Game Launch on Google Play

The latest AI calls are live and ready. Leverage them for strategic insights: $JUV: Entry: $1.813 🟦 Current: $1.958 📈 +8% $TVK: Entry: $0.15491 🟦 Current: $0.16169 📈 +4.38% $SHR: Entry: $0.003727 🟦 Current: $0.003980 📈 +6.79% $LISTA: Entry: $0.5276 🟦 Current: $0.5656 📈 +7.2% $PNUT: Entry: $1.2205 🟦 Current: $1.464 📈 +19.95% $REZ: Entry: $0.0574 🟦 Current: $0.0616 📈 +7.32% $POWR: Entry: $0.3191 🟦 Current: $0.3413 📈 +6.96% $TRADE: Entry: $0.5559 🟦 Current: $0.6881 📈 +23.78% $SWFTC: Entry: $0.004209 🟦 Current: $0.006195 📈 +47.18% $POND: Entry: $0.020933 🟦 Current: $0.021677 📈 +3.55% $ARK: Entry: $0.7258 🟦 Current: $0.7461 📈 +2.8% $OP: Entry: 0.000686Ξ 🟦 Current: 0.000712Ξ 📈 +3.79% $NS: Entry: $0.24016 🟦 Current: $0.31071 📈 +29.38% $JUP: Entry: $1.0822 🟦 Current: $1.2688 📈 +17.24% $OXT: Entry: $0.1129 🟦 Current: $0.1357 📈 +20.19%

In the field of smart contracts, the "Ethereum Virtual Machine EVM" and its algorithms and data structures are first principles. This article starts from why contracts should be classified, and combines what kind of malicious attacks each scenario may face, and finally gives a set of relatively safe contract classification analysis algorithms. Although the technical content is relatively high, it can also be used as a reading material for miscellaneous discussions, giving a glimpse of the dark forest of games between decentralized systems. 1. Why should contracts be classified? Because it is so important, it can be said to be the cornerstone of Dapps such as exchanges, wallets, blockchain browsers, data analysis platforms, etc.! The reason why a transaction is an ERC20 transfer is because his behavior conforms to the ERC20 standard, at least: 1. The status of the transaction is success 2. The To address is a contract that conforms to the ERC20 standard 3. The Transfer function is called, which is characterized by the previous CallData of the transaction...

Recently, the crypto assets market has shown interesting dynamics, especially in terms of the capital flow between Solana(SOL) and Ethereum(ETH). The funding ratio of SOL/ETH shows a significant downward trend, currently dropping to the lowest point of the year at 0.045. This data reflects subtle changes in the sentiment of market participants. Although ETH set a new record for short-term capital inflow on July 29, SOL also reached a local peak during the same period, but the growth momentum of both has slowed down. It is noteworthy that the cooling trend of SOL is more pronounced, indicating that the capital rotation dominated by ETH is weakening, but it remains the focus of market attention. Despite this, SOL still maintains considerable appeal. The growth in DeFi trading volume, the activity of large investors, and the expansion of on-chain activities are attracting new capital inflows. Meanwhile, the price trend of ETH continues to be favored by institutional investors, driven by the ongoing development of Layer 2 scaling solutions. Interestingly, the sentiment in the SOL community fluctuates significantly, but every price pullback triggers a new round of buying. The liquidity data from large holders shows that SOL is being actively accumulated, while ETH holders remain relatively stable, reflecting different investment strategies based on risk preferences. From a technical perspective, the MACD and RSI indicators for SOL and ETH have both turned bullish. Particularly for SOL, if it can break through the resistance level of $172, it may experience a more significant increase. Overall, the current market is at a delicate balance point. ETH maintains its dominance due to its stability and institutional support, while SOL is gradually narrowing the gap with ETH, thanks to its rapidly growing ecosystem and active community engagement. Investors should closely monitor the relative performance of these two crypto assets, as their dynamics may signal broader market trends.

The recently launched "stablecoin regulations" in Hong Kong have sparked widespread discussion in the industry. Will this new policy promote the compliant development of the stablecoin market, or could it potentially hinder innovation in the industry? This question deserves in-depth exploration. According to the regulations, the issuance of fiat stablecoins or stablecoins pegged to the Hong Kong dollar requires a license from the Hong Kong Monetary Authority. It is worth noting that this regulation has a 6-month transition period, ending on February 1, 2026. The situation is slightly different for globally recognized stablecoins such as Circle's USDC and Tether's USDT. Since they are not issued in Hong Kong and are not pegged to the Hong Kong dollar, they theoretically do not need to apply for a Hong Kong license. Furthermore, their over-the-counter (OTC) trading in Hong Kong is not directly regulated by this regulation. However, if these international stablecoin issuers wish to obtain a license in Hong Kong, they will face stricter scrutiny. In addition to needing to comply with KYC (Know Your Customer) rules, they may also need to meet other qualifying requirements. It is worth noting that if a license is not applied for or approved after the transition period and operations in Hong Kong continue, the responsible parties may face a maximum penalty of six months in prison. This harsh measure undoubtedly serves as a wake-up call for market participants. Will this move affect Hong Kong's status as an international financial center? Or will it bring a more regulated development environment for the stablecoin market? These questions remain to be answered by time. In any case, the introduction of this policy marks an important step for Hong Kong in strengthening digital asset regulation and provides a reference for the formulation of relevant policies in other global financial centers.

Investment guru Warren Buffett once made sharp criticisms of Bitcoin, calling it "worthless" and "rat poison squared." However, fate seems to have played a huge joke on this legendary investor. Since Buffett made these remarks, the price of Bitcoin has not fallen but instead risen dramatically by 1089%, a dramatic turnaround that has left many people astonished. This phenomenon has sparked in-depth reflections on the relationship between traditional investment concepts and emerging digital assets. On one hand, we see the traditional investment philosophy represented by Buffett, which emphasizes tangible assets and stable cash flows; on the other hand, the world of cryptocurrencies champions principles of decentralization and scarcity. The collision between these two radically different investment philosophies not only challenges traditional valuation standards but also brings unprecedented changes to the financial markets. This astonishing price movement inevitably raises the question: Did Buffett misjudge the development trend of digital currencies, or should cryptocurrencies not be measured by traditional value standards? The answer to this question may not be simple, but Bitcoin's performance undoubtedly taught a lesson to those investors who blindly follow authoritative opinions. Looking back at this history, it is not hard to imagine the regret of those investors who followed Buffett's advice and liquidated their Bitcoin holdings. This event once again proves that in the rapidly changing financial world, it is crucial to maintain an open mind and independent judgment. Whether traditional investment masters or emerging technology advocates, everyone needs to continuously learn and adapt to new changes in the market. In the end, the lesson this story teaches us is that in the investment field, there are no forever accurate predictions. Even the most successful investors may misjudge when facing emerging technologies and innovative concepts. For investors, the key is to have a comprehensive understanding of the market, rationally analyze various viewpoints, and make decisions based on their own judgments. The rise of Bitcoin reminds us that the financial world is undergoing profound changes, and this process is filled with opportunities and challenges.