In just 48 hours, the crypto world was pulled tight by seemingly unrelated clues: on one end was a slip of the tongue and clarification by He Yi about YZi Labs investing in a "Chinese AI large model company," sparking imagination and speculation about the direction of Chinese AI entrepreneurship and family funds; on the other end, Trump, during a roughly 45-minute lunch speech at Mar-a-Lago, openly expressed hope for the CLARITY Act's passage, stating he would sign it immediately upon passage, again placing the expectations of U.S. regulation on an unresolved balance. Meanwhile, far away in the Strait of Hormuz, Ibrahim Aziz, chairman of Iran's Islamic Parliament National Security Committee, announced that transit fees must be settled in rials, and that vessels and goods related to Israel were strictly prohibited from passing through; the shadow of unresolved negotiations between the U.S. and Iran, sea blockades, and the "mosquito fleet" confrontation still loomed, with geopolitical conflicts raising uncertainties in energy and cross-border settlements.

Funds have not stopped moving. Jupiter Lend announced an increase in borrowing limits, with market reports stating the new limit is around $40 million with an LTV of about 85%, but these specific figures still await further verification; Four Pillars publicly announced the completion of a Series A financing round, with some reports indicating Pantera Capital as the lead investor, also marked as pending confirmation; JPYC disclosed the completion of a new round of additional financing, with claims that the amount for this round is around 2.8 billion yen, totaling 4.6 billion yen in cumulative financing. These figures have limited sources but are enough to indicate that amidst macro and regulatory expectations wavering, the chips in lending, infrastructure, and payment directions are still quietly increasing.

The boundary between compliance and crime is also being increasingly blurred during this time window. The Hubei police announced the breaking of a theft case involving crypto assets, with some media stating the amount involved could exceed 100 million yuan, but the official details have not yet been disclosed, leaving the amount and methods in a gray area of “to be disclosed” and “to be verified.” On-chain, an address that was previously questioned by the community for insider trading related to APE has recently initiated large long operations on LDO, reportedly generating around $300,000 in floating profit (this figure also awaits confirmation), with the trading rhythm highly synchronized with market information, reigniting discussions on information asymmetry and potential insider trading.

When we place these figures and events on the same timeline: the AI imagination surrounding He Yi and YZi Labs, Trump’s vocal support yet context-sparse CLARITY Act, U.S.-Iran confrontations over the Strait of Hormuz and rial settlement demands, coupled with the financing actions of Jupiter Lend, Four Pillars, JPYC, and the theft case along with the suspicious address on-chain operations, they collectively outline a crypto industry being pulled in multiple directions—KOLs' discourse power, policy expectations, and geopolitical conflicts intertwining into a new narrative framework. The following sections will systematically review the words and actions of the parties involved, policy statements, and on-chain fund flows along the timeline of April 25 to 26, clearly marking which have been confirmed and which remain at the level of single sources and pending verification, helping you see what truly happened in these two days beyond emotion and noise.

A Sentence Ignites AI Speculation: He Yi's Clarification and Aftermath

The story begins with an incomplete statement.

In a public setting around April 25, He Yi casually mentioned that the Zhao Changpeng-related family office YZi Labs invested in a "Chinese AI large model company." This office had previously appeared more on the cap table of crypto projects, and suddenly linking it with "Chinese" and "large model" was enough to ignite a whole narrative chain in a tense market.

The events that followed could almost be regarded as a "crypto version of the broken windows theory." A leading KOL's description that included "Chinese AI large model company" was transcribed, edited, and disseminated on social platforms. Some interpretations deliberately retained the combination of "Chinese + large model + YZi Labs," while omitting the context, making this vague clue appear more like an "insider information leak"—especially when the audience knew YZi Labs was associated with Zhao Changpeng, who had previously hit on multiple crypto track projects, thus magnifying the suggestive feeling exponentially.

Without disclosing the target and amount, the market began to fill in the story on its own. On one side was the label of "Zhao Changpeng family office + AI," while on the other was the most easily recalled representative of Chinese AI from the past year: the dark side of Kimi's parent company—this company reportedly completed financing of over $700 million in February 2024 and was reported by a single source in March 2024 to be advancing a new round of financing at a valuation of about $18 billion. Although these figures themselves come from limited sources and need to be considered with caution, they are already enough for speculators to support an imaginative space of "top AI unicorn + crypto capital."

Thus, the saying "YZi Labs invested in the dark side of the moon" began to appear, replicate, and morph in the information stream. In this chain, one key fact never materialized: as of now, neither YZi Labs nor the dark side of the moon has formally disclosed any names or amounts related to any investments, and all accusations pointing to the dark side of the moon are merely speculations rather than confirmed information.

The reversal of public opinion occurred after He Yi herself stepped forward. She clarified on X that her original intention was "AI companies founded by Chinese entrepreneurs," and not specifically "Chinese AI large model companies," bluntly stating that the related content had been over-interpreted and amplified. This readjusted what had originally been automatically emphasized by the audience, shifting the four words "AI large model" back to a vague gray area: the range expanded from a few leading large model enterprises to a broad "Chinese entrepreneurial AI project pool."

But prior to this, the amplification mechanism had already completed its cycle:
● The first round was the audience's choice of phrasing at the scene—"Chinese AI large model company" was more impactful and sounded more like "insider" than "AI companies founded by Chinese entrepreneurs," so it was retained.
● The second round was the transcription and secondary interpretation on social platforms—screenshots, transcriptions, short video edits turned a vague description into what seemed like a half-revelation that "knew the target"; accompanying visuals were often logos of leading AI companies conjured up by the market's imagination.
● The third round was the self-reinforcement among investors in chat groups and forums—someone threw out the guess, "Could it be the dark side of the moon?" and with the next round of sharing turned into "I heard YZi Labs invested in that company," later on, the question mark was imperceptibly erased.

From a narrative perspective, this was a perfect story: names familiar to crypto people (Zhao Changpeng, He Yi), a hot track (AI large models), and one or two companies that had been reported extensively on their financing digits in 2024 (like the dark side of the moon) were strung together with the connecting words "possibly," "reportedly," and "heard," making a leap from "vague statement" to "seemingly set in stone."

The problem is that the facts confirmed by the parties involved in this chain are very limited:
● YZi Labs is indeed a family office related to Zhao Changpeng and has previously participated in multiple crypto project investments;
● He Yi did mention YZi Labs invested in a "Chinese AI company," but she subsequently publicly corrected that her original statement had been misinterpreted;
● The market is indeed speculating whether it is the dark side of the moon, but neither company name nor amount has been officially disclosed by any party;
● The figures regarding the dark side of the moon's financing volume and valuation come from limited and single sources and require prudent consideration by readers.

The rest are simply reflections of wishes, fears, and imaginations in the market.

For investors, the key lesson from such events is not "who lied," but rather: how to proactively fact-check and filter risks when information has not been fully disclosed.

The most basic steps include:
● Trace the source of information: Find the original words or videos rather than just looking at emotionally charged interpretations; note that clarifications like He Yi’s often appear only after emotions have subsided, but they are your anchor points for judging factual boundaries.
● Differentiate between "confirmed by parties involved" and "market speculation": Any company name or amount that only appears in secondary reports and chat logs and has not appeared in any party's official channels should be regarded as hypotheses rather than facts.
● Maintain skepticism toward figures: Even financing and valuation figures that appear "precise," like $700 million and $18 billion, should first prompt the questions—how many media outlets sourced them? Is there multi-party cross-verification? Have they been formally cited by the company or investors?
● Control positions before narratives are confirmed: When the story is still at the rumor stage of "who invested in whom," and hasn't landed on a prospectus, announcement, or regulatory document, paying for the story essentially means paying for someone else's imagination.

During these two days in late April, He Yi's slip of the tongue and subsequent clarification simply exposed this narrative mechanism more clearly: in a market being pulled by policy expectations, geopolitical risks, and on-chain fund flows, KOLs' words can ignite sparks, but whether one can see clearly the boundaries of the scene in the glow of the fire determines who can still stand on-site when the next emotional tide retreats.

Lunch Commitment to CLARITY: How Much Imagination Did Trump Leave?

Similarly, during those two days of igniting discourse, the stage shifted from social media to the lunch hall at Mar-a-Lago. As a former U.S. president, Trump, in a roughly 45-minute speech, steered the "story" in another direction: shifting from the KOL's mention of "Chinese AI" to a term capable of rewriting the regulatory landscape—CLARITY.

The key information coming from the scene was not complicated. He publicly stated his hope that the bill named CLARITY could pass and offered a straightforward promise: once passed, he would sign it immediately. For practitioners accustomed to navigating paths in a fog of policies, this statement was loud enough—at least in tone, he positioned himself clearly on the side hoping to provide a clearer regulatory framework for crypto assets.

This is also why the industry quickly viewed this lunch as a signal of his continued "pro-crypto" stance. A former president willing to stand up for CLARITY and promise "sign immediately upon passage" itself represented a directional declaration: if legislation could indeed reach the completion process, the regulatory environment could shift from "unknown" to "predictable." For institutions pressed for breath by compliance costs and enforcement uncertainties, such a statement could sufficiently boost sentiment on an emotional level.

But when the camera returned from slogans to details, imagination had to pause. Based on currently available public information, CLARITY is still more of a carrier for projected meaning: it is widely understood as a need to build a clearer regulatory framework for crypto assets, yet lacks confirmed specific terms and does not align with a voting schedule or signing timeline. The White House reporter Sander Lutz's evaluation is representative—this speech did not reveal too many specific policy details, while many in the industry originally anticipated he would provide a clearer regulatory roadmap.

The result is that the market nominally obtained a "bill + commitment" combination, yet in essence, only received a symbol that can be interpreted in many ways. Lacking terms, it is impossible to calculate which businesses would be permitted and which models are destined to be tightened; without a timeline, making precise arrangements in funding plans and product cycles becomes very difficult. As such, this round of emotions surrounding CLARITY remains at the stage of primarily "expectation trading"—prices and positions correspond to discourse rather than legal provisions.

This disparity often has an indirect yet profound impact on the real flow of capital. For enterprises, regulatory uncertainties mean that site selection, business structure, and compliance investments must accommodate worst-case scenarios: new projects are more inclined to split structures, fundraising and launch paths are divided into multiple phases for flexibility; while establishing narratives for the U.S. market, they also need to leave room for "shifting to other jurisdictions" at any moment. For funds, an unformed regulatory framework hardly supports large-scale, long-term allocation decisions; short-term funds are more inclined to operate around "who is more pro-crypto," rather than betting on genuine institutional dividends.

Wall Street and the crypto circle have become acutely sensitive to the pricing differences between "verbal commitments" and "legislative progress." A statement like "I will sign it immediately" at the lunch can quickly translate into a premium in that day's prices and opinions; but from that moment on, traders began to focus not on edited speech clips, but on every subsequent formal procedure relating to CLARITY: Is there a draft publicly available? Has it entered actual review? Are there any signals that can be seen as a timeline? As long as these processes stagnate for too long, the lunch promise will turn from a positive into a risk that needs to be "priced in reverse."

From He Yi's "AI large model slip" to Trump's "CLARITY lunch commitment," during these two days, the market was simultaneously pulled by two different levels of discourse: one from the imagination within the industry and the other from the policy promises on the edge of power. The former reveals how narratives can be over-interpreted, while the latter reminds people that even standing under the spotlight at Mar-a-Lago, imagination can still run far ahead of institutions. What truly decides to which side the funds ultimately stop is still those "specifics" that have yet to be written into the provisions but have not yet arrived.

Hormuz Charging in Rials: Geopolitical Conflict and Asset Hedging Narratives

While the speeches at Mar-a-Lago remained at the levels of "bills" and "attitudes," the kind of "specific" that truly changed the flow of funds had already landed in the Strait of Hormuz—through the currency used for transit fees and in the form of blockades and embargoes.

Prior to this, the first round of negotiations between the U.S. and Iran on related issues bore no fruit, prompting the U.S. to choose the most tangible means of pressure: implementing a maritime blockade and openly issuing threats of war, gradually escalating regional tensions. Shortly thereafter, Iran presented its own bargaining chip—not a statement, but a rule: transit fees through the Strait of Hormuz must be settled in Iranian rials.

This requirement was personally stated by Ibrahim Aziz during an interview as the chairman of Iran’s Islamic Parliament National Security Committee, and his language was direct. He also drew another more hardline red line: vessels and goods related to Israel are not permitted to pass through the Strait of Hormuz under any circumstances. This is no longer abstract "attitude indication" but a substantial rewrite of global shipping routes and settlement methods—who can pass, who cannot, and what currency is used to pay will be determined by Iran in this narrow waterway.

Above the surface lies the rewrite of settlement rules, while beneath the surface is the normalization of low-intensity confrontations. External reports indicate that Iran has employed the so-called "mosquito fleet" tactics: relying on numerous small speedboats to harass and restrain U.S. naval fleets at close range, not seeking a decisive battle but instead aiming for wear and continuous pressure. In the same batch of reports, a single source mentioned that Trump ordered the potential sinking of vessels responsible for laying mines—this claim still lacks further authoritative confirmation, but merely the phrase "can be sunk" is enough to outline how both sides gradually test boundaries in the "neither at war nor at peace" stratagem.

When Iran demanded transit fees be paid in rials, it conveyed not just a fiscal level demand but also a symbolic challenge to the dollar settlement system: at a chokepoint that global trade heavily relies on, opposing existing dollar inertia with its own currency. It might not immediately shake the dollar's position in energy and shipping settlements but distinctly placed the issue of "the currency of settlement itself as a tool for negotiation" prominently before all participants.

Geopolitical tensions quickly spread to the market level along shipping routes. The confrontation surrounding the Strait of Hormuz was translated by traders and researchers into another language: the security of cross-border settlement tools, how to store and transfer value in sovereign games, and whether decentralized assets that do not rely on the credit of a single country can indeed provide a hedge in extreme scenarios. The discussions spread quickly, yet their implementation remained slow—especially when the concerned countries themselves are drawing lines.

Earlier, there were rumors in the market that Iran was considering charging transit fees in crypto assets through the Strait of Hormuz, which briefly excited the crypto circle, imagining a traditional geopolitical conflict hotspot as a sort of "on-chain toll booth." However, Iranian officials publicly denied this notion, clearly refuting the possibility of charging transit fees in crypto assets. The practical result is that the Strait of Hormuz has been firmly bound to Iran's sovereign currency in this round of games—the rial stands at the settlement counter for transit fees, while decentralized assets are excluded from this most direct instrument of power.

From dollars to rials, from blockades to the "mosquito fleet," this series of actions compresses the abstract concept of "geopolitical risk" into a few specific rules and particular vessels. The crypto market seeks its narrative position as an observer: on one side is the settlement currency used as leverage by states, and on the other side is the decentralized store of value frequently mentioned in hedging discussions that remains unentangled in official fee structures. The greater the turbulence in Hormuz, the clearer the comparison between these two lines.

Raising Lending Limits and Opening Financing: On-Chain Enterprises Continue to Increase Capital

As the waterways in Hormuz tighten in the real world, the "waterways" on-chain are quietly being relaxed. During the highly compressed narrative window from April 25 to 26, Jupiter Lend, Four Pillars, and JPYC successively threw out their messages: one side raised borrowing limits while the other reopened financing pathways, recalibrating the risk appetite of capital on-chain.

Jupiter Lend was the first to send a signal. The project announced an increase in borrowing limits, with circulating market claims stating the new limit has been raised to about $40 million, with an LTV ratio of about 85%. However, these specific numbers are currently marked as pending verification, with limited sources and not yet undergoing cross-verification from multiple authoritative channels. Even so, just the phrase "limits raised" can itself alter the behavioral boundaries for some DeFi participants: leverage that previously needed to be spread across multiple platforms can now be concentrated in the same pipeline; accounts that could only maintain neutral or mildly leveraged positions are naturally induced to extend durations and increase positions with the additional quota.

If the rumored 85% LTV approaches a true level, the risk-return curve significantly skews toward the high leverage side. For the protocol, high LTV brings higher capital utilization and interest income expectations; for borrowers, in a slightly volatile market environment, the liquidation threshold is set extremely low, making just one macro or regulatory negative event enough to push an entire batch of positions to the brink. And under the premise that these key parameters are still in a "to be confirmed" state, the market is actually using real funds to validate the rumors themselves, creating an asymmetry of information and risk which is a form of leveraged amplification.

Alongside the raised borrowing limits, confidence in the primary market has also been elevated. In late April, Four Pillars announced the completion of a Series A financing round, with some claiming that Pantera Capital led the investment—this, too, is currently listed as pending verification and has not received multiple public confirmations. Regardless of the details, this infrastructure-focused project chose to disclose its round progress amid macro and regulatory expectation fluctuations, sending a signal to the outside world that the foundational construction story remains unfinished and there is still capital willing to pay for "pipes" and "tools."

The payment and service directions also have their own examples. JPYC publicly disclosed the completion of a new round of additional financing, with some reports suggesting this round amounted to about 2.8 billion yen, totaling 4.6 billion yen in cumulative financing, which also belongs to a category of limited sources that require cautious treatment. Like many similar projects, JPYC has not fully disclosed valuation, investor composition, and detailed terms in the public information, leaving the exterior to infer from sparse amounts and historical financing data the capital’s patience for payment and settlement tracks: even when the external environment is full of variables, projects that can meet real-world payment needs and offer service capabilities are still being selectively increased.

It is worth noting that whether it is Jupiter Lend's loan adjustments or the financing announcements from Four Pillars and JPYC, the most critical pricing information has been left blank: valuation ranges, contractual terms, lock-up arrangements, participation ratios, etc., have not formed a complete picture in public channels. The only frequently cited figures often come from specific single sources—$40 million as a limit, 85% LTV, Pantera's name, and 2.8 billion and 4.6 billion yen in financing scales—they spread on-chain much faster than they are verified.

In this stage where macro and regulatory uncertainties remain high—where Trump vocally supported the CLARITY Act at lunch but did not provide a timeline, and the rial settlement requirements in the Strait of Hormuz tightened the nerves of global trade—capital did not collectively retreat, but continued to place bets on specific tracks: lending, infrastructure, payment, and services. This "selective risk-taking" keeps the market seemingly vibrant, yet the insufficient disclosure of information, combined with singular sources, makes each bet feel more like trading on the narrative itself.

He Yi's remark about the "Chinese AI large model company" that triggered misinterpretations and amplifications has already demonstrated how the market fills in gaps in the absence of a complete context. The same set of mechanisms is now occurring in the risk parameters of Jupiter Lend, the lead investor list of Four Pillars, and the financing scale of JPYC: unverified numbers are treated as ironclad evidence, vague announcements are taken as determinative endorsements, and these half-baked pieces of information are quickly wrapped into stories of "track recovery," "institutional return," and "leverage restart," becoming new trading reasons.

From a capital perspective, the series of lending adjustments and financing openings between April 25 and 26 indicates that capital is still willing to take risks on-chain enterprises; it is increasingly reliant on non-public channels and insider information for judgment, leaving the public market to retail investors relying on screenshots, second-hand accounts, and emotional trades. As pending verification data is continuously reiterated, and claims from single sources are treated as consensus, the space for misinterpretation and speculation is automatically amplified—leverage is not only applied to asset prices but also on narratives.

The Theft Case and LDO Long Position: Gray Operations Under Regulatory Shadows

Offline, a report from the Hubei police has pulled the on-chain risks back into the most traditional criminal context. According to public information, they announced the resolution of a theft case involving crypto assets, with some media applying the phrase "or exceeding 100 million yuan," but this amount has been explicitly marked as pending verification, and detailed official case disclosures are also not available. The methods used in the case, the identity of suspects, how funds were transferred, and subsequent judicial progress remain fragmented in public channels, with many details remaining in the state of "still under investigation."

Even with incomplete information, this case still sends a clear signal: from the perspective of law enforcement in mainland China, on-chain assets are no longer just technical discussions or market topics but can be incorporated into the traditional frameworks of public security and criminal governance as "property." Once theft or open occupation occurs, the handling logic is much closer to offline credit card fraud or account hacking rather than the self-comforting notion of "code as law." For many participants still harboring the imagination that "on-chain is outside the law," this means a simple and blunt reality—behind the keyboard, there correspond real identities and real responsibilities.

However, legal boundaries do not extend to all disturbing behaviors. Online, another more subtle "risk signal" begins with a string of familiar addresses. On-chain analysis reveals that an address that had previously been questioned by the community for insider trading related to APE has recently executed large long positions on LDO. The timing and rhythm were interpreted by many as "hitting the beat again."

A single source claims that the floating profits from this LDO long position are about $300,000—also an unverified number but enough to serve as fuel for the story: the gains are attractive, entry timing aligns closely with news and fluctuations, and the address itself carries a historical label of "APE insider," making it easy for the narrative to package it as something known by "insiders." In the community's second creations, these addresses were classified as "smart money," and every subsequent operation may be treated as a potential insider signal, documented through screenshots, disseminated, and provided with subjective bullish or bearish interpretations, again inflating the anxiety of information asymmetry.

This illustrates the paradox of on-chain transparency: all transactions are exposed in browsers, everyone theoretically has the same raw data, yet almost no one possesses the same context. For the police, this transparency provides unprecedented clues for tracking theft and freezing assets; for those conducting on-chain analysis, it makes constructing a "suspicious address list" remarkably easier; for ordinary traders, especially in a narrative-intensive timeframe like April 25 to 26, it can easily evolve into a collective guessing game—was this long position insider trading or purely a technical trade? Behind this address are institutional positions, professional arbitrage teams, or merely a retail investor who happened to guess the right direction?

When the Hubei theft case clearly redrew the line of "theft," events like the LDO long position remain in a gray area: there is no confirmed chain of insider trading, only a highly synchronized profit curve and a series of pending verification figures. On-chain address tracing, while assisting regulators and law enforcement in finding anomalies, also creates an atmosphere of suspicion and witch-hunting in the market. For all parties discussing regulatory frameworks, these distinctly different cases simultaneously approach the same question: in a market where all can see the flow of funds but few see the true flow of information, what truly counts as crossing the line, who defines it, and what are the bases for doing so?

The Weekend of Multiple Pulls: From Slip to the Next Scene of the Fleet

Looking back on these two days, one can find several originally independent news threads suddenly hedging together in the same time frame: He Yi's remark about a "Chinese AI large model company," amidst the background of YZi Labs and prior news of the dark side of the moon, was quickly filled in by the market until she stepped in to correct on X; at the Mar-a-Lago luncheon, Trump took about 45 minutes to bind himself to the CLARITY Act but was unable to produce any confirmed terms and timelines; from the Strait of Hormuz, Aziz has pegged transit fees to the Iranian rial while also revealing a ban on vessels related to Israel; on-chain, there are continuous financings and expansions from Jupiter Lend, Four Pillars, and JPYC, alongside the police report of the theft case and the reappearance of an address questioned for insider dealings related to APE, which has struck a precise long in LDO. Discourse power, policy, and geopolitics began to simultaneously reach out to pull the same narrative thread.

This feeling of pull primarily stems from the hierarchical disorder of the information itself: He Yi's AI investment target still remains in "market speculation," with related company names and amounts not certified by the parties involved; the previously reportedly financed numbers of the dark side of the moon have been noted as having limited sources and needing cautious treatment; Trump's commitment to CLARITY rests on statements of "hoping to pass and signing immediately," while specific terms, voting dates, and signing timelines have yet to be authoritatively announced; the currency settlement and embargo measures of Hormuz have been officially confirmed by Iran, though the "mosquito fleet" and whether there is authorization for "sinking mine-laying vessels" largely come from single-source reports; the new upper limits of Jupiter Lend, the details of the funding round at Four Pillars, the amounts of financing at JPYC, the scale of the Hubei theft case, and even the floating profit figures of LDO long addresses have all been explicitly marked as "pending verification." Fragments of different certainty levels are being consumed by the same market on the same screen.

In such an environment, what truly needs to be practiced is not "being one step ahead in information," but consciously putting each piece of information back into its proper danger classification: which are facts confirmed by the parties involved, which are only from single media or anonymous sources, and which are vague regarding time, amount, and objects to be treated merely as emotion backgrounds. For any trading decisions based on rumors, single sources, or a KOL's "I heard" should default to carry additional risk premiums—especially when prices can react in seconds but legislative processes and geopolitical conflicts can often be timed by months or even years; emotional trading will almost inevitably serve as lifting the platform for others.

Looking from a longer perspective, this weekend acts like a preview for the next scene. On the U.S. side, the CLARITY Act is still underway in negotiations and advancements; whether Trump's lunch speech can be converted into specific agendas or whether any unexpected "additional conditions" emerge at the terms level, will determine how substantial the so-called "pro-crypto" political commitments truly rate; towards Hormuz, rial settlement and embargo have tightened the tension levels of energy security and the global settlement systems yet again, with subsequent developments directly affecting the narrative choices regarding risk assets and safe-haven assets.

Meanwhile, how regulatory and enforcement agencies in various countries respond to this wave of on-chain reality will also be a key observation point in the coming months: the Hubei police solving the case is merely a signal, indicating that on-chain theft has been incorporated into the traditional criminal system's "daily work"; will tracking suspected insider addresses eventually lead to genuine cross-border collaboration or hallmark cases at some point, will decide how much longer information asymmetry can still be tolerated in this market. On the other side, the increases in Jupiter Lend's limits, Four Pillars, and JPYC continuing to raise funds also indicate that even as the macro and policy environment becomes increasingly complex, capital is still trying to advance according to its own logic in lending, infrastructure, and payment pathways.

The events of late April 2026 have laid bare the current true condition of this industry: narratives are no longer dominated by a single tech cycle, but rather are simultaneously pulled by KOLs' discourse authority, U.S. regulatory expectations, the geopolitical risks of Hormuz, as well as on-chain crimes and suspected insider activities. For participants, what they can do may not be romantic—distinguishing facts from rumors, tracking legislative progress, the situation in the strait, and enforcement boundaries as hard indicators, and before every magnified "good news" or "bad news," first asking: how far has this matter progressed, who said it, who signed it, and who is responsible? Only within this restraint can risks and opportunities have the potential to be repriced.

Join our community, let's discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Reward Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Reward 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。