97.4 billion "self-destruct" 😱?

Elon Musk's advisor went to court hoping to disrupt OpenAI, but was outmaneuvered by the judge: you claim 97.4 billion, but can’t clarify who set the price or who you’ve talked to?
This scene is very much like you cutting your losses at a low point—
cutting happily, but unable to explain anything when asked.

Speaking of Bitcoin $BTC ‌, short-term holdings profit-taking occurs every time it rises above 77k, sending 150k BTC to exchanges since 4/15, firmly capping the $80k ceiling.
Ultimately, no one wants to be the last one.
So who is still "quietly picking up chips"?

Look at ZAMA ↓
Latest 5-minute level: net inflow of 1,203.7 $ZAMA ‌, including a net inflow of 1,926 large orders, 4,687.2 medium orders, and zero extra-large orders.
Yesterday: net inflow hit 1.6172 million ZAMA, with 2.8809 million in extra-large orders, 1.2548 million in medium orders, and zero small orders.
The structure is straightforward: no scattered traders, only moderate to heavy main forces involved.
Again $MON ‌ ↓
Also a 5-minute net inflow of 287.2k, with 159.8k in medium orders, 980.1k in extra-large orders, distributed quite evenly.
But yesterday, there was a net outflow of 6,429.9 MON, barely supported by inflows of extra-large and large orders.
One side is accumulating, the other is washing out.

For the same new coin, the main forces have different ideas.
Are you quietly accumulating following ZAMA’s main force, or do you think MON is done washing?
Comment below.
#马斯克vs奥特曼：$1300亿AI世纪庭审 #玩转策略 #波动雷达：币种异动观察