Around April 27, 2026, several threads including regulation, platform security, institutional funding, and geopolitical issues tightened simultaneously, pushing the already sensitive cryptocurrency market into a new risk coordinate system: on one side is national-level security review and energy channel competition, on the other side are rumors of credit collapse at trading platforms, reckless explorations of new product narratives, and the cautious increase of traditional institutions' exposure to Bitcoin.

On the regulatory side, China’s National Development and Reform Commission, based on the foreign investment security review mechanism, publicly denied a foreign investment merger case in the AI sector for the first time, prohibiting foreign capital from acquiring the Manus project, and clearly included artificial intelligence in the “sensitive technology” category; on the other end, the centralized platform Websea faced concentrated user complaints about withdrawal difficulties and the closure of fiat C2C channels, with USDT panicking being dumped in the secondary market to about half price, while the platform delayed giving a sufficient explanation. One is the country's positive interception of sensitive capital inflows, and the other is the platform's silence on the user trust crisis, with regulatory and credit lines tightening simultaneously in the same time period.

On the funding side, two distinctly different phenomena also emerged: the Ohio State Teachers Retirement Fund disclosed it held 93,570 shares of MicroStrategy (MSTR), with a market value of approximately $16 million (according to a single source), gaining cryptocurrency exposure through this “Bitcoin leveraged stock” indirect path, continuing the slow entry rhythm of traditional pensions; at the same time, Ourbit SuperCEX launched a Super IPO section, with the first phase open for subscription of the SpaceX-related token SPAX at a unit price of 589 USDT. Meanwhile, the Binance wallet packaged at least 61 Alpha points and a consumption threshold of 5 points for its Sentio (ST) Booster third phase rules into a new incentive narrative. Cautious and lengthy institutional allocations compete with impulsive and high-profile “SpaceX token” and “points mining rights,” both vying for the same pool of liquidity.

From a higher macro perspective, the Strait of Hormuz became another variable that cannot be ignored. Iran proposed a new plan to reopen this globally significant energy channel, which, according to media analysis, might be rejected by the United States due to the exclusion of nuclear issues. Regarding this proposal, the Trump administration planned to hold a National Security Council meeting to review it; any marginal change related to navigation safety in the Strait would amplify the emotions of risk assets. Expectations of energy supply, geopolitical friction, and global liquidity preferences began to influence the valuation framework of cryptocurrency assets on the same link.

From China prohibiting foreign acquisition of Manus to the suspected trust run on Websea, and then to Ohio's pension fund increasing its holding of MSTR, as well as the new narrative constructed around SPAX and ST Booster, all these seemingly scattered events are connected by one main line: where capital is allowed to flow, where it is willing to flow, and how participants are forced to reassess the price of “trust” under different regulatory and credit environments. Next, how will the cryptocurrency market's risk premium be repriced amid tightening regulations and the emergence of new narratives? Will funds continue to be drawn toward slow allocation compliant channels, or will they be pulled back to high-risk platforms by high-yield stories? Perhaps this is the core question raised by all events this week.

Foreign Capital Crossing the AI Red Line: Manus Acquisition Halted

In the same week that funding reassessed “safe yield” and “story premium,” regulation drew a clearer red line in the AI sector.

Based on China’s foreign investment security review mechanism, the National Development and Reform Commission recently directly denied a foreign merger case, prohibiting foreign capital from acquiring the Manus AI project. Public information confirms this is the first public decision under this mechanism to “prohibit foreign acquisition” for an artificial intelligence project, with Manus classified as related to sensitive technology; the specific acquirer and transaction amount have not been disclosed. In other words, what was truly revealed in this incident is not the names of the transaction parties, but the policy judgment of “AI = sensitive technology.”

For local AI startup companies in China, this denial equates to further tightening the already limited exit channels. In recent years, many teams had assumed that being "acquired by multinational giants or U.S. funds" was a viable option when designing their valuation logic; now this option has clearly become uncertain for projects involving sensitive technologies:
● In the valuation model, the policy risk discount has to be raised, and simply betting on the story of “selling to foreign capital” will be sent back by investors for recalculation;
● In financing negotiations, domestic capital's bargaining power has risen, and some projects may have to rely more on local funding and local industry expectations for takeovers;
● For early founders, the question of “who will take over” has shifted from commercial choice to regulatory pre-constraint.

On the cross-border merger level, the significance of the Manus incident lies in the fact that it brings the “safety review” that originally existed in regulatory texts to the table of all transaction counterparts in the form of an AI merger being denied for the first time. In the future, any acquisition of Chinese AI assets, regardless of the acquirer’s origin, will have to include a point in the due diligence checklist: does this transaction possibly cross the red line of “sensitive technology”? The design of transaction structures will also become conservative—including longer review periods, more complex ownership arrangements, and higher “being stuck” probabilities—all of which need to be accounted for in advance.

There are already various rumors surrounding Manus in the market, including high-level employees being restricted in their travel and other AI companies being “guided” to refuse U.S. capital, but these claims currently come from a single source and have not been confirmed by official channels, so they cannot be treated as established facts. The only signal that can be confirmed is that in fields classified as sensitive technology like AI, the inflow of foreign capital is no longer a “market behavior that can be realized as long as there is a willingness to bid,” but must first be a compliant behavior passing through the security review gate.

This signal quickly transmitted to the capital landscape of the “crypto + AI” narrative. For overseas funds hoping to bet on both the Chinese technological dividend and global liquidity, the reality after the Manus incident is:
● All targets closely bound to China's AI R&D, computing power, and data must be reassessed with higher policy risk weights;
● Even assets with AI narratives on the blockchain, as long as the team, research, or key resources are deeply intertwined with China's local AI industry, will also be “penetrated” into the same risk basket in the eyes of compliance departments;
● More aggressive funds may thus lean toward those projects that emphasize AI in narrative but maintain distance from sensitive technology fields in tangible business and corporate structure.

This does not mean that overseas funds will collectively withdraw from the exposure related to Chinese technology; rather, it enters a more nuanced re-evaluation phase: which Chinese technology assets can be held long-term through local cooperation and compliant structures, and which are doomed to struggle to realize liquidity through acquisitions and other methods? Which “crypto + AI” stories merely evade a unified safety review approach under the name of AI, and which are truly games of foreign technology and capital?

Since the halt of Manus, AI is no longer just a growth factor in the valuation model but has also become a regulatory factor in investment portfolios. For global funds seeking a safe haven, this newly emerged red line, along with platform credit and geopolitical conflict, has been written into the new version of the risk list.

Same Platform, One Side Soothing While the Other Faces Runs

Just as the regulatory red line was just imposed on AI, on the other side of the screen, two types of “platform risk” were ignited at the same time, but took completely different directions.

On one side is the U.S. online broker Robinhood. Recently it disclosed that attackers targeted a vulnerability in the account creation process—not by breaking down the backend system’s doors but by leveraging this gap to send phishing emails to users, inducing them to voluntarily give up sensitive information. Robinhood then emphasized that the company’s system itself had not been compromised, and that user personal information and funds were not affected, continuously publishing security reminders to teach users how to recognize related phishing emails. As of now, the public does not have authoritative numbers on affected users nor officially confirmed technical details; this incident resembles a “fire alarm” that was promptly pressed: the technical risk remains at the levels of social engineering and process design and has not burned to the core of asset custody and clearing.

On the other side is Websea. The issue here directly points to the safety of funds in the “internal warehouse”: concentrated feedback from users about withdrawal difficulties led to the complete shutdown of the platform's fiat C2C channel, while in the secondary market, USDT, which was originally pegged to external prices, was panic-sold to about half its value. For those in the market, it is no longer a question of “is anyone sending me phishing emails,” but rather, “can I exchange the numbers in my account for 1:1?” As of the report deadline, Websea has not provided a clear, comprehensive public explanation for the withdrawal issue, nor is there authoritative information confirming that the operators have run away or have been involved with law enforcement—this vacuum between “saying nothing” and “anything could happen” has been filled by users in the most direct way: using USDT sold at half price to provide an extremely conservative discount to the platform's redemption ability.

Both are platforms, both under attack or scrutiny, yet the risk profiles are completely different. In the Robinhood incident, the attackers exploited process vulnerabilities and users’ cognitive weaknesses, while the platform's response emphasized “the system has not been hacked, funds are unaffected,” clearly delineating a safety boundary with technical isolation and compliance endorsement; market panic is largely confined to concerns about individual operational errors rather than doubts about the platform’s solvency. What occurred on Websea, however, is a typical credit crisis of a centralized exchange: when withdrawal difficulties combine with C2C shutdown, users instinctively perceive the balance in their accounts as “OWE notes of the platform,” rather than readily convertible assets, and the next natural step is to exchange at extreme discounts to expedite exit.

In this contrast, the differences in regulatory and compliance levels rapidly convert into entirely different trust curves. Platforms operating under traditional brokerage regulatory frameworks, even in the event of security incidents, users will first expect “some explanation”: announcements, investigations, and clear boundaries of responsibility; as long as the platform can prove that the underlying systems and funds are intact, the prices and liquidity of crypto-related assets will often not be immediately torn apart. However, on cryptocurrency platforms where regulatory boundaries are blurred and information disclosure is weak, the market will not wait for regulatory conclusions or judicial definitions—the risk sentiment on Websea is primarily reflected through off-chain withdrawal actions and USDT being dumped at half price, with prices completing a “punitive pricing” of platform credit ahead of time.

The same USDT is assigned entirely different price labels across different platforms and scenarios: on-chain or top platforms, it still circulates close to par; but on Websea’s internal market, it was once worth “only half.” On the surface, this appears as “one coin with multiple prices” of the same asset, but essentially reflects users’ differentiated pricing of platform credit—larger discount means coin holders are less convinced they can promptly and fully retrieve their assets to the chains or other places. As these incidents accumulate, funds are increasingly likely to cluster at platforms with clearer regulations and more persuasive risk control narratives, with liquidity being gradually drawn away from long-tail exchanges; even in the absence of any authoritative institution declaring “there's trouble,” they may be the first to be voted against by the market during the next fluctuation.

U.S. Pension Funds Bottoming MSTR: Wall Street's Slow Bull is Entering

While retail investors panic over “half-priced U” in long-tail platforms like Websea, on the other end, funds are quietly repackaging risk into the carriers they are most familiar with—listed company stocks.

According to a single public source, the Ohio State Teachers Retirement Fund recently disclosed it holds 93,570 shares of MicroStrategy (MSTR), corresponding to a market value of about $16 million. The number itself is not exaggerated, but the subject is very sensitive: MSTR is commonly viewed as a “Bitcoin leveraged stock,” as the company holds a large amount of Bitcoin on its books, and its share price is highly correlated with Bitcoin's price. For this American teacher retirement fund, this position appears as a technology stock allocation, but in essence, it adds a layer of high elasticity Bitcoin exposure within its public stock account.

This is why the symbolic significance of this disclosure far exceeds the absolute amount of $16 million. The investment decision-making process for traditional pensions is lengthy and risk-averse, and every step must withstand compliance, fiduciary responsibility, and public opinion scrutiny. Even just through MSTR as a “Bitcoin leveraged stock,” taking this step is tantamount to putting on paper: within the existing regulatory framework, a moderate Bitcoin risk exposure can be discussed, measured, and managed. It is important to emphasize that this holding data currently comes from a single source and must be verified against subsequent regulatory filings or official disclosures, but its conveyed attitude is already quite clear.

For other institutional investors, this choice resembles an "operating manual." In recent years, public records indicate that some American pensions and traditional institutions have become accustomed to indirectly obtaining cryptocurrency exposure through Bitcoin-related ETFs, mining company stocks, or assets like MSTR:
● In terms of asset classification, they are still classified as “stocks” or “alternative equities,” facilitating their inclusion in existing asset allocation frameworks;
● In compliance language, they can be packaged as “technology growth” or “corporate asset allocation strategies,” instead of directly defending “cryptocurrency assets”;
● In terms of risk control, volatility can be depicted using familiar equity risk models and managed together with other stock factors in the portfolio.

The Ohio Teachers Retirement Fund's holding of 93,570 shares of MSTR provides a replicable template for more institutions: if you cannot convince everyone in the investment committee to directly allocate Bitcoin at this moment, then starting with a thoroughly regulated, financially transparent, liquid “high beta Bitcoin stock” would be an easier step to pass. Once a major public pension or mainstream mutual fund writes similar logic in their roadshow PPT, the entire market's “reference frame” will be rewritten.

The more critical question is: amidst regulatory uncertainties and heightened geopolitical risks, why are institutions actively adding another layer of Bitcoin risk? Research briefs depict the current environment as a point where tightening regulations, platform credit divergence, slow entrance of institutional funds, and geopolitical risks are collectively at play:
● On one hand, from China’s denial of the Manus acquisition to compliance pressure in the U.S., directly holding Bitcoin presents gray areas in legal, custody, and audit aspects; any small misstep could violate policy red lines;
● On the other hand, geopolitical events such as those in the Strait of Hormuz raise energy and macro uncertainties; traditional safe-haven assets are crowded with similar funds, and institutions need new “risk hedging stories” to explain their allocation decisions.

In this tension, “indirect encirclement” through equity markets has become a compromise solution: under regulatory rhetoric, it still qualifies as standard U.S. listed company stock; on the risk factor level, however, it follows the intense fluctuations of Bitcoin, providing part of the portfolio with exposure that has different correlations to traditional assets. As long as the investment prospectus is written cautiously, it can address demands for hedging inflation, currency, and geopolitical uncertainties without being easily simplified to “buying crypto assets” during accountability.

In terms of outcome, the Ohio Teachers Retirement Fund's 93,570 shares of MSTR will not change Bitcoin's short-term price curve, yet it subtly alters the design of the funding pathway: money may not flow directly onto the chains; it might first detour through NASDAQ, where a “Bitcoin leveraged stock’s” price slowly accumulates a Wall Street-style slow bull.

SpaceX On-Chain Subscription and Points Mining, Exchanges Create New Narrative

While Wall Street slowly increases its position with “curved exposure” like MSTR, the platform side evidently cannot wait for a lengthy slow bull. Ourbit SuperCEX straightforwardly moved the most imaginative IPO narrative from traditional finance directly into its product system—launching a new section called Super IPO, attempting to replicate or even transform the “new issue” experience in a cryptocurrency trading environment.

The initial target of Super IPO is the SpaceX-related token SPAX, with a subscription price set at 589 USDT: this price number itself resembles the transplantation of “high threshold new shares” from the traditional primary market, rather than being a naturally occurring on-chain pricing outcome. Regarding the specific subscription time window, the currently circulating version is from 12:00 on April 28, 2026 to 11:59 on May 1, 2026 (UTC+8), but this timing comes from a single source and has not been officially confirmed by the platform, carrying a layer of “to be verified” fog.

In narrative terms, the "SpaceX on-chain subscription" is highly impactful: it gives ordinary users the illusion that by simply completing a subscription on SuperCEX, they are somehow “receiving a piece of Musk’s space cake.” However, based on the known information, we can only confirm the following: Ourbit has launched the Super IPO section, the initial target is the SpaceX-related SPAX, priced at 589 USDT; as for the legal and economic relationship between this token and the actual underlying company assets, equity, or income, the brief did not provide any details. More crucially, the aforementioned product currently lacks any public regulatory approval information, and its compliance status is subject to the platform's subsequent announcements and regulatory statements, meaning that users participating are actually wagering on a “SpaceX” story in an environment of information asymmetry and opaque rules.

If exchanges are using “on-chain IPO” for storytelling, wallets are keeping users within their closed loop using incentive economies. The Sentio (ST) Booster initiative launched by the Binance wallet is a sample of this approach: in the third phase rules, users need to accumulate at least 61 Alpha points to qualify participation, with each participation consuming 5 points. ST Booster is positioned as an incentive mechanism on the wallet side, but the official public information stops at the point threshold and consumption rules, without disclosing specific yield rates, risk levels, or custody arrangements.

The subtlety of this design is that points themselves become the new “tickets.” If users want to participate, they must first complete various actions within the ecosystem to accumulate 61 Alpha points before deciding whether to “burn” 5 points at a time. For platforms, points tightly bind user behavior, funding dwell time, and subsequent subscription/participation activities; for users, the participation threshold is no longer just financial, but rather financial + time + behavioral trajectory—yet in this process, real risk information tends to be compressed into a few simple statements.

Looking at Ourbit's Super IPO alongside Binance wallet's ST Booster, one can see a combination of tactics being repetitively duplicated:
● One layer is the grand narrative of “tokenized assets,” such as SPAX related to SpaceX, convincing people they are approaching a star asset in the real world;
● One layer is the shell of subscription and Booster-type products, packaged as participation scenes akin to new issues or accelerators;
● The outermost layer is the points economy, using an internal point system like Alpha points to filter participants and create psychological pressure of “qualification scarcity.”

For retail investors, this kind of “tokenized asset + points economy” approach raises the threshold in form: the subscription price of 589 USDT and the starting point of 61 points may deter some smaller funds; yet on the psychological level, it lowers alertness—when participation is broken down into a gamified process of “accruing points—unlocking qualifications—joining activities,” many find it easier to focus on “seizing quotas” and “cashing opportunities” rather than questioning exactly what the underlying assets are, what their compliance status is, and whether their yields align with the risks.

At a time when regulation is tightening, institutions are finding alternative entry routes, and platform credit is diverging, the choice of exchanges and wallets to reconstruct flow and revenue stories with SpaceX narratives and points mining itself sends a signal: in the current situation where tangible assets struggle to directly enter the chains, the ability to tell stories has once again become equally important as product design, and the learning costs and risk recognition difficulties for retail investors have been simultaneously elevated.

Undercurrents Flowing in the Strait of Hormuz: Energy Corridor Stirring Risk Assets

As exchanges and wallets amplify their narratives, what truly tightens global risk appetite is what is happening at sea. Odaily Planet Daily cited Saudi media Alhadath, reporting that Iran has thrown out a new proposal about “reopening the Strait of Hormuz” while deliberately excluding Iran's nuclear issue from the negotiation topics. For Tehran, this is a negotiation strategy of “unpacking for sale”; for Washington, it is likely to be interpreted as an attempt to bypass a core controversy—the media outright concluded that because the nuclear issue was excluded, this proposal “is likely to be rejected by the U.S.,” but this is still at the level of media analysis, not an official U.S. position.

The sensitivity arises from actions on the U.S. side: the Trump administration plans to hold a National Security Council meeting specially to deliberate on proposals related to the Strait of Hormuz. The specific time and outcomes of the National Security Council have not been publicly disclosed, but within the context of geopolitics, being “submitted to the National Security Council” implies that this is no longer merely a regional dispute, but rather incorporates considerations of U.S. overall security and energy strategy. For traders accustomed to understanding the world through daily charts, the mere existence of such meetings can become a time node that both bulls and bears cannot afford to ignore.

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world's most critical maritime passages for oil and gas, with its navigation safety embedded directly at the heart of the global energy supply chain. Historical experience repeatedly proves that whenever there are expectations of potential obstacles here, there is upward pressure on oil prices, which in turn results in a repricing of global inflation, interest paths, and corporate costs. The general path is:
Energy supply expectations tighten → Oil and gas price upward expectations → Inflation pressure is re-accounted → Rising concerns over the duration of high interest rates → The discount rates of risk assets like stocks and credit increase, pressuring asset prices. Although crypto assets have no direct cash flow links with oil and gas, in the realm of asset allocation, they are often categorized as “high volatility risk assets,” and once risk appetite tightens, safe-haven deleveraging often occurs collectively.

This time, the research brief did not provide an immediate numeric relationship between the situation in the Strait of Hormuz and the prices of Bitcoin or other crypto assets; we also cannot write market responses that have not yet occurred as established facts. However, it's worth referencing that historically, in phases of escalating tensions in the Middle East, crypto assets have often been highly correlated with the performance of high-volatility assets—more directly, when funds are forced to reduce risks in the stock and credit markets, crypto assets rarely stand apart.

More subtly, assets like Bitcoin in this environment of heightened geopolitical uncertainty will be “pulled” by two concurrent narratives. One is the “digital safe-haven asset” story—when sovereign credit and regional conflict risks are amplified, some view it as a value anchor relatively independent of the traditional financial system; the other is the reality of it being a “high-volatility tech asset”—in institutional asset allocation models, it is frequently placed in the same risk bucket as growth stocks and leveraged products. In events like those in the Strait of Hormuz, these two narratives may become misaligned: rising oil prices and inflation expectations increase macro uncertainty; yet the first reflex for macro hedging usually remains to reduce all high-volatility assets, including the crypto assets themselves.

Thus, the cryptocurrency market finds itself in a state of oscillation under the shadow of this energy corridor:
● When investors focus more on “sovereignty and sanction risks,” Bitcoin's “safe-haven” label is reinforced;
● When investors care more about “interest rates and liquidity,” it is ruthlessly classified as a “risk asset that should be cut first.”

Beyond the multiple pressures of tightening regulations, diverging platform credit, and slow institutional entrance, the energy artery of the Strait of Hormuz brings yet another layer of hard-to-quantify but essential geopolitical risk premium that must be incorporated into models. For traders, this means not just watching what stories various platforms are telling, but also constantly paying attention to what is being discussed in the conference rooms that determine whether oil tankers can pass safely.

The Next Intersection of Regulatory Red Lines, Platform Trust, and New Narratives

From the prohibition of foreign acquisition of Manus to the trust collapse in the manner of a run at Websea, to the Ohio Teachers Retirement Fund using an alternative route to enter MSTR, and Ourbit and Binance Wallet competing to package “Super IPO” and “points Booster,” culminating in the uncertainty around the proposal for the Strait of Hormuz—this week, what appears to be scattered news points to the same underlying structure: regulation is tightening evidently, but capital is still seeking an exit.

On one end, the red line has been redrawn. The National Development and Reform Commission, under China’s foreign investment security review mechanism, publicly said “no” for the first time in the AI field, directly denying the acquisition concerning the Manus project. This is not only the termination of a single project but also sets a precedent with demonstrative effects on sensitive technologies, particularly around the potential “crypto + AI” imagination space: cross-border capital wishing to build up new technology must first overcome the threshold of safety and sovereignty.

On the other end, platform credit is naked under extreme emotions. Websea faced concentrated user feedback on withdrawal difficulties, the fiat C2C channel closed completely, and the USDT in the platform was once panic-sold to about half its value while, by the report's deadline, the platform had not provided a sufficiently persuasive explanation. Centralized platforms lacking clear information disclosure and strong regulatory constraints can easily transform from “liquidity providers” to “risk amplifiers” in the moment of market panic.

Running parallel to this is traditional capital’s slow yet steady probing. The Ohio State Teachers Retirement Fund disclosed it holds 93,570 shares of MicroStrategy, with a market value of about $16 million (according to a single source), essentially purchasing a piece of indirect Bitcoin position for teacher's pension funds through this highly leveraged “stock.” At the same time, Ourbit SuperCEX opened the first subscription of Super IPO with the SpaceX-related SPAX, while Binance Wallet continued using a threshold of 61 points and a consumption of 5 points in the ST Booster program to turn points into participation tickets and revenue narratives—the platforms are competing for user attention and the duration of fund stay, rather than just simple trading volume curves.

On a larger backdrop, the Strait of Hormuz still hovers with an invisible knife. Iran's proposal to reopen Hormuz excluded nuclear issue discussions, and as reported by Odaily citing Saudi media Alhadath, it is believed to be likely rejected by the U.S.; the Trump administration plans to convene a National Security Council meeting on related proposals. If the direction of this global energy artery changes, the first uncertainties to rise will be in energy prices, followed by the emotional fluctuation of all risk assets, with crypto assets naturally unable to stand aside.

For investors, the reminders provided this week are very direct: while chasing new narratives like “Super IPO” or “points Booster,” they must not only look at the imaginative space of the story but also reassess three amplifiers—
● The credit risk of centralized platforms: what exactly do they rely on for backing? In extreme cases, can funds move in and out smoothly, rather than being locked in by emotions and discounts together in the system;
● Regulatory and safety red lines: starting with the Manus case, the viable paths between sensitive technologies and cross-border capital are being rewritten, and “compliance costs” have already become part of asset pricing;
● The geopolitical lever effect on fluctuations: nodes like the Strait of Hormuz connect the fate of oil tankers with asset pricing, and a few lines of resolutions in conference rooms could be the starting point for the next round of fluctuations.

Looking ahead to the next phase, the risk appetite and capital flow in the cryptocurrency market are unlikely to be solely determined by the strength of narratives. Regulatory movements will dictate which tracks and capital structures are encouraged, tolerated, or compressed; the transparency of platform risk control and information disclosure will determine who gets run on and who can still accommodate liquidity during every panic moment; and macro-level geopolitical variables act as a slowly turning background knob, constantly altering the overall pricing of risks in the market. Under such a structure, what’s really important is no longer how hot the next story is told, but who can live stably enough across the three coordinate axes of red lines, credit, and geopolitics.

Join our community to discuss together and become stronger!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。