Murphy

Murphy

64,409 Twitter followers

Follow

17年老韭菜；研究链上数据和宏观情绪相结合，构建自己的交易思维。保持谨慎乐观！| 近3亿用户的共同选择就在币安：https://t.co/5pQWuny9gU | #OKX web3入口一个就够 https://t.co/YwY7pIgKzB

Posts

Signal Clone Analysis

In Glassnode's latest weekly report, their views perfectly align with what I shared in my previous thread “A Balance Game Yet to Erupt” (see quote below). What’s interesting is that we come to the same conclusion from different perspectives: I approached it from the angle of “token distribution,” while the Glassnode team used options derivatives. Here’s the link to the original report: insights.glassnode.com/the-wee...… I know some folks in the Chinese community might find the English in the report a bit tough, so let me break it down: 🚩 Chart 1: Compares 1-week Implied Volatility (IV, green line) vs. 1-week Realized Volatility (RV, red line). Right now, IV is way above RV. This means options are expensive—traders are paying a hefty premium to hedge risk or bet on big moves, but in reality, BTC’s price action this week has been pretty muted. This IV/RV gap has lasted for three weeks now. So, while the market looks calm on the surface, traders are actually anxious underneath. This “paying up for protection” shows a lack of confidence in the current trend. 🚩 Chart 2: Shows Gamma Exposure (GEX); what we care about here are those red bars, which represent the negative gamma zones for market makers. When BTC price drops, market makers in negative gamma territory have to sell more BTC spot or futures to stay delta-neutral. Their hedging can amplify market volatility. Right now, negative gamma is mostly clustered in the $58,000–$66,000 range. Putting these two data points together: The BTC market is in a “fragile equilibrium” right now. With options overpriced and market makers deep in negative gamma, any bearish trigger that pushes price into those sensitive negative gamma zones could set off a powder keg. The suppressed volatility we’ve seen so far could get unleashed much faster—and more violently—than most expect. twitter.com/Murphychen888/stat...

A message to all my dear fans! — Are you ready for the second half of the bear market? This is a review, a summary, and also preparation for the next round. As a seasoned investor, I enjoy studying on-chain data and use it as a core reference for my trend and cycle trading. Behind on-chain data are people, encompassing complex expressions of "behavior" and "emotions," so it's not simply a matter of clinging to outdated methods; the idea that "it happened in the past, so it will happen now" is not the correct or reasonable way to use on-chain data. Only by understanding the principles and logic behind the data can we greatly increase the probability of making correct predictions. Of course, no one can be 100% correct in every judgment and bet. The important thing is whether you leave yourself room for error, whether you review and summarize in a timely manner, and whether you correct and adjust in time. During this cycle, I buy the dips at an average price of around 18,000 to 20,000 between December 2022 and March 2023. The analysis and judgment methods I used at that time were written into a post that is still pinned to the top of my X homepage (you can take a look if you are interested). Moreover, I also sold at the top of this round when the price was over 120,000. On October 6, 2025, I placed a conditional order at $121,000 based on the "MVRV extreme deviation pricing range," and took profit on all orders if the price fell below this level (see the link below). x.com/Murphychen888/status/197...… x.com/Murphychen888/status/197...… In addition, using this analytical framework, I accurately judged that the decline in July-August 2024 was not the start of a bear market, that the momentum weakened in December 2024 and that the bottom of the correction was reached after whales increased their holdings in March 2025 (all of which can be found in my tweets at the time). There are correct judgments, and of course, there are also wrong ones. After the 10/11 incident, in the judgment between "a phase of correction" and "the end of the bull market cycle," I mistakenly believed it was the former. This was because at the time, there was no data to verify the conclusion that the cycle had ended, except for simply labeling it as the "traditional four-year cycle theory." Perhaps my accurate timing in identifying the top gave me blind confidence. At the time, I expected a maximum drawdown of -30%, so I started buy the dips when BTC fell to 100,000+ and kept buying until it reached 80,000+, with an average cost of 90,000+. However, in hindsight, this trading decision was clearly overly optimistic, underestimating the impact of a large number of early profit-taking shares fleeing the market and the subsequent chain reaction. Fortunately, although I was blindly confident at the time, I didn't let it cloud my judgment. I didn't go all in when buy the dips, and I used a trapezoidal order book to lower my cost basis, leaving myself some room for error. At the same time, I also began to reflect, summarize, and adjust my thinking. Until January 10, 2026, I saw a signal on the "Comprehensive Cost Basic Model" that confirmed the start of a bear market cycle, just as I can now confirm that "the bear market has entered its second half". On January 12th, I shared this important observation with two friends in our "Three's Company" group, because they had also followed my lead and bought the buy the dips too early, resulting in losses. According to the signals at the time, BTC might rebound to around $98,000, which would be the last chance to escape. As you probably know, BTC rebounded to $97,000 on January 14th. Then, on January 16th, I wrote a tweet titled "Rebound Topped Out or Bull Market Begins?", in which I clearly stated my view in bold: this is the "high point of the rebound" (see the link below). x.com/Murphychen888/status/201...… This can be considered the last correct correction for all the followers who have been following my tweets before the end of this "bull market cycle." It is also a form of self-redemption for myself in trading. Recently, many friends have left me messages asking when I will "break the cup"? To be honest, I don't know if I can accurately pinpoint the bottom of the bear market through the following data analysis and judgment; I can't guarantee it. However, now that we have clearly stated that "the bear market has entered its second half," the simplest and most effective method is to persist with dollar-cost averaging over the next six months. This way, you will not miss this rare and excellent opportunity. Reaching the next peak, you're 99.99% guaranteed not to lose money; you just need to endure the boring and lengthy process, as well as the inevitable noise and price fluctuations along the way. Of course, I know that many of you have limited cash flow and limited funds. So you hope to buy near the bottom. I understand, and I hope so too! My current personal expectation is that there is at most a 10% to 20% retracement range from the current level, and the bottom structure will form in about 3 to 5 months. We need to observe data indicators such as on-chain sentiment, liquidity, whale behavior, supply and demand, cost base, as well as changes in the directional premium of futures and the funding structure of options, etc. Therefore, I will do my best to identify and seize it as accurately as possible! To help everyone gain a leading position before the next bull market begins. But please forgive me if it is not allowed. This was absolutely not my intention, please believe that I have done my best! Hopefully, everyone will be at the next peak! 🫶🫶🫶 twitter.com/Murphychen888/stat...

This signal marks the official start of the second half of the BTC bear market from April 2, 2026! On-chain data gives us almost 100% confidence in this, since it’s definitely not something you see every day. In the chart, the yellow line represents the average on-chain cost basis for BTC held 1-2 years, and the orange line is for BTC held 1-3 months. They’ve just crossed. To really understand this signal, you need to know why the orange line drops during price declines, while the yellow line rises. I previously wrote a thread explaining why STH-RP doesn’t move with price, and how it’s fundamentally different from the 120d EMA in traditional TA. If you're interested, check it out. Long story short: this is a highly valuable and actionable signal. twitter.com/Murphychen888/stat...

The most peculiar part is the $75,000-$80,000 range. It seems to be under a spell, untouchable in this current cycle! In October 2024, BTC first surged to this level, coinciding with the election and FOMO sentiment, causing the price to quickly pass through, leaving a "gap" between $73,000 and $86,000. In November 2025, BTC experienced its first rapid decline, stopping at $80,000 without touching this range. In January 2026, BTC fell to this level again, inexplicably passing through quickly, with no significant trading activity within this range. Since then, every rebound has failed to reach this level, or only paused briefly. As a result, the "gap" remains to this day. Doesn't it seem cursed? Perhaps, when the next gap is filled, that will be the start of the next bull market cycle... twitter.com/Murphychen888/stat...

Will 2029 be a life-or-death test for Bitcoin? Yesterday, Google's article caused a major stir in the Bitcoin community. It shattered the illusion that the "quantum threat is still far off," bringing forward the anticipated 10-20 year window to 2029 (after the 2028 Bitcoin halving). Google pointed out that a sufficiently powerful quantum computer can derive a private key from a public key in 9 minutes. Since the average Bitcoin block time is 10 minutes, this means attackers could intercept and forge transactions during the window before they are confirmed. Furthermore, a fatal flaw lies in the addresses whose public keys were exposed on-chain early on. On-chain data shows that there are currently 3.379 million Bitcoins held inactive for 10 years (of which 1.08 million are held by Satoshi Nakamoto's address). Theoretically, these coins could all be "lambs to the slaughter." Because these are mostly early holdings that have either "lost their coins" or "lost their owners," they cannot actively undergo "quantum migration resistance." If this system falls into the hands of the first hacker to break it, it means that in the world of Bitcoin, a "madman" possesses a massive amount of illicit wealth, 2.6 times that of ETFs and 4.4 times that of MSTRs. Currently, I see the community's reaction is mainly divided into two camps: Optimists believe that security can be ensured simply by introducing a quantum-resistant signature scheme (BIP-360 and P2MR) through a soft fork and completing the migration of Bitcoin wallets before the quantum threat arrives. Pessimists believe that even if it is technically feasible, a decentralized governance model is unlikely to reach a consensus within just 3-4 years, especially regarding how to handle so many exposed public keys in Bitcoin. Mishandling this could trigger another hard fork. At that time, the "conservatives" who support protecting private assets and the "radicals" who support cybersecurity will once again be locked in fierce debate. Just like the serious disagreements between the Core development team and large miners on large and small blocks in 2017-2018, which ultimately led to a hard fork and almost caused Bitcoin to collapse. Furthermore, even if the community eventually reaches a consensus, one thing may still be unavoidable. This means that a large amount of BTC migration was passively generated for security upgrades. These non-economic on-chain activities severely pollute BTC's on-chain data. As a "global public ledger," facing a survival crisis, it had to sacrifice its transparency premium. This could lead to structural failures in the trading models we've built over the past decade based on "on-chain data analysis." For example, all data based on "holding time" would become completely distorted, and the underlying logic of profit/loss valuation models would collapse. Future on-chain analytics tools may have to divide BTC's history into a "pre-quantum era" and a "post-quantum era." Only institutions with top-tier data cleaning capabilities (I don't know if Glassnode can) will be able to extract the true trading intentions from the massive noise. When trading decisions revert to traditional methods, and people start relying on news, sentiment, or technical analysis again, retail investors will lose a transparent and effective technical tool that offered them the "only chance to stand on the same starting line as institutions." This is indeed a great pity... research.google/blog/safeguard...…

As of March 31st, the latest CVDD stands at $45,410—up just $506 since my last tweet on Feb 10 (see reference). The growth is extremely slow. In the CVDD algorithm, the numerator uses CDD (Cumulative Value Destroyed Days): when BTC is spent, the time-value held by the original investor is reset to zero. So, slow growth means early large holders have significantly reduced their on-chain activity, or are almost not participating in transfers. CVDD is one of the few metrics that has never “failed” since BTC’s genesis—every single day, BTC’s price has stayed above CVDD. The bear market bottom only gets close, but never breaks below it. If this cycle continues to follow the pattern, it means even if BTC faces “one last drop,” it won’t fall below $45,500. That’s a max drawdown of -30% from current price, but realistically, it might not even be that much. Looking at BTC’s price deviation from CVDD (see green arrow in chart), similar deviations occurred on: 2015.2.5, 2018.11.27, and 2022.6.22. On all three dates, price was already very close to the actual cycle bottom. Maybe you don’t want to stomach a theoretical -30% max drawdown, or you think risk/reward isn’t ideal yet—then just wait. Or, you can start DCA’ing BTC now, or wait for a higher probability opportunity closer to CVDD. This is NOT investment advice—just a reminder to plan ahead. twitter.com/Murphychen888/stat...

I've been closely monitoring US military deployments and the evolving war situation, as this is currently the most crucial and direct factor influencing market trends, bar none. I'm not a macro analyst; I'm just an ordinary trader. I must combine the information I have with my trading decisions. Regarding the analysis of the war situation, I consulted grok and chatgpt. Based on the current situation, after the April 6th ultimatum expires, if Iran doesn't make substantial concessions to the "15 points," both AI models believe that the probability of the US expanding its airstrikes/strike range is very high (over 50%), while the probability of seizing/controlling Kharg Island is very low (around 20%). I've summarized their main considerations as follows: 1. Kharg Island is too close to the US mainland, placing it completely under saturation fire from Iran. Seizing the island would make it an easy target, contradicting the modern US military's "zero casualties" or "non-contact warfare" philosophy. 2. There's a high probability of economic backlash. If the conflict escalates, soaring oil prices will have a real impact on US Treasury bonds and stocks, posing a significant obstacle for Trump. 3. Occupation is easy, withdrawal is difficult. Trump is more like a "businessman"; he doesn't want the US dragged into a protracted ground conflict. However, I personally think the probability of ultimately "seizing the island" isn't that low. I'm looking at it from a micro-level troop dynamics perspective: First, in the US military's tactical manual, the 82nd Airborne Division is used for "knocking on doors," not for "disruption or defense." If it's just about expanding the long-range strike range, deploying a few air force squadrons or adding destroyers (fully equipped with launch units) would suffice. Since they've already come, it means the plan to seize the island (or other key facilities) has moved from a contingency plan to an execution. Second, if it's an expanded air strike, it can only destroy, not "close" or "take over"; this also forces Iran to adopt self-destructive scorched-earth tactics and prolonged harassment. However, if physical takeover can be achieved (e.g., shutting down the island's pumping stations and loading facilities), the US would have its biggest bargaining chip at the negotiating table. If Iran doesn't back down after the ultimatum (and currently appears quite defiant), to maintain its prestige as the leading power, it will inevitably have to take a middle ground action—more serious than an airstrike but less serious than a full-scale war; and seizing the island is the perfect middle option. I've read many foreign analysts' analyses from a "rational game" perspective, and most believe that if Iran uses asymmetric attacks on oil fields in other parts of the Middle East, it will hinder US action. But I still think that the US military's current posture is precisely to prepare for a strong counterattack. Perhaps this time the US is no longer afraid of a short-term surge in oil prices. If it can gain control over Iran's energy exports for the next 20 years through a week of pain (seizing the island and physically blocking the Strait of Hormuz), it might consider the price worthwhile. twitter.com/Murphychen888/stat...

It’s time to test our judgment—there’s no precedent for this in the past decade, no guide to follow! From what I’ve observed, in the last 10 years, BTC has never seen such strong support right at the “<10y Realized Price (purple line)”—which is close to the real average cost basis—during any bear market. That’s right, it’s never happened before! Even now, with the NASDAQ down -10%, BTC has managed to stay above the <10y RP ($64,000) for two months straight. But if you look closely, there are some key differences compared to the previous two cycles. Back in 2018 and 2022, before BTC broke below the purple line, the price faced a critical test: could it break above the STH-RP (red line, short-term holder realized price)? When the price failed to break out and the red line kept pushing down, BTC eventually dropped below the purple line. But in Feb-Mar 2026, STH-RP hasn’t put any real pressure on BTC’s price—there’s still a decent gap ($83,000) even today. So what comes next? There are only two possible scenarios: 1. BTC stays above the purple line, and when the red line catches up, it breaks out upwards, flipping the trend. 2. If the red line keeps dropping and brings more pressure, short-term holders start capitulating near their cost basis, and BTC finally breaks below the purple line. Version 1 = Bear market is over. Version 2 = We’re heading into deep bear territory, and there’s no quick exit. If you ask me which scenario is more likely, I personally lean towards the latter—even though emotionally, I wish it were the former! twitter.com/Murphychen888/stat...

This is hands down the most badass prediction I've ever seen in the English crypto community! Back in May 2025, he predicted the entire bull-bear cycle structure and trend for this run—and the way things have played out is almost a carbon copy of his forecast. Absolutely legendary, way beyond my own level. Sure, I also calculated early on that $120k+ would be a reasonable top for this cycle, and I managed to sell near the peak. But I definitely didn’t have the clairvoyance to foresee a 50% BTC retrace and nail all the key consolidation levels in advance. In the quoted tweet, Killa shares some views that are pretty similar to what I’ve been posting lately, like: I think BTC is already very close to the cycle bottom in terms of price, just not quite there yet in terms of time. Killa reckons we might see another 10-15% downside max before the bottom forms, and expects it’ll take another 4-6 months. Killa also emphasizes the need to distinguish between trading and investing. As a trader, he’s just following the trend; as an investor, he’s gradually accumulating spot. Right now, he still sees the overall structure as bearish, so he prefers to short the range highs. This basically mirrors everything I wrote about in my “Long/Short-Term Trading Thoughts” post yesterday. Past predictions, even if spot on, don’t guarantee future success. But it’s definitely confidence-boosting to be in sync with a legend’s thinking and see our forecasts align. Whether things will really play out like this, only time will tell. twitter.com/Murphychen888/stat...

The situation in the Middle East has entered its peak phase of a "game of chicken"! The USS Tripoli amphibious assault group, carrying the 31st Marine Expeditionary Force and F-35B attack helicopters, has been deployed. Another ship, the USS Boxer, carrying the 11th Marine Corps, is en route to the Middle East and has not yet arrived. It's important to note that the USS Tripoli is a special amphibious assault ship. Its design forgoes traditional landing craft compartments, replacing them with enlarged hangars—a "lightning carrier" specifically designed for F-35B vertical takeoff and landing aircraft. The 82nd Airborne Division's tactical strengths lie in seizing bridgeheads, targeting key facilities, and high mobility. This indicates that the US military is transitioning from "long-range surgical strikes" to "close-quarters combat control." It can be said that it now possesses the capability to seize and control critical infrastructure within hours. For example, the oil and gas terminal on Kharg Island, the missile sites on Qeshm Island, or deep-water ports supporting the arrival of subsequent heavy troops. Kharg Island accounts for approximately 90% of Iran's crude oil exports. If it falls into US control, Iran will completely lose its economic lifeline. In this desperate situation, Iran is highly likely to adopt a scorched-earth policy – if you don't let me sell oil, then nobody else will. Kharg Island is only about 20 square kilometers in area and less than 40 kilometers from the Iranian mainland coastline. This distance is well within the absolute range of Iran's numerous long-range rocket artillery, drones, and shore-based missiles. To protect thousands of paratroopers on the island, the US military must deploy expensive air defense systems such as Patriot-3 or THAAD. Iran, on the other hand, can simply continuously launch inexpensive drones or Fateh hypersonic missiles to wear down the US interceptor missiles. Wouldn't this turn Iran into a sitting duck? Knowing the risks, why show a desire to seize the island? I think there are likely two strategic considerations here: 1. The US believes that direct escort in the Strait is extremely inefficient, and physical control of Kharg Island is preferable. Although it would face attack, it would seize Iran's most crucial bargaining chip. The US military might use its powerful defense system to withstand the first wave of attack, betting that Iran cannot sustain a protracted war of attrition after losing its oil revenues. 2. The threat of extreme ground warfare. This is a clear message to Iran: "I'm not just going to use airstrikes; I have the capability to end your regime's revenues within 48 hours." The aim is to force Iran to immediately consider returning to the negotiating table. However, given these risks, I personally believe the US military will not occupy Kharg Island indefinitely, but rather use a swift and decisive strike followed by withdrawal or the establishment of a neutral zone. If Iran does attack other oil facilities in the Middle East, causing a sharp drop in US stocks, Trump's next move is likely a large-scale release of strategic petroleum reserves and an expansion of the attack range. For example, if you attack Saudi oil fields, I'll attack your power plants and refineries. In any case, this conflict has already exceeded everyone's expectations before it began. It's a "game of chicken"—who blinks first... I definitely hope there won't be any more fighting. Because whoever attacks first will have to take my wallet first. twitter.com/Murphychen888/stat...

Loading..