The cryptocurrency market is witnessing an influx of speculative trading, particularly with meme coins like DOGE, PEPE and BONK experiencing extraordinary gains. 

November 2024 has marked a significant milestone for Bitcoin, with its price soaring to $94,105. This unprecedented growth has been driven by global events and heightened social media discussions, with predictions of six-figure valuations. Historically, peaks in social media chatter often precede market corrections, signaling traders to exercise caution. Currently, while whale accumulation remains strong — with wallets holding over 10 Bitcoin adding 53,006 more BTC in just one month — retail traders remain surprisingly cautious. This wary sentiment contrasts sharply with the bullish behavior usually seen during price surges, suggesting a potential correction.

The cryptocurrency market is witnessing an influx of speculative trading, particularly with meme coins like DOGE, PEPE and BONK experiencing extraordinary gains. Despite their volatility, these tokens reflect a broader appetite for high-risk investments. Notably, whale investors holding 1M–100M DOGE are accumulating, while smaller holders are selling, creating conditions for potential breakouts. However, if new capital stops flowing, these speculative assets could face significant downturns. Additionally, while discussions around Bitcoin reaching $100K are increasing, they haven’t reached the levels seen earlier this year, indicating that fear of missing out (FOMO) may not yet be fully realized.

Institutional Interest and Ethereum's Resurgence

Demand for Bitcoin ETFs has surged, with daily trading volumes hitting a record $8.21 billion, signaling increased institutional interest. This activity often coincides with market peaks, but could also indicate new investments flowing into the crypto space. Meanwhile, Ethereum has also gained momentum, breaking above $3,100 for the first time in over 14 weeks. Additionally, whale accumulation is on the rise, suggesting that as Bitcoin leads the market, profits may soon be redirected into Ethereum. In contrast, Solana's price movements remain highly sentiment-driven, with funding rates indicating potential entry points for investors. Overall, altcoins are experiencing growth, particularly following the U.S. elections, which have reignited optimism in the crypto market.

Advanced

Intro to Santiment.png

Bitcoin's Resurgence: Analyzing Market Dynamics and Speculative Trends in November 2024

Crypto market makers play a crucial role in providing liquidity by consistently placing buy and sell orders. Learn more about how they work here.

The cryptocurrency market is notorious for its high volatility and sometimes low liquidity, making it a challenging environment for traders and investors. Executing trades can be difficult, often resulting in significant price 

Market making is a strategic approach that provides the necessary liquidity to stabilize markets, ensuring smoother trades and reducing volatility. By creating buy and sell orders around the current market price, market makers help maintain a healthy trading ecosystem. This article examines the fundamentals of market making, its benefits for traders and exchanges and the way it enhances the overall efficiency of the cryptocurrency market.

A crypto market maker is an entity or individual who primarily provides liquidity in cryptocurrency markets by continuously placing buy and sell orders for digital assets. This activity ensures efficient trading and helps maintain stable prices.

Crypto market makers play a key role in keeping markets liquid by continuously placing buy and sell orders on exchanges. Here's a closer look at how they operate.

Key Characteristics of a Crypto Market Maker

Crypto market makers provide liquidity and stabilize prices in the cryptocurrency market. The following are the key traits that enable them to operate effectively.

Market makers continually place buy and sell orders, ensuring the availability of transactions for traders. This constant availability reduces wait times for trades and minimizes the price impact of large orders, making the market more efficient and accessible for everyone.

One of the fundamental roles of market makers is that of managing the bid-ask spread. By consistently quoting competitive prices, they narrow this spread, thereby enhancing trading efficiency and reducing costs for other market participants. This spread is also their primary source of profit.

Market makers leverage advanced algorithms and HFT strategies to analyze market conditions and optimize their order placements. This technology allows them to react swiftly to price changes and maintain a balanced inventory of assets, which helps to manage risk and maximize profitability.

Due to the inherent volatility of cryptocurrency markets, effective risk management is vital for market makers. They employ various techniques, such as hedging and real-time market analysis, to minimize exposure to sudden price swings. This ensures their operations remain stable even in the face of market fluctuations.

By providing continuous liquidity and facilitating smooth trading operations, market makers enhance overall market efficiency. Their presence attracts more traders, which increases transaction volumes, boosts exchange activity and contributes to a healthier trading environment.

Given the quickly evolving nature of the cryptocurrency landscape, market makers must be adaptable, continually refining their strategies in response to new technologies, regulatory changes and shifts in market dynamics. This ensures they remain competitive and relevant.

Crypto market makers play a critical role in the cryptocurrency ecosystem by providing liquidity and stabilizing prices. Despite the integral role they play, however, their operations come with both advantages and disadvantages. 

Additional Importance of a Crypto Market Maker

Crypto market makers play a vital role in maintaining the efficiency and stability of the cryptocurrency market. Their presence on crypto exchanges ensures trading environments operate smoothly. 

Newer and smaller cryptocurrencies often struggle with liquidity. Market makers provide a market for these assets, promoting their growth and creating a more diverse and dynamic crypto ecosystem.

Through continual quoting of prices, market makers aid in fair price discovery, ensuring that cryptocurrency prices reflect actual market demand rather than extreme fluctuations. This promotes a more trustworthy and transparent trading environment that allows traders to make data-backed decisions. 

Crypto market makers are essential players in the cryptocurrency ecosystem, providing liquidity, stabilizing prices and ensuring smooth trade execution. Their use of advanced algorithms and real-time order placements encourages a more efficient, accessible and fair market. However, risks such as market manipulation, potential capital loss and lack of regulation can be problematic. Overall, the role of market makers in supporting emerging assets and maintaining market stability makes them indispensable for a healthy and growing crypto environment.

Intermediate

market maker.png

Crypto Market Maker: Boosting Trades With Strategic Liquidity

SEC Chair Gary Gensler announced he will resign on January 20, 2025, coinciding with President-elect Donald Trump's inauguration.

The S&P 500 rose 0.53% as investors shifted toward cyclical stocks expected to benefit from a strengthening economy, while technology shares lagged. Coindesk Indices, an index measuring broader cryptocurrency market performance was up by 4.79%, with Bitcoin and Ether rising by  4.19% and 8.75%, respectively in the past 24 hours.

Today's top performer is XRP, which surged 24.3% following the partnership between Ripple and MCSocialVenture to boost financial resilience and access in emerging markets.

Ripple (XRP), launched in August 2012, is a blockchain technology company focused on improving international payments with its cryptocurrency, XRP. 

, focused on investing in emerging market entrepreneurs. The initiative will pilot financial resilience and humanitarian solutions built on the XRPL, aiming to advance equitable access to finance.

Check Out the Latest Prices, Charts, and Data of 

 he will resign on January 20, 2025, coinciding with President-elect Donald Trump's inauguration. Gensler, whose term runs until 2026, faced pressure from the crypto lobby due to the SEC’s strict regulatory actions against the industry, including high-profile cases against Coinbase and Binance. Gensler’s departure is seen as a victory for crypto advocates, who hope the next SEC chair will be more crypto-friendly. Trump has hinted at firing Gensler on his first day in office and is expected to appoint a chair with expertise in crypto, such as Mark Uyeda, Hester Peirce, or Chris Giancarlo.

Yesterday, BTC Spot ETF data revealed a net inflow of $396.7 million, driven by $404.5 million from non-GBTC sources, partially offset by a $7.8 million outflow from GBTC..

 for those who participated. To claim, visit 

 using code B0FKOP. Additionally, Morph Zoo Season 2 has launched on mainnet, allowing users to earn points by bridging ETH or executing transactions on Morph. The Bitget Wallet offers a 1.2x multiplier on points to maximize rewards.

Beginner

4.png

SEC Chair Gary Gensler to Resign on Inauguration Day, Marking a Win for Crypto Lobby

Traders seem to expect BTC’s momentum could slow down a bit after the price hit over $97,000.

Positive sentiment has continued to fuel the cryptocurrency market as the expectation of further institutional adoption of 

 keeps growing. Options trading of BlackRock’s Spot Bitcoin ETF IBIT 

 with a bang, attracting almost $2 billion on the first day of trading. The hope of more spot ETF derivatives to change the market structure with additional institutional money onboarding crypto is high.

, we explored the possibility of the market being overleveraged, which could be painful if the current leverage unwinds. Data from CryptoQuant shows that the estimated leverage of the current BTC markets has reached another YTD high.

Derivatives data on Bybit shows that traders seem to expect that BTC’s momentum could slow down a bit after the price hit over $97,000, and are focusing more on downside protection.

Figure 1: Bitcoin estimated leverage ratio at 0.23. Source: CryptoQuant

BTC Options Open Interest Returns to Previous High While Perps Are Catching Up

Derivatives traders have been actively participating in BTC markets as 

 on Bybit has surged to over $3 billion, on par with the previous high on Nov 14, 2024. Although the options OI has increased, it still hasn’t surged above the previous high. At the time, BTC’s price had already jumped to over $97,000. If the OI doesn’t follow suit and break above the previous high in the coming days, this could be a sign that the market could become a bit exhausted — something for all market participants to be aware of.

Figure 2: Daily open interest for BTC options on Bybit. Source: Bybit

 have also seen increased open interest in recent days. Perpetuals have been among the most favorable products for day traders and short-term speculators. Rising open interest could indicate that more traders are looking for short-term profit, which could bring additional volatility to the market. 

Figure 3: Daily open interest for BTCUSDT Perpetuals on Bybit. Source: Bybit

Dec 27, 2024 remains the most popular expiration date for BTC Options on Bybit, with most of the open interest there. Within that expiration, $120,000 calls had the most OI, and $100,000 calls accumulated the second-largest OI. 

Figure 4: Open interest by strike for BTC Options with a Dec 27, 2024 expiration. Source: Bybit

Meanwhile, the market’s optimism that BTC will hit $100,000 by the end of the year seems to support the current price momentum. Shorter-dated options could show that traders are also looking for downside protection. The Bybit 

 page shows that BTC Options with a Nov 29, 2024 expiration have a strong 24-hour inflow to $90,000 puts. This could indicate that some traders are also anticipating some degree of price correction by the end of the month. 

Figure 5: 24-hour volume by strike for BTC Options with a Nov 29, 2024 expiration on Bybit. Source: Bybit

 for BTC Options on Bybit also indicates a possible downside protection in play among options traders. A smirk skew, or left skew, is a skew curve that’s steeper on one side (the left side) than the other. Traditionally, a smirk skew curve could mean that traders have been protecting their portfolios against a possible declining market. At the time of this writing (Nov 21, 2024), BTC Options contracts on Bybit with Nov 29, 2024 and Dec 27, 2024 expirations have both shown a smirk skew. However, this doesn’t necessarily mean traders are bearish on the price, and could just be part of the trading strategy. For example, traders could set up collars by buying out-of-the-money (OTM) puts and selling OTM calls simultaneously, so that they can profit in case BTC’s price drops, gain upside exposure and potentially offset the cost of buying the puts. 

Figure 6: Implied volatility of BTC Options with Nov 29, 2024 and Dec 27, 2024 expirations. Source: Bybit

The current BTC leverage trading may be complex, but tells a revealing narrative about market sentiment. The divergence between high leverage and increased hedging activities also reminds us that market dynamics are rarely straightforward, and adopting a 

 seems increasingly important in this diverse market.

: Investing in cryptocurrencies and their derivatives involves substantial risk of loss, and isn’t suitable for every investor. This article provides facts for educational purposes only, and does not represent any financial advice. Prior to making any investment decisions, please ensure you fully understand the risks involved and seek independent advice if necessary. Our customer support team is available to assist you with any inquiries.

NOV24_R53_Learn From Smart Money_ BTC’s Leverage Remains High as Traders Hedge Against Downside Risks.png

Learn From Smart Money: BTC’s Leverage Remains High as Traders Hedge Against Downside Risks

Blockchain

Like Bitcoin, the main reason for the Ethereum scalability problem is the network protocol that each node in the network has to process each transaction.

Diagram_is_an_illustration_of_the_scalability_trilemma_in_the_blockchain.png

DAG.png

Difference_of_Chains.png

Nodes.png

Plasma_network.png

Independent_Plasma_Chains.png

Etherium_Root_Chain.png

Like Bitcoin, the main reason for the Ethereum scalability problem is the network protocol that each node in the network has to process each transaction. Ethereum 1.x implements a slightly modified version of the proof-of-work (PoW) consensus mechanism. In 

, miners have to race to find the nonce to meet the target difficulty. Every node needs to verify that the miners’ work is valid and keep an accurate copy of the current network state. This greatly limits the transaction process capability and throughput of the Ethereum blockchain network. Currently, it can only process 12-15 

First used by Vitalik Buterin, the scalability trilemma is a concept in blockchain regarding its capability to address scalability, decentralization, and security, without compromising any of them. The trilemma claims that it is almost impossible to achieve all three properties in a blockchain system:

: This is a core tenet upon which Bitcoin and blockchain were created. Decentralization enables censorship-resistance and permits anyone to participate in a decentralized ecosystem without a central authority or intermediary.

: This refers to the integrity and immutability of the public ledger, and the ability to resist 

: This concerns the ability to handle a growing amount of transactions in the blockchain network. In order for the Ethereum blockchain to be the world computer as the inventor envisioned, it needs to match the transaction throughput of many centralized systems, like Amazon, Visa, or Mastercard.

The following diagram is an illustration of the scalability trilemma in the blockchain:

The key challenge of scalability is finding a way to achieve all three at the base layer. The design choices of Bitcoin and Ethereum favor decentralization and security, while making a sacrifice in scalability.

The Ethereum scalability solution is one of the most active topics in the Ethereum community. The following are a few areas of concern the community is trying to tackle for the 

Transaction processing and block creation time with PoW—how fast can the miners process all transactions and create a new block through mining?

Transaction finality – how soon can the decentralized network reach a consensus that a transaction has happened and can’t be reverted? Currently, it takes about six blocks with Bitcoin and 3-4 minutes with Ethereum for the network to consider a block is finalized in the main chain. Interested readers should check out Vitalik’s block for transaction settlement and block finality probability.

Solutions being implemented or proposed, fall into three categories: on-chain solution, offchain solution, and consensus mechanism protocols. There are some obvious or theoretical ones, like increasing block size or slicing one blockchain into many independent altcoin chains. Due to the nature of peer to peer, a traditional horizontal scaling approach may not work. Specific to the Ethereum network, some consideration was also given to stateful or stateless smart contracts contributing to scalability issues. We will go over high-level concepts of all those solutions, and then delve deeper into some of the promising ones.

This is similar to the vertical scaling approach. Some of the altcoins, like Bitcoin Cash, Ethereum Core, and so on, are implementing a larger block size to gain overall transaction performance. The theory behind this approach is that since PoW mining is the main bottleneck in the entire process, by increasing the block size we can have more transactions processed per mining. It may take a little bit longer to create a 

) for stash-based mining, but the average time to complete the mining may not get any worse, since most of the Ethereum clients cache the DAG anyway.

The following diagram illustrates how this technique works:

However, like vertical scaling, in general, this solution demands that network nodes have better computing capacity in order to process large-sized blocks. This may lead to a scenario where a network is concentrated into a few rich hands and, thus, may ultimately compromise decentralization and security, the main tenets of the blockchain.

However, there are a few issues with this option. One is security concerns. It is a common belief that the network is more secure if more network nodes participate in the transaction processing in the blockchain. With a wider distribution of altcoin chains, fewer nodes will operate on any given blockchain. This may make the blockchain less secure, since a smaller altcoin network may be more vulnerable to network attacks. Let us say, we have about 10,000 nodes on the larger network, it will require at least 5,001 nodes (or called 51%) to be compromised to launch an attack on the network. If we slice 10,000 nodes into 50 smaller chains, each chain comprises 200 nodes, and it only requires 101 nodes to take down any smaller chain, which is what we call a 1% attack problem. Another issue is cross-chain integration. Although there are some solutions for handling cross-blockchain integration, the overall complexity of integrating smaller chains and altcoins will increase drastically.

On-chain solutions, sometimes also called layer 1 solutions, are to look for solutions to address scalability and performance issues at the base layer of the Ethereum blockchain network. One such solution is sharding. Sharding is not a new concept as traditional RDBMS and new big data platforms have been using sharding as a way to improve scalability and performance for many years.

With the Ethereum network, the purpose of sharding is to group the network nodes, the blockchain, and global states into different shards, and each shard will reach a consensus on the shard-wide transaction state among those nodes within the group. At the conceptual level, this may not be much different from Plasma, the layer 2 side-chain approach, but the technical difficulty, implications, and network efforts are quite different.

To put it simply, Proof of Stake is one of the most popular consensus algorithms on blockchain networks. As opposed to PoW consensus, where miners are rewarded for solving cryptographic puzzles, in the PoS consensus algorithm, a pool of selected validators take turns proposing new blocks. The validator is chosen in a deterministic way, depending on its wealth, also defined as a stake. Anyone who deposits their coins as a stake can become a validator. The chance to participate may be proportional to the stakes they put in. Let’s say, Alice, Bob, Catherine, and David put in 40 Ether, 30 Ether, 20 Ether, and 10 Ether stakes to participate respectively; they will get a 40%, 30%, 20%, and 10% chance of being selected as the block creator.

The following is how it works in the PoS consensus mechanism. As shown in the following diagram, the blockchain keeps track of a set of validators, sometimes also called block creators or forgers. At any time, whenever new blocks need to be created, the blockchain randomly selects a validator. The selected validator verifies the transactions and proposes new blocks for all validators to agree on. New blocks are then voted on by all current validators. Voting power is based on the stake the validator puts in. Whoever proposes invalid transactions or blocks or votes maliciously, which means they intentionally compromise the integrity of the chain, may lose their stakes. For the creation of the block itself, the node does not receive a reward. Remuneration is paid for the transaction. Upon the new blocks being accepted, the block creator can collect the transaction fee as the reward for the work of creating new blocks. There are two basic possible node selection options:

PoS is considered more energy-efficient and environment-friendly compared with the PoW mechanism. It is also perceived as more secure too. It essentially reduces the threat of a 51% attack since malicious validators would need to accumulate more than 50% of the total stakes in order to take over the blockchain network. Such an algorithm is designed to discourage attackers from validating fake transactions because of the risk of losing a “collateral”.

Similar to PoW, total decentralization may not be fully possible in the PoS-based public blockchain. This is because a few wealthy nodes can monopolize the stakes in the network.  Those who put in more stakes can effectively control most of the voting and has more chances to generate a new block.  Both algorithms are subject to the social and economic issue that it makes the rich richer.

Similar to the rationales for an on-chain solution, the Ethereum community is also actively looking for off-chain solutions, sometimes called layer 2 solutions. One is a side-chain solution with Plasma. Instead of putting all transactions in the main chain, Plasma allows anyone to create side chains and bond side chains into the global blockchain. This is similar to the lighting network solution in Bitcoin.

Another one is a state channel solution with Raiden, similar to payment channels in Bitcoin. The hypothesis behind this approach is that many interparty transactions only need to be validated by the parties involved, and there is no need to have all transactions to be validated by the entire network.

One intuitive solution to improve scalability and throughput is to create many small chains. This may sound like a plausible solution, since it may suit business and social needs. Take ourselves for example, as customers or citizens, we buy fruit and vegetables from our local grocery, which might leverage one blockchain to ensure traceability and food safety through the entire supply chain of fresh produce.

At the end of your shopping, you may pay the grocery directly through a P2P payment blockchain. When you apply your mortgage or business loan, you might be able to get your mortgage and loan approved through the mortgage blockchain, and so on. We are more likely to meet all these vertical chains or private chains before we see a gigantic global chain.

However, it creates cross-chain integration and security enforcement issues. This is what Plasma tries to address. It was first proposed in August 2017 by Joseph Poon and Vitalik Buterin. The design idea is to offload transactions to many faster and less crowded side chains, also called Plasma chains. Similar to the state channel approach, a Plasma chain will periodically commit its transactions to the Ethereum root chain.

Security and integrity will be enforced through the root chain. If any suspicion of fraud is detected in the plasma chains, the transactions will be rolled back and Plasma users can exit the plasma chain and move out to the root chain.

The following diagram shows what a Plasma network may look like:

Each plasma chain is a blockchain on its own. They are bonded with an Ethereum root chain through a smart contract. The smart contract essentially connects an entire child chain to the root chain, acting as a bridge. Anyone can create a plasma chain, and write a smart contract binding the plasma chain to the root chain.

As the following diagram shows, at each period, the block headers of each block of the plasma chains are submitted to the root chain and recorded in the blocks of the root chain.

Transactions in the plasma chains will stay at each plasma chain. The Merkle proof in the block headers will then be used to verify data on the child chain. This allows for tens and thousands of transactions to be processed in many plasma chains in parallel, and also leaves minimal and enough Merkle header information on the root chain to enforce security:

The root chain will play an arbitrator role, somewhat similar to the federal court system in the United States, where the root chain is the supreme court and the plasma chains are the circuit courts, or the district courts. In the federal court system, once the federal district court has decided a case, the case can be appealed to the circuit court or supreme court for an arbitration.

When fraud occurs in a plasma chain, whether it is a double-spend across the chains or you cash out more than you have in all accounts, anyone can provide a fraud-proof to prove the transaction is invalid. If proven to the fraud transactions, the transaction will be rolled back.

Plasma users can exit the child plasma chain and transfer ethers back to the main chain. The original proposals introduce a single validator concept, as the operator for the plasma blockchain, to validate and add transactions to the blocks, and manage the state of the child blockchain.

The idea behind this approach is that security and integrity of the blockchain at the global level is enforced by the root chain, using either PoW or, most likely, a hybrid PoW and PoS consensus protocol. In the case where the validator of the plasma chain may hold the fund and commit fraudulent activities, anyone can provide a fraud-proof against the validator to the root chain.

Once proven to be fraudulent from the validator, the root chain will allow all accounts at the impacted plasma chain to move out to the root chain. This is called a 

scenario. In this case, individual accounts will be migrated to the root chain one by one, the invalid transaction will be rolled back, and the validator of the plasma chain will be penalized with the stake it puts in the smart contract. Depending on how many accounts need to be migrated, it may take a while to complete the mass exit.

Although it has been one of the most interesting and active topics in the Ethereum research community, there is no public release of a plasma implementation yet. Instead, a scaled-down version of the original proposal, also called a minimal viable plasma, or MVP, was proposed for a simple implementation, which includes a simplified security model and basic operations for exiting plasma chains.

One very interesting aspect of an MVP is the reintroduction of a UTXO model. One key difference in Ethereum is to move away from Bitcoin’s UTXO model to a more defined account model, where account balance is the state object maintained at the world state.

The Ethereum account model makes transaction verifications and money transfer simple, with the sacrifice of parallelism. This may not be a significant drawback, since all transactions need to be verified by all nodes. But with Plasma, as the root chain moves away from transaction processing to security enforcement and arbitration, it becomes important to be able to verify invalid transactions in parallel.

A tree structure of blockchains, hence the tree of UTXOs from all child chains, makes it easy to apply distributed parallel algorithms to verify fraud proofs and enforce security across all plasma chains.

The following diagram shows what the potential Plasma may be able to bring into the Ethereum blockchain network when a tree of Ethereum plasma child chains are bonded with the parent plasma chain, and are ultimately connected to, and secured through, the Ethereum root chain:

Massive scalability will be achieved through offloading expensive computations to the child chains and allow the root chain to provide the shared security and arbitration services to the blockchain at a global level. There are a few similar cross-chain interoperability solutions, like Cosmos network. Claimed to be the internet of blockchains, Cosmos network provides a hub-spoke integration architecture. Independent blockchains, as the zones or spokes, are attached to the main blockchain as the hub. Its purpose is to facilitate blockchain integration through the IBC (inter-blockchain communications) protocol.

Ethereum Blockchain Performance and Scalability

Grab Up to 5,000 USDT in Rewards

Grab Up to 5,000 USDT in Rewards