasons for its valuation to be raised again; if it cannot be validated, the market will quickly retract its imagination. Therefore, such coins are more suitable for continuous tracking rather than drawing conclusions based on just one or two candlesticks. #鲍威尔4·29议息：任期收官之战 $BTC

SAND｜The Sandbox Looking at The Sandbox, the biggest fear isn't not understanding it, but only looking at the price without considering the underlying use cases. When this project is truly discussed, it often relates to content updates and user activity. Its market size is roughly in the billion-dollar range, and it falls within the metaverse/virtual assets sector. To conclude, it currently resembles an asset that needs to be dissected to understand its structure, rather than a name that can be clarified by just its popularity. Whether the market is willing to continue valuing it isn't a mystery; it still depends on whether brand collaborations are generating growth and whether funds are willing to stay invested in this line. For projects like The Sandbox, the most useful perspective is usually quite simple: Is anyone using it? Is money being retained? Are the use cases becoming clearer? Following this line of thought, we ultimately return to content updates and user activity. Thus, its fluctuations are not just emotional ups and downs, but more like a market vote on whether it continues to believe in this logic. Many people writing about The Sandbox tend to fall into two extremes: either glorifying it or ignoring it entirely due to its slow pace. In fact, neither is necessary. A more stable approach is to place it back in the context of metaverse/virtual assets, and see if its advantages compared to similar projects are still clear, and whether its shortcomings are expanding. If its advantages remain, even if it doesn't rise quickly, the market will eventually refocus its attention; if the advantages begin to dilute, even the loudest narratives won't hold up for long. Looking ahead, The Sandbox's ceiling isn't about whether it can tell new stories, but whether the story of virtual land can attract funds again. As long as this main thread isn't broken, it won't easily fall off the hot list; but if the external environment changes, its pressure will come very directly. In the context of a portfolio, it resembles an analytical object that needs to monitor data, rhythm, and fulfillment. #鲍威尔4·29议息：任期收官之战 $ETH

MANA｜Decentraland Some coins become popular right away, but Decentraland is not one of those. It’s more like a project that requires breaking down the logic to understand why the market still gives it space, with the core being active users and the virtual economy. Judging by common scales, Decentraland currently roughly belongs to the billion-dollar level, corresponding to the track of the metaverse/virtual world. To conclude, it now resembles an asset that needs to be analyzed structurally, rather than one that can be easily defined by its popularity. Whether the market is willing to continue valuing it is not a mystery; it still depends on whether the community scene has growth and whether funds are willing to stay for this line. I prefer to see it as a window for observation. Watching Decentraland is not just about looking at price fluctuations, but about whether the community scene can still hold its ground. As long as active users and the virtual economy continue to progress, the market will find it hard to completely remove it from the main line; however, once this area starts to loosen, the valuation can easily drop faster than the fundamentals. This is also why it often exhibits a phenomenon: it’s very hot when news comes out, but when it comes to actual pricing, it’s very realistic. Many people writing about Decentraland tend to fall into two extremes: either they deify it or they ignore it entirely due to its slow pace. In fact, neither is necessary. A more stable approach is to place it back in the position of the metaverse/virtual world and see if its advantages are still clear compared to projects in the same track, and whether its shortcomings are expanding. If its advantages remain, even if it doesn’t rise quickly, the market will eventually redirect its attention; if the advantages start to dilute, no matter how loud the narrative is, it won’t hold up for long. My judgment on Decentraland leans towards neutral and tracking. It’s not that it lacks imagination, but the market is no longer willing to pay too high a premium for pure imagination; what really needs to be observed is how much residual value the old metaverse narrative still has. This is also the most interesting part: analyzing the logic is enough, there’s no need to turn it into an emotional slogan. #鲍威尔4·29议息：任期收官之战 $BTC

FLOW｜Flow Many coins are seen when they are hot, but Flow seems to be re-understood in the midst of divergence. It doesn't rely on a slogan to hold the scene; what truly makes people come back repeatedly is the content IP and user conversion. In terms of market size, Flow roughly falls into the billion-dollar level, positioned in the consumer-grade public chain/NFT sector. To conclude, it now resembles an asset that needs to be unpacked to see its structure, rather than a name that can be clarified by just its popularity. Whether the market is willing to continue giving it a valuation is not a mystery; it still depends on whether public cooperation has incremental growth and whether funds are willing to stay for this line. Whether this type of asset is worth continuing to discuss is not about whether the community will talk, but whether public cooperation continues to happen. The market's current view of Flow is actually becoming more direct, focusing on whether the content IP and user conversion can continue to deliver. If the delivery can't keep up, the price may easily retreat after a surge; if the delivery continues, even if the pace is slow, it may actually help solidify the base. Many people tend to take two extremes when writing about Flow: either they deify it or they ignore it due to the slow pace. In fact, neither is necessary. A more stable approach is to place it back in the consumer-grade public chain/NFT position, to see if its advantages are still clear compared to projects in the same sector, and whether its shortcomings are expanding. If its advantages still exist, even if it doesn't rise quickly, the market will eventually pull attention back; if the advantages begin to dilute, no matter how loud the narrative is, it won't hold for long. In terms of prospects, I wouldn't view Flow as a coin that can change its fate solely based on a round of emotions. Whether it has room for growth depends on whether the consumer-grade chain can tell new stories. If this can be validated, there will be reasons for the valuation to be raised again; if it can't be validated, the market will quickly retract its imagination. Therefore, this type of coin is more suitable for continuous tracking rather than drawing conclusions based on just one or two candlesticks. #鲍威尔4·29议息：任期收官之战 $BTC

QNT｜Quant Quant is a project that is most easily overlooked when the market is too noisy. This is because it doesn't tell the most exciting story, but rather addresses more fundamental underlying needs, especially in terms of enterprise collaboration and standardization capabilities. If categorized by scale, it currently falls into the billion-dollar range, classified under interoperability/institutional technology. To conclude, it now resembles an asset that needs to be dissected to understand its structure, rather than a name that can be easily defined by its popularity. Whether the market is willing to continue valuing it is not a mystery; it still depends on whether institutional connections are increasing and whether funds are willing to stay for this line. At this stage, Quant is no longer suitable to be summarized with a simple "there's a story." What truly determines whether it can still be viewed favorably is whether institutional connections are still expanding and whether enterprise collaboration and standardization capabilities can provide stable feedback. The market's patience with it has decreased compared to before; however, as long as the data remains, attention won't just vanish. Many people tend to fall into two extremes when writing about Quant: either they deify it or they ignore it entirely due to its slow pace. In fact, neither is necessary. A more stable approach is to place it back in the interoperability/institutional technology position and see if its advantages are still clear compared to projects in the same lane, and whether its shortcomings are expanding. If its advantages remain, even if it doesn't rise quickly, the market will eventually redirect its attention back; if the advantages begin to dilute, even the loudest narrative won't hold up for long. Looking ahead, Quant's upper limit is not about whether it can tell a new story, but whether institutional narratives can turn into real orders. As long as this main line is not broken, it won't easily fall off the hot list; but if the external environment changes, its pressure will come very directly. When viewed in a portfolio, it resembles an analytical object that needs to focus on data, rhythm, and fulfillment. #鲍威尔4·29议息：任期收官之战 $BTC

RUNE｜THORChain The market always chases new trends, but there are some coins that don't rely on novelty to survive, and THORChain is one of them. The reason it remains on the table ultimately revolves around whether there is real demand for protocol security and trading volume. In terms of scale, THORChain is currently roughly at the billion-dollar level, fitting into the cross-chain liquidity/DeFi space. To conclude, it now resembles an asset that needs to be dissected for its structure, rather than a name that can be easily defined by its popularity. Whether the market is willing to continue valuing it is not a mystery; it still depends on whether there is incremental growth in native cross-chain activity and whether funds are willing to stay for this line. For projects like THORChain, the most useful perspective is usually quite simple: Is anyone using it? Is money staying? Are the scenarios becoming clearer? Following this line of thought, we will ultimately return to protocol security and trading volume. Thus, its volatility is not just a fluctuation of emotions, but more like a vote on whether the market continues to believe in this logic. Many people tend to take two extremes when writing about THORChain: either they deify it or ignore it entirely due to its slow pace. In fact, neither is necessary. A more stable approach is to place it back in the context of cross-chain liquidity/DeFi and see if its advantages are still clear compared to projects in the same space, and whether its shortcomings are expanding. If its advantages remain, even if it doesn't rise quickly, the market will eventually refocus its attention; if its advantages begin to dilute, even the loudest narrative won't hold up for long. My judgment on THORChain leans towards neutral and observational. It is not devoid of imagination, but the market is no longer willing to pay a high premium for pure imagination; what we really need to watch is whether cross-chain trading will increasingly require non-custodial solutions. This is also its most interesting aspect: analyzing the logic is sufficient; there is no need to frame it as an emotional slogan. #鲍威尔4·29议息：任期收官之战 $BTC