0xMomo

OM / MANTRA This time I won't vote for the 'fundamental reassessment', it feels more like a wait for confirmation after a narrative rearrangement.

I think the easiest thing for the market to misread is: a token renaming, 1:4 split, and RWA narrative flowing more smoothly does not equal an automatic reassessment of value. What truly determines whether there will be a second phase is whether the price can convert the upgraded attention into sustained support.

First, let’s discuss what has happened:
- MANTRA officially provided the coin upgrade timeline, with the core being the transition from $OM to MANTRA, completing the 1:4 token split and ticker transition in early March.
- The official document has been updated with the tokenomics scope: total supply expands proportionally, but the allocation ratio itself remains unchanged, essentially a revaluation and brand unification, not the creation of new value out of thin air.
- On the market side, what's most interesting about OM right now is not that the trend is very strong, but that the cycles are diverging: the 1h still appears weak, the 4h looks more like high volatility oscillation, and only the 1d shows a hint of improvement.

Why I am not chasing it now, but also not directly bearish:
- Research perspective: In the RWA track, MANTRA's 'compliance-friendly + asset on-chain' story is indeed easier to tell to incremental funds than many old DeFi narratives, and brand unification serves as a bonus for external storytelling.
- Technical perspective: The key interval on the 4h is very clear, 0.0605 is the support level, and 0.0763 is the confirmation level. The daily chart is not entirely broken, indicating that it’s not a purely collapsing structure, but the 1h hasn’t turned strong yet, showing that short-term funds aren’t uniformly rushing in.

I must also clarify my counterarguments:
- If this upgrade is merely 'smoother storytelling' without leading to real adoption, the market will quickly reclassify it as just a packaging upgrade.
- The 1h is still weak, indicating that the success rate of short-term chasing is not attractive; if the 4h fails to surpass 0.0763, the so-called reassessment will look more like an emotional repair rather than a trend initiation.

I will only focus on two conditions going forward:
- If volume stabilizes above 0.0763, I will upgrade my view from 'observation' to 'structural confirmation'.
- If it drops below 0.0605, I will redefine this wave as a shift to weakening oscillation and avoid it in the short term.

In short, my view on MANTRA is not pessimistic, but: the story has been updated, and the price has not fully voted yet.

$OM

Don't take "the tariffs being overturned by the court" directly as a crypto risk-on switch.

The court indeed knocked down the previous emergency tariff pathway set by Trump, but the White House / USTR quickly put a temporary global import tax framework back on the table. Reuters also followed up and mentioned that the temporary tax rate would quickly rise from 10% to 15%, and that in 150 days, there would still be constraints from Congress and legal avenues.

What concerns me more is not whether it ultimately lands at 10% or 15%, but that the uncertainty of the policy itself has raised the difficulty for companies in pricing and the discount rate of global risk assets. One point that the market is most likely to misinterpret is to understand "the old tariffs being rejected" as "trade pressure ending"; the reality is more like the old script being interrupted, and the new script is still probing for a higher uncertainty premium.

On the charts, $BTC 1h is just compressing and oscillating, while 4h and 1d still lean weak; high beta assets like $BNB typically will trade the risk discount first, rather than trading positive expectations first. There are short-term movements, but the mid-term has not yet confirmed, so I will not chase headline elasticity in this environment.

Counterarguments must also be written: if the subsequent execution of tariffs continues to be hampered by law/Congress, or if risk assets show clear desensitization to tariff noise, this macro suppression will dull faster than the market currently thinks.

I will keep an eye on two conditions:
1) $BTC must first reclaim 67289, to be considered free from 1h oscillatory pressure;
2) Can it further recover 69263 to challenge mid-term recovery.

If it instead breaks below 66124, or even tests 65548 again, the next trade looks more like defense rather than offense.

$BTC $BNB

Don't rush to trade the next "liquidity boost" into $BTC. The signals released by the Fed this week aren't that dovish.

My current understanding is: the market is watching for potential easing in the future while ignoring that the Fed is already seriously discussing "how to continue shrinking the balance sheet." Governor Miran stated directly on 3/26 that shrinking the size of the balance sheet is desirable; yet on 3/18 the FOMC was still emphasizing that economic outlook uncertainty has increased.

The implication for crypto isn't an immediate bearish move to a one-sided drop, but rather: the liquidity story can be told in the short term, but don't misinterpret it as a QE preview. Arthur Hayes and his group will bet that ultimately money will be printed, which is beneficial for BTC in the long term; I don't deny this line, but at least for now the market hasn't traded into a "rise before talking" scenario.

From a technical perspective, it's more direct: 1h/4h/1d still shows bearish alignment. In the short term, watch if 66652 can be reclaimed, and at least 67580 needs to be recovered in the 4h for me to consider upgrading it from a weak rebound to structural repair. Conversely, if 65548 is lost, this wave looks more like a continuation of liquidation after liquidity expectations fell through.

So for this wave, I won't chase the "easing imagination". I will focus on two things next: whether the Fed's statements on balance sheet reduction soften marginally, and whether BTC can reclaim the key 4h level first.

$BTC

RENDER I will not chase this ticket based on AI benefits for now. In RNP-023, 60K GPUs from Salad are connected to Render, which certainly adds to the narrative, but the market has not yet turned it into a trend.

The key information I see now includes 3 points:
1) The official push in the past two days has been for governance voting, not for revenue recognition that has already been implemented;
2) If the proposal passes, the market will first trade on the expectations of "supply expansion of computing power + recovery of AI/GPU themes";
3) However, the 1h and 4h structures are still weak, indicating that buying is more like waiting rather than rushing in.

What I care about is not the "60K GPUs" headline itself, but whether this matter will really raise both the supply-side capacity and the demand-side utilization rate of Render together. One point that the market is most likely to misinterpret is equating the "proposal launch" directly with "immediate realization of fundamentals". There is still a gap between these two involving execution, adoption, and continuous orders.

Conversely, shorts shouldn't be too confident. The 1d has not completely gone bad yet; if subsequent votes proceed smoothly and sentiment returns to AI infrastructure, the elasticity will quickly come back.

So my trading conclusion is very simple: this is not a reversal confirmation, but more like an observation ticket in a catalytic window. If it first recovers 1.7145, then we can look for volume confirmation around 1.904; if it loses 1.615, I will continue to treat it as a weak rebound.

$RENDER

What really weighs down crypto may not be the headline itself, but the Fed starting to worry that 'inflation expectations' are rising again.

I won't take the recent sideways movement of $BTC as stabilization; it feels more like waiting for the market to confirm: is 'higher-for-longer' just verbal hawkishness, or will it continue to impact the dollar and yields?

What happened:
- Federal Reserve Governor Michael Barr spoke at Brookings on 3/26, specifically mentioning that prolonged energy/commodity price shocks could push long-term inflation expectations higher again.
- This is different from simply 'oil prices have risen'. The real problem is that once the market starts trading on 'expectations unanchoring', the path to rate cuts becomes harder to anticipate.
- On the charts, BTC is just oscillating on the 1h; the 4h and 1d still look weak: in the short term, only around 67289 is considered breaking free from oscillation, while on the 4h we first need to see if it can reclaim 67754, and on the daily, it needs to regain the range around 69569 to reverse.

Why I remain cautious:
- Macroeconomic factors: Barr's emphasis is not on immediate rate hikes, but on reminding that 'don't turn the page on inflation too early'. This is not good news for high beta assets.
- Technical aspects: the 1h hasn't completely collapsed, but the 4h / 1d are still in a bearish structure. Short-term movements do not mean that the medium-term has been confirmed.

Conversely, bears are not guaranteed wins:
- If energy disturbances quickly subside, Barr seems more like he is managing expectations verbally this time rather than initiating a deeper round of hawkish repricing.
- As long as BTC can break above 67754 significantly, it will challenge 69569, and the market will reclassify it as a 'risk asset that has fallen first' rather than continuing to weaken.

I will focus on two conditions moving forward:
- Continue to be cautious: if BTC falls below 65548, the next trading script remains weak continuation.
- Change of perspective: if BTC first reclaims 67754 and then stabilizes above 69569, this wave will seem more like a structural recovery from a weak rebound.

This is not a reversal confirmation; it feels more like the market is answering a question: is the Fed just slower, or have risk assets really not yet endured higher-for-longer.

$BTC $ETH

TRX I don't want to chase this wave just with the words "institutional benefits".

What truly matters is not the headline itself, but that the entry for U.S. compliance agencies has finally been filled; however, the market has already approached previous highs, making it more suitable to wait for confirmation rather than directly imagining the benefits as an acceleration phase.

What happened:
- Anchorage Digital announced the addition of institutional-level custody for TRON, and it will subsequently expand to native TRX staking and support for TRC-20 assets.
- CoinDesk followed up to confirm that this effectively opened a more compliant entry for U.S. institutions to hold and trade TRX.
- From a technical perspective, TRX's 1h/4h/1d are currently unusually strong in the same direction: both 1h and 4h are in a strong uptrend, and 1d is also improving.

Why I remain bullish:
- Narrative aspect: The integration of this type of infrastructure will initially improve "can it be provided, can it be taken," and the medium-term will determine "will it continue to be provided."
- Technical aspect: The 4h support is at 0.3078, resistance at 0.3177; the daily resistance looks at 0.3190. As long as the structure holds, TRX is still leaning towards trend continuation, rather than just pure news impulses.

However, counterarguments must also be presented:
- The 1h RSI is already somewhat overheated, making it not particularly comfortable for short-term chasing prices.
- This catalyst resembles the completion of institutional infrastructure, which does not equal that large-scale allocation has already occurred; if the trading volume does not keep up, it is most likely to result in "benefits landing and then stalling at high levels or even retreating."

I will only focus on two conditions going forward:
- If the 4h volume stabilizes above 0.3177, while the daily line surpasses 0.3190, I will upgrade it to a trend continuation confirmation.
- If it falls below 0.3123, I will downgrade this wave to a news-driven impulse, rather than a new round of unilateral upward movement.

This is not a reversal confirmation, but more like "after the institutional entry is filled, does the trend qualify to move into the second segment."

$TRX

MOVE This time I won't vote for 'trend reversal', it's more like emotional recovery after a big catalyst hits a weak structure.

Three things have objectively happened:
- Movement announced that Public Mainnet Beta is live, supporting permissionless deployment, user access, and using LayerZero as the official bridge; MOVE is the native gas token.
- The official press release also mentioned that REX-Osprey submitted an application related to the $MOVE ETF, igniting the narrative of 'Move ecosystem + traditional capital entry' together.
- However, the market has not synchronized to strengthen: 1h is just oscillating recovery, while 4h and 1d are still bearish, indicating that the news has repaired expectations but does not mean that funds have already turned the mid-cycle structure around.

Why am I still watching it:
First, the mainnet launch is not just a slogan; it really pushes forward the question of 'can we deploy freely, can we bridge assets, is there initial liquidity in the ecosystem'; this is stronger than just telling stories.
Second, ETF filing can easily bring valuation imagination, but the most easily misread point here is: filing is not approval; the imagination of institutional entry can be traded first, but trend confirmation cannot be assumed.

The counterargument is also very clear:
- 4h is still a weak structure; I won't write it as a reversal until it recovers above 0.0198.
- If it's just news stimulation without sustained transactions and follow-up ecological data relay, this kind of ticket can easily return to 'good news realization ends'.

I will keep an eye on two conditions:
- Bullish confirmation: first stand back above 0.0184, then see if it can recover 0.0198 with volume.
- Judgment failure: if it falls below 0.0175 again, I will treat this wave as a typical event-driven rebound, rather than a new trend starting point.

My conclusion at this stage is very simple: the theme has strengthened, but the structure has not yet strengthened. For this kind of ticket, I prefer to wait for confirmation and do not want to celebrate in advance for the market.

$MOVE

I won't directly translate ECB/Schnabel's statement this time into a return of crypto risk appetite.

What I'm more concerned about is whether the market will trade it as 'Europe is not in a hurry to be more hawkish', but the relative strength of the dollar and high beta pressure have not actually eased.

In the past 24 hours, Schnabel's remarks at the event in Zurich are not primarily about dovishness, but rather about not rushing to run away. For crypto, this kind of signal is most easily misread: in the short term, it seems like liquidity pressure isn't increasing, which slightly benefits risk assets; but on the other hand, if EUR/USD doesn't continue to strengthen and DXY doesn't show obvious weakness, then it's hard for crypto to truly return to a favorable environment.

This is also why I am currently more cautious about $SOL. It is more like a beta thermometer, not an independent main line. The 1h, 4h, and 1d structures are currently weak: in the short term, it is still in a downward channel, and until the 4h recovers the 85.6 line, I won't consider any rebound as a trend confirmation; higher timeframes are still capped below the 87.9 line.

So I won't chase this wave for now. What bulls really need to see is not just 'Europe is not more hawkish', but that $SOL at least needs to return to 85.6, and then we can see if it can continue to recover around 87.9. Conversely, if it loses the 81.8 range again, I would be more inclined to treat this wave as a weak反弹 within macro noise, rather than a risk-on restart.

This is not bearish on Europe, but rather that there is action in the short term, while the medium term has not yet been confirmed.

$SOL

I am now more willing to regard $ETH as a "yen carry sensitive asset," rather than a safe haven.

The Bank of Japan's Statement on Monetary Policy on March 19 did not provide the market with that kind of "permanent easing safety net". For crypto, the real trouble is not the meeting itself, but if the yen continues to strengthen and global carry starts to de-leverage, digital assets are often treated as high beta risk positions first.

I care about two things:
1) Macroeconomically, the BOJ's policy path is shifting towards normalization, liquidity expectations are not as loose as before;
2) On the charts, ETH 1h is just consolidating, 4h and 1d still look weak, there are short-term movements, but the mid-term has not been fully confirmed yet.

So I won't chase this wave for now. To change my view, I will first look to see if it can volume up and stabilize above 2010, then reclaim 2052; if it falls back below 1971, I will continue to regard it as a weak rebound in the carry noise.

The counterpoint must also be clearly stated: if the BOJ's subsequent tone turns dovish again, or if the dollar/U.S. bonds fall in sync, crypto may first undergo a technical correction, rather than continue to de-risk passively.

$ETH

SKY I won't vote for a trend reversal this time, but I won't treat it as pure air rebranding either. What truly matters is not that the name has changed from Maker to Sky, but whether liquidity will really catch up after the trading facilities begin to complement each other.

First, let's look at what has objectively happened:
- Kraken has supported SKY and USDS trading, and later added SKY to the margin trading list.
- Binance had previously supported the token swap, repricing, and rebranding of MKR to SKY.
- The official Sky team has been continuously promoting the ecological narrative this week, and the market is starting to discuss whether the SKY / USDS combination is really a "new package" or if it will create new usage scenarios.

What I care about more is whether the two lines have been established simultaneously:
First, trading aspect. More exchanges supporting it, more quotes and leverage entrances will indeed improve short-term tradability.
Second, fundamentals. The usage of USDS, the real attractiveness of the Sky protocol, and whether users stick around after the brand migration will determine whether this wave can transition from a trading theme to a mid-term reassessment.

The market, however, doesn't seem that optimistic. Both the 1h and 4h charts remain weak, with key support at 0.0693 and resistance initially at 0.0772; the daily chart cannot even be said to be bullish, more like a large-scale situation that hasn't completely broken down, but the smaller scale hasn't confirmed either. So this isn't a reversal confirmation, but more like "the trading facilities are here, the price is still waiting for fundamentals and capital to take over."

The counter-evidence is also very direct:
- If it’s just the exchanges that have paved the way, but there is no new demand, SKY could easily turn into a pullback after an event-driven surge.
- If USDS fails to form stronger transactions and usage scenarios, rebranding will still be more about packaging than realization.

I will focus on two things next:
- Can the price first recover to 0.0711, and then test 0.0772;
- Beyond trading facilities, whether Sky / USDS can continue to gain new product access and more genuine liquidity support.

This time I won't chase it, but I also don't want to completely ignore it. For SKY, the real test isn't "whether there’s a new name," but "whether there’s a new demand."

$SKY $USDS

Don't misinterpret the Fed's "balance sheet discussion" as a forecast for easing; $BTC now resembles trading between "liquidity imagination vs inflation reality".

What I care about more is not that the market automatically associates the three words "balance sheet" with easing, but rather that on March 26, the Fed actually released two signals that were not entirely consistent.

The first signal came from Governor Miran. He directly stated in "The Fed’s Balance Sheet" that the Fed's balance sheet is "too large to ignore" and discussed the path of continuing to compress further and pushing the system towards a lower reserve requirement range; but the costs are also clearly stated: short-term interest rate fluctuations may be larger, and the banking system will rely more frequently on standing repo and discount window liquidity tools from the Fed.

The second signal came from Governor Barr. In his speech on the same day, he emphasized that tariffs have raised goods inflation over the past 12 months, slowing down the disinflation process; even though recent legal changes have brought the effective tax rate back to about 10%, it is still relatively high, and there remains uncertainty about further increases. This is also one of the reasons he supported the last FOMC's decision to hold steady.

So my understanding is simple:
This is not a confirmation of a liquidity shift, but rather the coexistence of a "long-term framework discussion" and "short-term inflation constraints". The former gives risk assets a bit of imaginative space, while the latter suppresses that imagination.

The market also hasn't spoken for the bulls temporarily.
BTC is currently in a bearish alignment on 1h / 4h / 1d:
- 1h is still in a strong downtrend; first, we need to see if it can recover 66555
- 4h's main structure is weak; first, we need to see if it can reclaim 68173
- 1d needs to truly ease pressure, at least it must return to around 69493
If 65548 is lost again, I will continue to treat it as a weak continuation, not as a "macro misjudgment".

ETH is similar; it’s not the kind of structure that can independently withstand macro pressures.
- 1h should first look at 2000
- 4h should first look at 2055
- 1d's background needs to improve, must watch above 2093
If it loses 1970, it indicates the market prefers to trade defensively first, rather than trading liquidity imagination.

Conversely, this judgment is not set in stone. There are two real counterarguments:
1) The market begins to interpret Miran's statements as "QT constraints marginally relaxing", driving risk assets to initiate some expectation trading;
2) BTC must at least return to 68173, and ETH must return to 2055, and it shouldn't be just a spike, but a sustained move with volume.

Until then, I won't chase this move.
The larger trend hasn't deteriorated to systemic collapse, but the smaller trend is far from confirming a bullish reversal. I'm only focused on two things moving forward:
- After the Fed's speech, is the market trading more on the "balance sheet framework" or more on "inflation stickiness"?
- Can BTC / ETH reclaim the key levels mentioned above?

If they reclaim, I will change my outlook; if they can't reclaim, this kind of "liquidity narrative" feels more like chat material, not a trading signal.

$BTC $ETH

The story of TON is getting thicker, but the market hasn't given permission to turn bullish yet.

What I care about more is not that the TON Foundation has been continuously talking about the Telegram agent economy and cross-border payments these past few days, but rather that after all these positive developments, $TON still hasn't reclaimed the range of 1.26-1.28. This indicates that what the market is giving it now is more about long-term imagination, rather than current pricing.

What has objectively happened:
- On 3/25, TON officially linked the billion-level distribution of Telegram with the Agent Economy, with the core idea being "the entry is inherently within Telegram."
- On 3/26, TON continued to amplify the narrative on payments, emphasizing the rails for cross-border capital flow.
- On 3/12, the TON Rust Node went live, addressing shortcomings in performance and engineering at the infrastructure level.

Why I'm not in a hurry to chase:
- Narrative aspect: The Agent + Payment line is indeed smooth, with considerable imaginative space.
- Technical aspect: 1h, 4h, and 1d are still in bearish alignment, with 4h being in a strong downtrend and 1d not having escaped a weak structure.
- Key levels are very clear: in the short term, watch to see if it can reclaim 1.2267, with the main structure looking at 1.2627-1.2840; below, 1.204/1.202 is the invalidation zone.

Conversely, there are reasons to be bullish on TON as well. The Telegram distribution, payment entry, and infrastructure upgrades are real catalysts, not just hot air.
But the counter-evidence is equally clear: if the official narrative continues to intensify yet the price fails to reclaim the EMA20/key resistance, then the market is more concerned about the speed of adoption conversion and risk appetite rather than being swayed by the story.

The next three things I will focus on are:
- First, get the price back to 1.2267, then see if there is any volume support above 1.2627.
- Whether 4h can upgrade from "slowing down in decline" to "stabilizing and rebounding."
- After new catalysts emerge, can trading volume expand in sync, rather than just the narrative heat.

For now, I won't chase. As long as it doesn't reclaim the 1.26-1.28 range, I'm more inclined to view $TON as a narrative repair in weakness, rather than a trend reversal.

$TON

I'm not in a hurry to regard this weak rebound of ETH as a turning point; the real trouble is that the 'tariff noise + energy disturbances' have returned simultaneously.

In the past 24 hours, what I'm more concerned about is not a particular headline, but rather the fact that Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Jefferson brought two issues together in his official speech: tariff uncertainty still exists, and the recent surge in energy prices is also present, which means that the paths of inflation and growth are harder to judge. For crypto, the most annoying aspect of this environment is not an immediate crash, but rather that the market will first refuse to give higher valuations to high beta assets.

Objectively, there are three points:
- From primary sources, Jefferson's official speech on March 26 clearly mentioned economic outlook and energy effects;
- In secondary sources, Reuters followed up with the transmission logic that 'if high energy prices persist, inflation and consumption may be pressured';
- On the charts, ETH is still in a bearish resonance on the 1h / 4h / 1d, indicating that this is not just a macroeconomic empty statement; the structure itself hasn't been repaired.

So I'm not chasing this wave for now. My judgment is that this is more like a phase where 'risk asset valuations are first suppressed, then waiting for data confirmation,' rather than a turning point. There may be short-term repairs, but if macro noise persists, rebounds are more likely to remain transactional rather than trend-based.

Conversely, this judgment is not set in stone. If in the future the market finds that the energy shock is just short-term noise, tariffs haven’t continued to push inflation expectations up, or if the dollar/yields first ease, then assets like ETH, which have been pushed to low levels, can easily undergo technical repairs first. The biggest problem for bears is often not a wrong logic, but that the market runs ahead first.

I will only focus on a few trigger points next:
- In the short term, see if ETH can regain 2005, then look at 2063 above;
- If the 4h closes below 2063, I will still regard this wave as a weak rebound, not a trend reversal;
- If it falls below 1971, the current idea of 'first looking for repairs, not chasing shorts' will need to be downgraded; if it approaches 1929 at a larger level, downward pressure will significantly increase.

This is not a confirmation of a reversal, but more like when macro noise returns, the market is re-discounting risk assets. Before the larger level is repaired, I’d rather be slow and not rush to tell the market a turning point story.

$ETH $BTC

Kraken provided a new leverage entry for 0G, but the market hasn't given much to the bulls.

What concerns me more is not the phrase "up on margin", but whether this kind of catalyst can really bring back liquidity and expectations when placed on a highly elastic AI narrative coin. For now, I’ll treat it as a change in trading structure, not as a confirmation of reversal.

First, let's look at what has happened:
- Kraken announced on 3/26 that 0G/USD would open margin trading, with a maximum of 3 times leverage, but this 0G tier is long-only, indicating that it has improved the efficiency of long positions, yet has not simultaneously opened up a complete two-way game.
- In the announcement, Kraken positioned 0G as a modular blockchain aimed at AI and data processing, narratively still as a "decentralized AI infrastructure".
- The official 0G has recently continued to discuss technological advancements, not merely riding the hype: on 3/24, they released the distributed training content for DiLoCoX 107B, and on 3/27, emphasized the value of verification in decentralized AI training. The story hasn’t stopped; it’s just that the price hasn’t cooperated.

Why I'm not in a hurry to chase:
- Funding/Trading perspective: The new leverage entry will indeed increase short-term attention, but this catalyst feels more like "increased trading efficiency", not a sudden leap in fundamentals. Without sustained volume to take over, it can easily turn into a one-day hype.
- Technical perspective: 1h, 4h, and 1d are still in a bearish resonance. The 1h shows some signs of a bottoming out, but the 4h remains in a strong downtrend, and the 1d has not escaped a weak structure. In plain terms, a short-term bounce does not mean that the medium-term has flipped bullish.

The key levels I’m currently watching are clear:
- In the short term, I’m looking at whether it can stabilize around 0.473, and then see if there’s volume continuation at 0.485.
- The main trading structure is looking at 0.493; for it to be truly strong, we need to see if 0.528 can be reclaimed.
- If it drops below 0.460 again, I will continue to treat it as a weak continuation and not excessively mythologize the "Kraken catalyst".

Conversely, the bulls also have some reasoning. 0G itself is in the AI infra lane that is still being repeatedly revisited by funds, and compliant platforms like Kraken providing leverage entry at least indicate that trading infrastructure is thickening. As long as we can see a rebound in volume and the price re-establish above 0.493, the pessimistic judgment above will need to be adjusted.

So my conclusion for this ticket is: the narrative hasn’t deteriorated, and I’m not voting in favor for now. There’s trading potential in the short term, but the medium term still lacks confirmation. I will wait for it to prove itself first before deciding whether to upgrade the "event-driven rebound" to "trend recovery".

$0G

During the data vacuum period, I am not treating this wave of decline as a mistaken kill; $BNB is still under the pressure of trading 'higher for longer'.

What I care more about is not whether there is new data today to save the situation, but **there is not**. The BEA schedule has already placed the next Personal Income and Outlays (including PCE) on April 9, which means that during this upcoming vacuum period, the market is more likely to continue to use 'higher for longer' to pressure risk assets, rather than actively looking for reasons for a rebound.

In the past 24 hours, there are at least three points worth noting:
- In the Reuters survey on March 26, economists still left room for 'the Fed to cut rates later this year', but the market's own pricing is clearly more cautious;
- The official tone from the FOMC on March 18 was not dovish; inflation has not returned to a level that allows the market to confidently chase risk-on;
- On the surface, both $BNB and $BTC are under bearish resonance on 1h / 4h / 1d; it’s not just that the sentiment is poor, but the structure itself has not yet been repaired.

This is also the reason why I am not bottom fishing for now.
First, on a macro level, data vacuum periods usually amplify divergences in interest rate expectations. As long as the dollar and yields do not show significant easing, crypto is more likely to be subjected to valuation compression first.
Second, on a technical level, $BNB is still below EMA20 on the 4h chart; let's see if it can reclaim 626.7; the 1d chart hasn't turned strong either, and if 605.9 is lost, the probability of continued weakness will clearly increase. $BTC is the same; on the 4h chart, let's first look at the 68576 line; if it breaks below 65548, it indicates that the market has no intention of allowing the bulls to catch their breath.

Conversely, I also do not want to speak too definitively.
If the market starts trading on the premise that 'slowing growth will eventually force the Fed to cut rates later', then crypto often jumps the gun ahead of macro guidance; moreover, the current RSI of $BNB / $BTC is already quite compressed, so a technical recovery in the short term is entirely possible.

So this is not a confirmation of a reversal, but rather a pricing tug-of-war during a vacuum period.
I will only focus on three trigger points:
- Whether $BNB can first stand back above 626.7, and then see if there is significant support around 652.8;
- Whether $BTC can reclaim 68576; if it can't break above, I will still regard it as weak recovery;
- Whether the market’s pricing for rate cuts this year continues to shift towards a more hawkish direction.

If at least two of these conditions strengthen, I will change my stance; until then, I will prioritize defense and not chase after reversal stories.

$BNB $BTC

TRX this time I only give a half ticket: the institutional entry has opened, but the market has not yet confirmed the trend.

What I care more about is not 'another favorable headline,' but the quality of this catalyst is changing. Coindesk followed up on March 27, stating that Anchorage Digital is incorporating TRON into the custodial/trading infrastructure available to U.S. institutions; Anchorage's official case page also clearly states that support will start with TRX custody, then extend to staking and TRC-20 infrastructure.

There are two points worth monitoring about this:
- This is not a retail sentiment topic, but rather a compliance institution entry continuing to be filled.
- For TRX, the narrative focus has slowly shifted from 'high yield/high activity' to 'able to be held by institutions.'
- However, the market did not immediately give a trend vote, indicating that funds are still waiting for a more solid confirmation.

The technical aspect instead clarifies the divergence:
- 1h is still weak, the short-term structure has not been completed.
- 4h looks more like a compressed fluctuation, with 0.3055-0.3173 still being the core range.
- 1d structure is improving, but still needs a confirmation of a stable breakout at 0.319.

So I won't chase this wave for now.
If it's just institutional narrative heating up, but the price fails to stay above 0.3173-0.319, it could still evolve into 'a good story, weak market.'
Conversely, if it can stabilize above 0.319 with increased volume later, I will acknowledge that this is not merely news stimulation, but rather a large-scale structure beginning to take over.

I will only keep an eye on three things next:
- 1h first reclaim 0.3111.
- 4h can it effectively break through 0.3173.
- 1d after breaking 0.319, is the trading volume and volatility expanding in sync.

The large-scale hasn't deteriorated, but the small-scale still needs to wait for a confirmation. At this stage, I will place $TRX on the front row of my watchlist, not treating it as a trend vote that has already completed a breakout.

$TRX

Oil prices are rising, but BTC hasn't yet received the script for 'safe-haven asset'.

What I care about more is not how long the White House has postponed the deadline related to Iran, but that the market is already synchronously trading two things: oil prices are surging, and long-term yields are also rising. This combination resembles 'inflation disturbances + risk appetite retreat', which is not inherently favorable for BTC.

Objectively, there are a few points worth watching in the past 24 hours:
- Reuters reported that concerns over the Middle East conflict persist, with Brent once rising above $110, and WTI also clearly moving higher;
- In the same market review, U.S. Treasury yields continued to rise, and funds have not significantly returned to high beta risk assets;
- On the charts, BTC 1h / 4h / 1d still shows bearish resonance, indicating that after macro noise came in, buying pressure did not immediately convert it into 'digital gold'.

Why am I not chasing it first?
First, from a funding perspective, if the oil price shock continues to transmit into inflation expectations, rising long bond yields will first compress the valuations of risk assets;
Second, from a technical perspective, BTC now resembles weak defense more than a trend reversal. The 1h chart still shows a clear downward structure, the 4h has not reclaimed EMA20, and the 1d is also not yet strong. Short-term movements do not represent mid-term confirmations.

But counterarguments must be made:
If geopolitical risks continue to escalate, and the market begins to reconsider BTC as a 'non-sovereign safe-haven alternative', then it may not always follow U.S. stock risk appetite. Additionally, the 1h RSI is already very low, and a technical rebound could occur at any time.

Therefore, I won't treat this wave as a safe-haven trade; I'll only consider it a stress test.
If BTC can first regain above 67.5k, and then see if it can recover around 68.8k, I will adjust my view from 'defensive' to 'restorative';
If it continues to fall below 65.7k, it indicates that the market is still trading macro pressures, not trading safe-haven premiums.

This is not a confirmation of a reversal; it resembles a pricing test under geopolitical shock. Before the larger scale stabilizes, I prefer to wait for confirmation and not rush to tell a story for the market.

$BTC

The narrative of TON is thickening, but the price hasn't yet been given the permission to break through.

What I care about more is not the recent continuous mentions by the TON Foundation of the "Telegram agent economy" and cross-border payment stories, but rather that after these positives emerged, $TON still hasn't managed to reclaim the 1.28 level. This indicates that what the market is currently offering is more of a long-term imagination, rather than immediate pricing.

- On 3/24, the official announcement emphasized Telegram's 1 billion monthly active users and the Agent entry, betting that TON will become the agent payment and wallet layer.
- On 3/25, they continued to discuss cross-border payment rails, with core selling points being cost, transparency, and programmability.
- On 3/12, the Rust Node went live, and infrastructure-wise, it is indeed addressing institutionalization and scaling shortfalls.

However, I am not in a hurry to write it off as a reversal in trading.
1h, 4h, and 1d still show a bearish resonance, with the 4h structure being a strong_downtrend, and momentum is decaying, indicating that the speed of decline may slow down, but it is not yet a confirmed trend reversal. In the short term, I will first look at whether 1.25 can be reclaimed, while the main structure will focus on whether the 1.28-1.35 range can stabilize with volume; if even 1.22 cannot be held, I will continue to treat it as a continuation of weakness, rather than a misjudgment.

Conversely, there are also reasons to be bullish on TON: Telegram distribution, wallet infrastructure, and payment narratives are all real catalysts, not air.
But the counter-evidence is equally clear— as long as the official narrative continues to intensify, yet the price cannot reclaim the key moving averages, it indicates that the market is more concerned about the realization cycle, adoption conversion, and risk appetite, rather than being swayed by the stories.

Next, I will only focus on three things:
- First, reclaim the price at 1.25, then look for support near 1.28.
- Whether 4h upgrades from "rebound" to "stabilization."
- After any new official developments, whether the trading volume expands in sync, rather than just the hype of the copy.

At this stage, I have placed $TON at the top of my watchlist, but I am not giving it a trend vote yet. As long as it does not reclaim above 1.28, I would prefer to consider it as a narrative repair within weakness.

I am now more vigilant, not about the next PCE, but about the market already starting to shift the question of 'whether there will be a rate cut within the year' back towards a more hawkish stance.

In the past 24 hours, I have been more concerned about three things:
1) In the latest Reuters survey, economists' baseline still leans towards 'there will be rate cuts later this year', but the pricing in the trading market is clearly more conservative.
2) After the FOMC on March 18, the Fed's rhetoric has not given the market a clear signal of easing; the higher-for-longer narrative has not been disproven.
3) On the market, BTC on the 1h/4h/1d charts is still showing weak resonance, and ETH is even more fragile, indicating that funds are currently handling macro conditions in a defensive mode.

So this is not simply a data vacuum period; it feels more like 'expectation gap trading' — while the discussions are still about rate cuts within the year, the market has already started to move at a higher and longer rate. There may be a short-term rebound, but the medium-term has not yet reached the stage I am willing to chase.

Conversely, if U.S. growth and employment marginally weaken in the coming period, and front-end yields drop, the market will quickly pick up rate cut expectations again, and BTC often corrects faster than U.S. stocks.

I will be watching two trigger conditions next:
- BTC needs to see if it can regain above 69187; otherwise, this wave looks more like a rebound in a weak trend;
- ETH must at least reclaim 2087 to show that high beta is not just a technical overshoot.

If BTC falls below 66232 and ETH drops below 1983, I will continue to view this round as a defensive play under macro pressure.

Primary source: Reuters Fed survey, FOMC 3/18 statement
Secondary verification: Local multi-cycle TA (BTC/ETH)

This is merely a trading observation and does not constitute investment advice.

$BTC $ETH $BNB

I won't catch the bottom this time.

Arbitrum officially just released the DRIP Season 1 review. The focus is not on "holding another event," but rather that they are still using more refined incentives to improve the capital efficiency of the DeFi ecosystem. This indicates that the project team is not resting on its laurels, and ecosystem development has not stopped.

However, the feedback from the market is quite honest: the narrative is there, but the funds are not following. ARBUSDT is currently showing a weak structure on 1h / 4h / 1d, with the 4h still below 0.0955, and the daily line has not recovered to 0.0991. There is room for a short-term rebound after an oversold condition, but this is not a confirmation of a reversal; it feels more like a test within a weak trend.

I am more concerned about two things:
1) Can ecosystem incentives truly lead to retention and activity, rather than just looking good in one-off data;
2) Can the price first return to 0.0955 and then test the area around 0.1001?

On the flip side, shorts shouldn't be too confident. ARB has already returned to a very low position, and the negative expectations are actually not few. If there is more clear ecosystem data following, or if the overall market goes risk-on, its elasticity won't be small.

So my view this time is very simple: the official actions have given a fundamental lifeline signal, but the trading hasn’t confirmed it yet. If it stabilizes above 0.0955 with increased volume, I will start to raise my expectations; if it can further take down 0.1001, it will look more like a transition from a trading rebound to structural repair. If it falls below 0.0925 again, I will consider this wave as a continuation of weakness.

$ARB $BTC $ETH