Jeonlees
Jeonlees
Seriously stroke your hair
977Following
1.3Kfollowers
Feed
Feed
Pinned
What’s most tormenting right now isn’t the poor market conditions, but rather how the market increasingly knows how to "give you hope".
The truly difficult market conditions have never been the ones that just keep crashing. A continuous drop isn’t hard to deceive; the dangers are all written on the K-line, and it’s clear who gets hit. At least it’s straightforward.
What’s really disgusting now is another type. It doesn’t kill you all at once; it first gives you a glimmer of hope. After a drop, it pulls back a bit, making you feel like it’s about to stabilize; it shakes for a few days and then surges again, making you think the main trend might be back; a small coin suddenly doubles, making you question if you’ve been too conservative. You’re not thrown off by bad news; you’re gradually dragged in by these "moments that look like opportunities".
This is also why many people have been feeling down lately. It’s not that they completely don’t understand, but because the market is too good at performing. It knows you’re afraid of missing out, so it always gives you a little sweetness just when you’re about to give up; it also knows you want confirmation, so it always hits you with a surprise just when you finally dare to believe. At first, you think it’s just your timing that’s off, but later when you go long, you realize it’s not just a couple of trades; it’s your entire emotional state that it has grasped.
To put it bluntly, the most valuable thing in this phase isn’t knowledge or news, but the composure not to be deceived by hope. Because many of the recent rises aren’t genuinely strong; they’re just enough to reel you in; many of the rebounds aren’t real turnarounds; they’re just enough to ignite the emotions of those who are short.
So I’m increasingly believing a harsh truth: the market isn’t afraid of your intelligence; it’s afraid of your stubbornness. The more you think "this time might really be different," the easier it is for it to strike at that point.
Here’s the question: the most you’ve lost recently, was it because you misjudged, or because you wanted to believe "it’s finally your turn"?
This time, Termmax's response speed was very fast, addressing everyone's questions about the MP points ranking segments and taking timely measures. I hope @TermMaxFi will have its TGE soon 🥰
TermMax is no longer just a single-chain product. The public roadmap mentions that it has already covered multiple chains including Ethereum, Arbitrum, BNB Chain, Berachain, BSquared, X Layer, and Base.
Multi-chain expansion is certainly a good thing, but it also brings another side effect: liquidity fragmentation.
What is the biggest fear in a fixed-rate market? It's not that no one is shouting slogans, but that each chain has a little pool, each term has a little depth, and in the end, it looks like there are many markets, but there are not many places that can actually take orders.
When a user wants to borrow a stablecoin, they find their assets on Chain A; the suitable interest rate is on Chain B; and the collateral is on Chain C. At this point, no matter how sophisticated the financial design of the protocol is, the user has already been discouraged from the first step.
The value lies in hiding this step as much as possible in the background.
It is not about helping TermMax reinvent fixed rates, but about compressing the pile of troubles users face before entering the market. Cross-chain, aggregated exchanges, finding paths, and reducing asset migration friction may sound very fundamental, but they are very realistic for lending protocols. Especially for fixed-term markets like TermMax, the more fragmented the liquidity, the harder it is for users to form stable habits; the smoother the entry, the more likely funds are to truly enter the term pool rather than remain in a wait-and-see phase.
This is also why I think this collaboration is more worth writing about than ordinary "ecological collaborations."
Many DeFi collaborations are just mutual tweeting, logos stuck together, and after a few days, no one remembers. But the combination of TermMax and this project is at least addressing a real problem: fixed-rate lending is not without demand, but the path for users to enter such products is not smooth enough.
To be more realistic, if TermMax wants to compete for attention with mature lending protocols like Aave, it cannot rely solely on "my rates are fixed." Fixed rates are an advantage, but they are not a sufficient reason for users to migrate. What users will really ask is: Where are my assets? How do I get in? What are the costs? Do I need to cross chains? How much slippage is there? How do I exit after borrowing? If these questions are not well addressed, fixed rates will become a tool for a few advanced users rather than a large-scale lending entry point.
So this point is actually about supplementing TermMax's second-layer capabilities.
The first layer is product capability: fixed rates, term markets, lending AMM, Vault, Range Order, predictable returns.
The second layer is liquidity capability: allowing users to come in from different chains, different assets, and different entry points, without being stuck by operational paths.
I am now more concerned about the second layer.
Because DeFi currently does not lack complex products, what it lacks is "complex products that ordinary people can use." If TermMax only stays at the level of professional users crossing chains, calculating rates, and finding markets themselves, its ceiling will be quite obvious. But if it smooths out the cross-chain liquidity entry, fixed-rate lending will have the opportunity to gradually transform from a "tool for smart money" into a more common method of capital management.
Of course, we cannot be blindly optimistic here.
Multi-chain aggregation itself also carries risks. The more bridging paths there are, the more external dependencies there are; the more frequently assets cross chains, the more contract risks, bridge risks, and execution failure risks users will face. TermMax's approach does not eliminate risks; it only lowers the usage threshold. A truly mature experience should be that users know what paths they have taken and what risks they are bearing, rather than just seeing a "confirm" button.
But from a directional perspective, this step is correct.
TermMax used to emphasize fixed rates, focusing on "predictable rates"; now it is addressing the issue of user entry.
So I would interpret TermMax's latest developments as: it is not simply expanding chains, nor is it just riding the multi-chain narrative, but solving an old problem in fixed-rate DeFi—market design can be very professional, but if users cannot enter, everything is empty.
For fixed-rate lending to truly take off, it cannot rely solely on beautiful rate models; it also needs smooth liquidity paths.
TermMax's approach is not a big deal, but it is not small either. It is not as easy to tell a story as RWA, but it is closer to the hard problems in product implementation.
Sometimes the most valuable upgrades in DeFi are not about inventing a more esoteric concept, but about making users cross one less chain, swap one less currency, and calculate slippage one less time.
It sounds simple, but that is what a product is.
TermMax | Fixed Rate Borrowing & Lending
MP Leaderboard Transparency Update
We are aware of the concerns regarding missing rankings and perceived unfairness on the MP leaderboard. These concerns are entirely understandable based on what is visible externally, and we would like to clarify the actual situation.
Why ranking gaps existed
MP is distributed through two primary channels:
• Wallet-based: Rewards from on-chain activities and tasks (e.g. joining Discord) issued directly to your wallet
• X account-based: Rewards from X-linked activities and campaigns (e.g. Mindshare, follow tasks, Puzzle Challenge posts)
Previously, MP holders without a linked X account (wallet-only users) appeared on the leaderboard but were not assigned a rank number. This created gaps in the sequence, making it look like entries were missing.
We have now fixed this. Wallet-only MP holders will no longer be displayed on the leaderboard, ensuring that rankings are continuous and accurate. Please note that their MP remains fully intact—this is a display change only, not a change in balance.
Fairness and Bot Prevention
There are no manual adjustments, hidden allocations, or preferential treatment in MP distribution. Any perceived inconsistencies resulted from how data was structured and displayed, not from how it was calculated.
Regarding suspicious accounts and bots: like any project, we encounter these challenges, and we have a rigorous filtering process in place to remove them. This remains our standard operating procedure.
Our Commitment
To be clear: there are no backroom deals, no insider allocations, and no preferential treatment for anyone. Every MP is earned, not assigned.
We understand that trust is built through consistency, not just statements. We will continue to improve leaderboard transparency moving forward. Thank you for your patience and support. 🙏
TermMax's focus this time: Ondo tokenized stocks are starting to become collateral.
The point of Ondo tokenized stock collateral should be viewed first.
Because it is not an ordinary RWA collaboration, but directly answers a question: after real assets are on-chain, can they truly enter the DeFi lending system?
In the past, many RWA narratives only talked about "stocks, US Treasuries, and funds on-chain."
But if these assets can only be bought and sold, cannot be used as collateral, cannot be financed, and cannot enter the capital market, then it is merely a change of account display on-chain, and financial efficiency has not truly opened up.
What makes TermMax worth watching this time is that it connects tokenized securities assets like Ondo Global Markets to fixed-rate lending scenarios.
In simple terms, users do not necessarily have to sell their tokenized stocks; they can also use them as collateral to obtain a fixed-cost on-chain liquidity.
This point is more practical than "supporting RWA."
The core of TermMax's fixed-rate lending is to lock in borrowing costs in advance. How long to borrow, what the interest rate is, and how to repay at maturity can all be calculated before entering the position. Compared to ordinary floating-rate lending, it is more suitable for RWA because the usage logic of real assets is inherently more focused on financing, turnover, and term management, rather than chasing APY every day.
So the real highlight this time is not that TermMax is riding the RWA trend again, but that it is attempting to push RWA from "on-chain asset display" to "financable assets."
Of course, risks cannot be ignored. Tokenized stocks involve compliance, liquidity, and pricing for liquidation, all of which are more complex than ordinary DeFi assets. The fixed-rate market itself also needs enough borrowers and funders; otherwise, even if the interest rate is determined, the market may not be active.
But the direction is clear: if RWA only stays at the asset on-chain level, the enthusiasm will quickly fade; if it can enter collateral, financing, fixed income, and term markets, it has the opportunity to become a true on-chain financial infrastructure.
TermMax is currently betting on this position.
In the short term, it will benefit from the hotspots of Ondo, RWA, and fixed-rate lending; in the long term, there is only one key question: are there real users willing to use tokenized stocks to borrow fixed-cost money?
If this demand emerges, TermMax @TermMaxFi will be a piece of the puzzle moving RWA from "can hold" to "can finance."
I am looking forward to it and hope TermMax will have its TGE soon!
Jeonlees reposted
You were right. We changed it.
The old MaxPack claim structure asked too much. 50% in fees just to access your own rewards — that's on us.
New structure. No gatekeeping.
→ Trade → generate fees → be eligible to claim proportionally
→ No all-or-nothing threshold
→ You take what you earn, up to the full pool
With a $20,000 prize pool:
$100 in fees → $200 claimed
$1,000 in fees → $2,000 claimed
$10,000 in fees → $20,000 claimed (max)
One condition: $11,111 in total volume during the event to qualify. (yes, the number means something)
Claim date: TBA
Your pack. Your trade. Your reward. #MemeMax
Isn't it true that many people think that copy trading is just following the big players to make money and winning effortlessly, where they only need to invest funds and do nothing else?
In fact, one-click copy trading is a trading mechanism that combines strategy outsourcing and risk control.
Users delegate entry and exit decisions to a Master Trader, but they are still responsible for fund allocation, copy trading ratio, stop-loss boundaries, observation periods, and whether to continue following.
So, copy trading is not exiting PVP, but rather changing the way PVP is conducted.
｡..ꕤ••┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈••ꕤ..。
When trading on your own, PVP occurs between the order book, emotions, and judgment; in copy trading, PVP happens between trader selection, position management, and drawdown tolerance.
Many people lose money in copy trading, not because the function is poor, but because they treat Copy Trading as a yield management tool, completely ignoring strategy adaptation and fund risk.
When selecting a Master Trader, I generally do not look at short-term ROI rankings first.
The higher the short-term ROI, the more I need to break down the sources of that yield.
Is it stable compound interest, or did they make a big profit in a one-sided market? Is the profit contributed by multiple trades balanced, or is it reliant on one or two large positions to pull the curve up?
If the profit curve is abnormally steep but the maximum drawdown is also deep, this type of account is essentially not a stable strategy, but a high-volatility strategy.
A more professional selection order should be: first look at the maximum drawdown, then the profit curve; first look at the trading cycle, then the win rate; first look at position habits, then ROI.
｡..ꕤ••┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈••ꕤ..。
The win rate itself is not very meaningful.
A trader with an 80% win rate might only make a little profit each time but hold onto losses for a long time, and the last loss could wipe out the profits from the previous dozen trades.
Conversely, a trader with a lower win rate but a stable profit-loss ratio, clear stop-losses, and controllable drawdowns is more suitable for long-term observation.
So when everyone is copy trading, they also need to pay attention to several indicators.
1️⃣ Maximum drawdown.
It determines whether you can withstand this strategy. Many people only want to see profits but do not ask themselves if they can accept a floating loss of 10%, 20%, or even higher along the way. If both your psychology and funds cannot handle it, no matter how good the strategy is, you won't be able to stick with it.
2️⃣ Stability of the profit curve.
A truly healthy curve does not necessarily rise every day, but it cannot rely on a single large profit to repair a lot of previous losses for a long time. If the curve frequently shows vertical rises and rapid drawdowns, it indicates that the strategy is highly volatile, suitable for observation but not for heavy positions.
3️⃣ Trading frequency.
If the frequency is too low, there is insufficient sample size to judge whether the strategy is stable; if the frequency is too high, it can easily lead to issues with fees, slippage, and emotional trading. Copy trading does not just replicate direction; it also replicates trading rhythm. If the trader's rhythm is too aggressive, the volatility that the follower's account bears will also be amplified.
4️⃣ Position logic.
Focus on whether they frequently add positions against the trend, whether they hold positions for a long time, and whether they expand positions during losses. If a Master Trader is accustomed to using position averaging instead of stop-losses, the curve may look good in the short term, but the tail risk will be heavy.
5️⃣ Fund scale and number of followers.
If the trading capital is too small, it indicates a limited sample; if the following capital suddenly surges, caution is needed because the strategy's capacity may be affected by slippage and execution differences after being amplified.
A strategy that performs well with small funds does not mean it will maintain the same performance under a larger following scale.
｡..ꕤ••┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈••ꕤ..。
In practice, I do not directly copy trade with full amounts but handle it in three steps.
The first step is to observe without placing heavy positions.
First, look at the Master Trader's trading style over a recent period: is it trend breakout, range arbitrage, short-term high-frequency, or event-driven? Different strategies are suitable for different market environments; you cannot just look at results without considering applicable scenarios.
The second step is to test with small funds.
The testing period should cover at least a few complete trading cycles, rather than adding funds after seeing one or two profitable trades. During this phase, it is important to record the actual copy trading price difference, holding time, maximum floating loss, closing rhythm, and final profit. Because the results of copy trading do not necessarily equal the Master Trader's account performance, execution delays, slippage, order merging, and fund ratios can all affect the final outcome.
The third step is to decide whether to layer in more capital.
If the trial phase shows stable profits, controllable drawdowns, and no significant drift in trading logic, then consider increasing the capital allocation. But even when layering in, it is not advisable to put all funds into a single Master Trader. A more reasonable approach is to build a copy trading portfolio, diversifying different styles of traders, such as allocating small proportions of funds to trend-following, conservative, and low-frequency swing traders.
I personally prefer to treat Copy Trading as a "strategy pool" rather than a single source of income.
Core positions should be given to traders with controllable drawdowns, longer cycles, and stable styles; small positions can test high-yield but high-volatility traders; observation positions are used to verify whether new traders truly have sustained capabilities.
In terms of position management, the most important thing is to set a loss boundary first, then talk about profit targets.
For example, before investing in a copy trading fund, first determine how much drawdown you can accept at most. If you can only accept a 10% floating loss, do not follow traders whose maximum drawdown exceeds this level for a long time. Many people fail in copy trading because they try to follow high-volatility strategies with low-risk expectations, and when they encounter normal drawdowns, they cut losses and exit.
Stop-losses cannot be completely entrusted to the Master Trader. The trader has their own capital scale and risk tolerance, and your account size, psychological tolerance, and fund usage may not be the same. Therefore, in the copy trading parameters, the loss limit, single investment, leverage preference, and whether to allow automatic additions should all be set according to your account situation, rather than defaulting to copy everything.
Another point that is easily overlooked: do not just look at profit screenshots; look at the complete cycle.
A single report can only indicate that money was made during a certain market period; it does not prove that the strategy is effective in the long term. More valuable real trading reviews should include invested principal, copy trading cycle, actual yield rate, maximum floating loss, types of traders followed, whether there was manual intervention, and reasons for exit. Only when this information is put together does it have reference value.
If I want to filter out high-risk Master Traders, I will prioritize excluding several types:
Those with extremely high short-term ROI but very short historical cycles.
Those with a very high win rate but average losses significantly greater than average profits.
Those who do not stop losses for a long time and frequently add positions against the trend.
Those whose profit curves fluctuate greatly, relying entirely on heavy positions to recover drawdowns.
Those with sudden surges in the number of followers and funds, but whose strategy capacity has not been validated.
Those whose trading varieties are too dispersed, making it impossible to see a stable methodology.
Truly worth continuous observation @Bybit_Official Master Traders usually do not attract people with exaggerated profits but retain them with consistent strategies. They may not make explosive profits every week, but you can see that their trading logic is relatively stable, risk management has boundaries, and after losses, they do not rely on doubling down to hold on but instead slowly repair the curve through normal trading.
Therefore, the value of Bybit's one-click copy trading is not to let ordinary users bypass risks, but to present the performance of professional traders' strategies in a more transparent way, giving users the opportunity to filter based on data.
But whether you can make money in the end does not depend on whether you clicked "copy trading," but on whether you treat it as a trading system to manage.
My conclusion is simple: Copy Trading can lower the threshold for strategies, but it cannot lower risk awareness. It can help you replicate trading actions, but it cannot bear the drawdowns for you. True professional copy trading is not about rushing in just because someone has high profits; it is about first judging the sources of this strategy's profits, risk structure, drawdown boundaries, and whether it matches your own account.
One-click copy trading is not a button for easy profits; it is more like a strategy market.
What you are buying is not the halo of a certain trader, but their trading logic, risk preference, and drawdown curve. Whether you can use Bybit Copy Trading well depends not on finding a "person who always makes money," but on establishing a process of filtering, trial following, reviewing, and adjusting positions.
There are no absolutely safe profits in the market, only clearer risk pricing. Copy trading is the same. Whoever first understands drawdowns, positions, and exit mechanisms is closer to truly sustainable profits. @Bybit_Official
The entire practical step-by-step tutorial for copy trading is also placed here👇
Jeonlees
Before I delved into the Unified Trading Account, I thought it might just be convenient to operate, with spot, contracts, and options combined, reducing the number of transfers.
But when viewed through the lens of actual trading scenarios, the focus of Bybit UTA is not on "merging accounts," but rather on transforming previously fragmented funds into a unified margin system that can be valued, collateralized, and risk-managed collectively.
The biggest problem with traditional accounts is that total assets and available margin are often not the same thing.
If you have BTC in your spot account and a balance in your stablecoin account, but your contract account lacks sufficient margin, these assets won't automatically help you bear the risk.
The result is that while the total assets in the account may seem substantial, specific positions could be pushed into a danger zone by risk rates.
UTA addresses this structural inefficiency.
Under the unified account, eligible assets can be counted into the margin pool according to rules, and spot assets are no longer just static holdings but can participate in the risk-bearing of derivative positions.
This change is crucial because it allows a single asset to have multiple uses: it can continue to exist as a spot exposure while also providing margin buffer at the account level.
This is where the true utilization of funds comes into play.
Many people misunderstand funding efficiency as "being able to open larger positions," which is incorrect. True funding efficiency is about reducing redundant margin occupation. Previously, when trading spot, perpetuals, delivery, and options, it was often necessary to leave a safety cushion for each account, fragmenting funds into several parts, which seemed stable but resulted in a lot of idle capital. UTA centralizes the safety cushion into a single account system, transforming funds from "scattered reserves" to "unified dispatch."
For long-term traders, this difference is significant.
For example, if you are doing swing trading, holding a spot base while using perpetuals for short-term protection; or if you are engaging in cash-and-carry arbitrage, needing to manage both spot and contract positions simultaneously.
Under traditional accounts, funds need to be moved back and forth, and risks must be viewed separately. Under UTA, the account is closer to a combined asset-liability statement, where you no longer focus on the margin of a single order but on overall equity, collateral value, margin occupation, and net risk exposure.
This will directly impact trading decisions.
Because in extreme market conditions, many passive losses do not stem from directional judgment but from failures in fund dispatch. When the market suddenly spikes, manual transfers may not be timely, spot sales may incur slippage, and contract margins may tighten first, ultimately forcing you to reduce positions.
The account-level margin mechanism of UTA can at least reduce the awkwardness of "assets being present but unavailable when needed."
Of course, UTA is not a risk insurance box.
Putting assets into a unified margin pool also means that risks will be interconnected at the account level. Derivative losses will affect overall equity, and collateral assets will also fluctuate with market changes. Therefore, the professional use is not to blindly leverage it but to optimize the fund structure.
I believe UTA is most suitable for three scenarios:
First, long-term spot holdings + short-term contract trading.
Spot assets can participate in margin calculations under the rules, eliminating the need to prepare large amounts of idle USDT for each contract operation.
Second, hedging strategies.
For example, a long spot position paired with a short perpetual position, where the focus of the account is no longer on unilateral positions but on overall net risk. The clearer the combination management, the more apparent UTA's advantages become.
Third, arbitrage and multi-product strategies.
Funds often need to circulate continuously between spot, options, and perpetuals, and a unified account can reduce transfer friction and improve capital turnover efficiency.
Thus, my understanding of Bybit UTA is not a "functional upgrade" but a funding management framework that is closer to a professional trading account.
It ends not with losses or volatility, but with the past inefficiencies of funds being fragmented across accounts, redundant margin occupation, and risks only being viewable on separate pages.
Previously, trading felt like pouring water between several buckets, quickly refilling whichever bucket was running low. Now, UTA resembles a unified reservoir, where funds can be dispatched as a whole, and risks can be observed collectively.
The real value lies here:
The same assets that could only be held statically in the past; now can participate in collateral.
The same margin that was previously scattered across multiple accounts; now can be used centrally.
The same strategies that were easily interrupted by transfers and fragmented funds in the past; now execute more continuously.
This is the core of the "fund utilization rate terminator." It does not make traders more aggressive but prevents funds from being wasted by account structures, upgrading risk management from a single position mindset to a combined fund mindset.
@Bybit_Official
Before I delved into the Unified Trading Account, I thought it might just be convenient to operate, with spot, contracts, and options combined, reducing the number of transfers.
But when viewed through the lens of actual trading scenarios, the focus of Bybit UTA is not on "merging accounts," but rather on transforming previously fragmented funds into a unified margin system that can be valued, collateralized, and risk-managed collectively.
The biggest problem with traditional accounts is that total assets and available margin are often not the same thing.
If you have BTC in your spot account and a balance in your stablecoin account, but your contract account lacks sufficient margin, these assets won't automatically help you bear the risk.
The result is that while the total assets in the account may seem substantial, specific positions could be pushed into a danger zone by risk rates.
UTA addresses this structural inefficiency.
Under the unified account, eligible assets can be counted into the margin pool according to rules, and spot assets are no longer just static holdings but can participate in the risk-bearing of derivative positions.
This change is crucial because it allows a single asset to have multiple uses: it can continue to exist as a spot exposure while also providing margin buffer at the account level.
This is where the true utilization of funds comes into play.
Many people misunderstand funding efficiency as "being able to open larger positions," which is incorrect. True funding efficiency is about reducing redundant margin occupation. Previously, when trading spot, perpetuals, delivery, and options, it was often necessary to leave a safety cushion for each account, fragmenting funds into several parts, which seemed stable but resulted in a lot of idle capital. UTA centralizes the safety cushion into a single account system, transforming funds from "scattered reserves" to "unified dispatch."
For long-term traders, this difference is significant.
For example, if you are doing swing trading, holding a spot base while using perpetuals for short-term protection; or if you are engaging in cash-and-carry arbitrage, needing to manage both spot and contract positions simultaneously.
Under traditional accounts, funds need to be moved back and forth, and risks must be viewed separately. Under UTA, the account is closer to a combined asset-liability statement, where you no longer focus on the margin of a single order but on overall equity, collateral value, margin occupation, and net risk exposure.
This will directly impact trading decisions.
Because in extreme market conditions, many passive losses do not stem from directional judgment but from failures in fund dispatch. When the market suddenly spikes, manual transfers may not be timely, spot sales may incur slippage, and contract margins may tighten first, ultimately forcing you to reduce positions.
The account-level margin mechanism of UTA can at least reduce the awkwardness of "assets being present but unavailable when needed."
Of course, UTA is not a risk insurance box.
Putting assets into a unified margin pool also means that risks will be interconnected at the account level. Derivative losses will affect overall equity, and collateral assets will also fluctuate with market changes. Therefore, the professional use is not to blindly leverage it but to optimize the fund structure.
I believe UTA is most suitable for three scenarios:
First, long-term spot holdings + short-term contract trading.
Spot assets can participate in margin calculations under the rules, eliminating the need to prepare large amounts of idle USDT for each contract operation.
Second, hedging strategies.
For example, a long spot position paired with a short perpetual position, where the focus of the account is no longer on unilateral positions but on overall net risk. The clearer the combination management, the more apparent UTA's advantages become.
Third, arbitrage and multi-product strategies.
Funds often need to circulate continuously between spot, options, and perpetuals, and a unified account can reduce transfer friction and improve capital turnover efficiency.
Thus, my understanding of Bybit UTA is not a "functional upgrade" but a funding management framework that is closer to a professional trading account.
It ends not with losses or volatility, but with the past inefficiencies of funds being fragmented across accounts, redundant margin occupation, and risks only being viewable on separate pages.
Previously, trading felt like pouring water between several buckets, quickly refilling whichever bucket was running low. Now, UTA resembles a unified reservoir, where funds can be dispatched as a whole, and risks can be observed collectively.
The real value lies here:
The same assets that could only be held statically in the past; now can participate in collateral.
The same margin that was previously scattered across multiple accounts; now can be used centrally.
The same strategies that were easily interrupted by transfers and fragmented funds in the past; now execute more continuously.
This is the core of the "fund utilization rate terminator." It does not make traders more aggressive but prevents funds from being wasted by account structures, upgrading risk management from a single position mindset to a combined fund mindset.
@Bybit_Official
Jeonlees
Isn't it true that many people think that copy trading is just about following the big players to make money, lying back and doing nothing but investing funds?
In fact, one-click copy trading is a trading mechanism that combines strategy outsourcing and risk self-control.
Users delegate entry and exit judgments to the Master Trader, but they are still responsible for fund allocation, copy trading ratios, stop-loss boundaries, observation periods, and whether to continue following.
So, copy trading is not stepping away from PVP, but rather changing the way PVP is conducted.
｡..ꕤ••┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈••ꕤ..。
When trading by oneself, PVP occurs between the order book, emotions, and judgment; in copy trading, PVP occurs between trader selection, position management, and drawdown tolerance.
Many people lose money in copy trading, not because the function is poor, but because they treat Copy Trading as a yield management tool, completely ignoring strategy adaptation and capital risk.
When selecting a Master Trader, I generally do not look at short-term ROI rankings first.
The higher the short-term ROI, the more I need to break down the sources of that yield.
Is it stable compound interest, or did they just heavily invest in a single trend? Is the profit contributed by multiple trades balanced, or is it reliant on one or two large positions to pull the curve up?
If the profit curve is abnormally steep but the maximum drawdown is also deep, this type of account is essentially not a stable strategy, but a high-volatility strategy.
A more professional selection order should be:
First look at the maximum drawdown, then the profit curve; first look at the trading cycle, then the win rate; first look at position habits, then ROI.
｡..ꕤ••┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈••ꕤ..。
The win rate itself is not very meaningful.
A trader with an 80% win rate might only make a little profit each time but hold onto losses for a long time, and the last loss could wipe out the profits from the previous dozen trades.
Conversely, a trader with a lower win rate but a stable profit-loss ratio, clear stop-losses, and controllable drawdowns is more suitable for long-term observation.
So when everyone is copy trading, they also need to pay attention to several indicators.
1️⃣ Maximum drawdown.
It determines whether you can withstand this strategy. Many people only want to see profits but do not ask themselves if they can accept a floating loss of 10%, 20%, or even higher along the way. If both your psychology and capital cannot handle it, no matter how good the strategy is, you won't be able to stick with it.
2️⃣ Stability of the profit curve.
A truly healthy curve does not necessarily rise every day, but it cannot rely on a single large profit to repair a lot of previous losses for a long time. If the curve frequently shows vertical rises and rapid drawdowns, it indicates that the strategy is highly volatile, suitable for observation but not for heavy investment.
3️⃣ Trading frequency.
If the frequency is too low, there is insufficient data to judge whether the strategy is stable; if the frequency is too high, it can easily lead to issues with fees, slippage, and emotional trading. Copy trading is not just about copying direction; it also replicates trading rhythm. If the trader's rhythm is too aggressive, the volatility experienced by the follower's account will also be amplified.
4️⃣ Position logic.
Focus on whether they frequently add positions against the trend, whether they hold positions for a long time, and whether they expand positions during losses. If a Master Trader is accustomed to using position averaging instead of stop-losses, the curve may look good in the short term, but the tail risk will be heavy.
5️⃣ Capital scale and number of followers.
If the trading capital is too small, it indicates a limited sample; if the following capital suddenly surges, caution is needed because the strategy's capacity may be affected by slippage and execution differences after being amplified.
A strategy that performs well with small capital does not mean it will maintain the same performance under a larger following scale.
｡..ꕤ••┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈••ꕤ..。
In practice, I do not directly copy trade with full amounts but handle it in three steps.
The first step is to observe without heavy investment.
First, look at the Master Trader's recent trading style, whether it is trend breakout, range arbitrage, short-term high-frequency, or event-driven. Different strategies are suitable for different market environments; you cannot just look at results without considering applicable scenarios.
The second step is to test with small funds.
The testing period should cover at least a few complete trading cycles, rather than adding funds after seeing one or two profitable trades. During this phase, it is important to record the actual copy trading price differences, holding times, maximum floating losses, closing rhythms, and final profits. Because the results of copy trading do not necessarily equal the Master Trader's account performance, execution delays, slippage, order merging, and capital ratios can all affect the final outcome.
The third step is to decide whether to layer in more capital.
If the trial phase shows stable profits, controllable drawdowns, and no significant drift in trading logic, then consider increasing the capital allocation. But even if you add capital, it is not advisable to put all funds into a single Master Trader. A more reasonable approach is to build a copy trading portfolio, diversifying different styles of traders, such as trend-following, conservative, and low-frequency swing traders, each allocated a small percentage of funds.
I personally prefer to treat Copy Trading as a "strategy pool" rather than a single income source.
Core positions should be given to traders with controllable drawdowns, longer cycles, and stable styles; small positions can test high-yield but high-volatility traders; observation positions are used to verify whether new traders truly have sustained capabilities.
In position management, the most important thing is to set a loss boundary first, then discuss profit targets.
For example, before investing in a copy trading fund, first determine how much drawdown this portion of capital can accept at most. If you can only accept a 10% floating loss, do not follow traders whose maximum drawdown exceeds this level for a long time. Many people fail in copy trading because they try to follow high-volatility strategies with low-risk expectations, and when they encounter normal drawdowns, they cut losses and exit.
Stop-losses cannot be completely entrusted to the Master Trader. The trader has their own capital scale and risk tolerance, and your account size, psychological tolerance, and capital usage may not be the same. Therefore, in the copy trading parameters, the loss limit, single investment amount, leverage preference, and whether to allow automatic additions should all be set according to your own account situation, rather than defaulting to copy everything.
Another point that is easily overlooked: do not just look at profit screenshots; look at the complete cycle.
A single report can only indicate that money was made during a certain market period, but it does not prove that the strategy is effective in the long term. More valuable real trading reviews should include invested principal, copy trading cycle, actual yield rate, maximum floating loss, types of traders followed, whether there was manual intervention, and reasons for exit. Only when this information is put together does it have reference value.
If I want to filter out high-risk Master Traders, I will prioritize excluding several types:
Those with extremely high short-term ROI but very short historical cycles.
Those with a very high win rate but average losses significantly greater than average profits.
Those who do not stop losses for a long time and frequently add positions against the trend.
Those whose profit curves fluctuate greatly, relying entirely on heavy positions to recover drawdowns.
Those with sudden surges in the number of followers and capital, but whose strategy capacity has not been validated.
Those trading in overly diversified varieties, making it hard to see a stable methodology.
Truly worth continuous observation Master Traders usually do not rely on exaggerated profits to attract people, but rather retain them through strategy consistency. They may not make explosive profits every week, but you can see that their trading logic is relatively stable, risk management has boundaries, and after losses, they do not rely on doubling down to hold on, but rather slowly repair the curve through normal trading.
Therefore, the value of Bybit's one-click copy trading is not to let ordinary users bypass risks, but to present the performance of professional traders' strategies in a more transparent way, allowing users the opportunity to filter based on data.
But in the end, whether you can make money does not depend on whether you clicked "copy trading," but on whether you treat it as a trading system to manage.
My conclusion is simple: Copy Trading can lower the threshold for strategies, but it cannot lower risk awareness. It can help you replicate trading actions, but it cannot bear the drawdowns for you. True professional copy trading is not about rushing in just because someone has high returns, but first judging the sources of this strategy's profits, risk structure, drawdown boundaries, and whether it matches your own account.
One-click copy trading is not a lying-back profit button; it is more like a strategy market.
What you are buying is not the halo of a certain trader, but their trading logic, risk preference, and drawdown curve. Whether you can use Bybit Copy Trading well depends not on finding a "forever profitable person," but on establishing a process of filtering, trial following, reviewing, and adjusting positions.
There are no absolutely safe returns in the market, only clearer risk pricing. Copy trading is the same. Whoever first understands drawdowns, positions, and exit mechanisms is closer to truly sustainable profits.
The entire practical step-by-step tutorial for copy trading is also placed here👇
Isn't it true that many people think that copy trading is just about following the big players to make money, lying back and doing nothing but investing funds?
In fact, one-click copy trading is a trading mechanism that combines strategy outsourcing and risk self-control.
Users delegate entry and exit judgments to the Master Trader, but they are still responsible for fund allocation, copy trading ratios, stop-loss boundaries, observation periods, and whether to continue following.
So, copy trading is not stepping away from PVP, but rather changing the way PVP is conducted.
｡..ꕤ••┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈••ꕤ..。
When trading by oneself, PVP occurs between the order book, emotions, and judgment; in copy trading, PVP occurs between trader selection, position management, and drawdown tolerance.
Many people lose money in copy trading, not because the function is poor, but because they treat Copy Trading as a yield management tool, completely ignoring strategy adaptation and capital risk.
When selecting a Master Trader, I generally do not look at short-term ROI rankings first.
The higher the short-term ROI, the more I need to break down the sources of that yield.
Is it stable compound interest, or did they just heavily invest in a single trend? Is the profit contributed by multiple trades balanced, or is it reliant on one or two large positions to pull the curve up?
If the profit curve is abnormally steep but the maximum drawdown is also deep, this type of account is essentially not a stable strategy, but a high-volatility strategy.
A more professional selection order should be:
First look at the maximum drawdown, then the profit curve; first look at the trading cycle, then the win rate; first look at position habits, then ROI.
｡..ꕤ••┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈••ꕤ..。
The win rate itself is not very meaningful.
A trader with an 80% win rate might only make a little profit each time but hold onto losses for a long time, and the last loss could wipe out the profits from the previous dozen trades.
Conversely, a trader with a lower win rate but a stable profit-loss ratio, clear stop-losses, and controllable drawdowns is more suitable for long-term observation.
So when everyone is copy trading, they also need to pay attention to several indicators.
1️⃣ Maximum drawdown.
It determines whether you can withstand this strategy. Many people only want to see profits but do not ask themselves if they can accept a floating loss of 10%, 20%, or even higher along the way. If both your psychology and capital cannot handle it, no matter how good the strategy is, you won't be able to stick with it.
2️⃣ Stability of the profit curve.
A truly healthy curve does not necessarily rise every day, but it cannot rely on a single large profit to repair a lot of previous losses for a long time. If the curve frequently shows vertical rises and rapid drawdowns, it indicates that the strategy is highly volatile, suitable for observation but not for heavy investment.
3️⃣ Trading frequency.
If the frequency is too low, there is insufficient data to judge whether the strategy is stable; if the frequency is too high, it can easily lead to issues with fees, slippage, and emotional trading. Copy trading is not just about copying direction; it also replicates trading rhythm. If the trader's rhythm is too aggressive, the volatility experienced by the follower's account will also be amplified.
4️⃣ Position logic.
Focus on whether they frequently add positions against the trend, whether they hold positions for a long time, and whether they expand positions during losses. If a Master Trader is accustomed to using position averaging instead of stop-losses, the curve may look good in the short term, but the tail risk will be heavy.
5️⃣ Capital scale and number of followers.
If the trading capital is too small, it indicates a limited sample; if the following capital suddenly surges, caution is needed because the strategy's capacity may be affected by slippage and execution differences after being amplified.
A strategy that performs well with small capital does not mean it will maintain the same performance under a larger following scale.
｡..ꕤ••┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈••ꕤ..。
In practice, I do not directly copy trade with full amounts but handle it in three steps.
The first step is to observe without heavy investment.
First, look at the Master Trader's recent trading style, whether it is trend breakout, range arbitrage, short-term high-frequency, or event-driven. Different strategies are suitable for different market environments; you cannot just look at results without considering applicable scenarios.
The second step is to test with small funds.
The testing period should cover at least a few complete trading cycles, rather than adding funds after seeing one or two profitable trades. During this phase, it is important to record the actual copy trading price differences, holding times, maximum floating losses, closing rhythms, and final profits. Because the results of copy trading do not necessarily equal the Master Trader's account performance, execution delays, slippage, order merging, and capital ratios can all affect the final outcome.
The third step is to decide whether to layer in more capital.
If the trial phase shows stable profits, controllable drawdowns, and no significant drift in trading logic, then consider increasing the capital allocation. But even if you add capital, it is not advisable to put all funds into a single Master Trader. A more reasonable approach is to build a copy trading portfolio, diversifying different styles of traders, such as trend-following, conservative, and low-frequency swing traders, each allocated a small percentage of funds.
I personally prefer to treat Copy Trading as a "strategy pool" rather than a single income source.
Core positions should be given to traders with controllable drawdowns, longer cycles, and stable styles; small positions can test high-yield but high-volatility traders; observation positions are used to verify whether new traders truly have sustained capabilities.
In position management, the most important thing is to set a loss boundary first, then discuss profit targets.
For example, before investing in a copy trading fund, first determine how much drawdown this portion of capital can accept at most. If you can only accept a 10% floating loss, do not follow traders whose maximum drawdown exceeds this level for a long time. Many people fail in copy trading because they try to follow high-volatility strategies with low-risk expectations, and when they encounter normal drawdowns, they cut losses and exit.
Stop-losses cannot be completely entrusted to the Master Trader. The trader has their own capital scale and risk tolerance, and your account size, psychological tolerance, and capital usage may not be the same. Therefore, in the copy trading parameters, the loss limit, single investment amount, leverage preference, and whether to allow automatic additions should all be set according to your own account situation, rather than defaulting to copy everything.
Another point that is easily overlooked: do not just look at profit screenshots; look at the complete cycle.
A single report can only indicate that money was made during a certain market period, but it does not prove that the strategy is effective in the long term. More valuable real trading reviews should include invested principal, copy trading cycle, actual yield rate, maximum floating loss, types of traders followed, whether there was manual intervention, and reasons for exit. Only when this information is put together does it have reference value.
If I want to filter out high-risk Master Traders, I will prioritize excluding several types:
Those with extremely high short-term ROI but very short historical cycles.
Those with a very high win rate but average losses significantly greater than average profits.
Those who do not stop losses for a long time and frequently add positions against the trend.
Those whose profit curves fluctuate greatly, relying entirely on heavy positions to recover drawdowns.
Those with sudden surges in the number of followers and capital, but whose strategy capacity has not been validated.
Those trading in overly diversified varieties, making it hard to see a stable methodology.
Truly worth continuous observation Master Traders usually do not rely on exaggerated profits to attract people, but rather retain them through strategy consistency. They may not make explosive profits every week, but you can see that their trading logic is relatively stable, risk management has boundaries, and after losses, they do not rely on doubling down to hold on, but rather slowly repair the curve through normal trading.
Therefore, the value of Bybit's one-click copy trading is not to let ordinary users bypass risks, but to present the performance of professional traders' strategies in a more transparent way, allowing users the opportunity to filter based on data.
But in the end, whether you can make money does not depend on whether you clicked "copy trading," but on whether you treat it as a trading system to manage.
My conclusion is simple: Copy Trading can lower the threshold for strategies, but it cannot lower risk awareness. It can help you replicate trading actions, but it cannot bear the drawdowns for you. True professional copy trading is not about rushing in just because someone has high returns, but first judging the sources of this strategy's profits, risk structure, drawdown boundaries, and whether it matches your own account.
One-click copy trading is not a lying-back profit button; it is more like a strategy market.
What you are buying is not the halo of a certain trader, but their trading logic, risk preference, and drawdown curve. Whether you can use Bybit Copy Trading well depends not on finding a "forever profitable person," but on establishing a process of filtering, trial following, reviewing, and adjusting positions.
There are no absolutely safe returns in the market, only clearer risk pricing. Copy trading is the same. Whoever first understands drawdowns, positions, and exit mechanisms is closer to truly sustainable profits.
The entire practical step-by-step tutorial for copy trading is also placed here👇
Jeonlees
In a volatile market, what tests a person the most is not whether you can read K-lines, but whether you can control your position rhythm. This kind of market often gives people the illusion: a slight rise feels like a breakout, a slight drop feels like a turn to bearish, chasing in feels risky, and staying out feels like missing out.
So for conservative investors, the most realistic approach is not to guess the absolute low point, but to use a combination strategy to divide funds into three states: "offensive, waiting, and value appreciation."
💜 On Bybit, this idea can be broken down into DCA for phased positions + Earn for idle interest + core spot holdings.
The role of spot is to retain market participation rights first.
For core assets like BTC and ETH, if the long-term logic has not been broken, there is no need to wait for a perfect low point. Establishing a portion of the base position can avoid being completely left out when the market suddenly rebounds.
The role of DCA is to solve the buying rhythm.
In a volatile market, the pressure of one-time buying is very high, and buying high can easily lead to a collapse in mentality. Using Bybit's regular investment or phased buying tools to break funds into multiple entries can lower the average cost during fluctuations and reduce emotional interference during manual operations.
The role of Earn is to improve the efficiency of waiting funds.
Many people hold USDT waiting for a pullback, but end up waiting for a long time, with funds lying idle. Putting temporarily unused stablecoins into flexible financial products like Bybit Earn can at least yield some passive income, and when the market presents better positions, they can be withdrawn to supplement the position.
A simple example: if you have 10,000 USDT, you don't have to buy it all at once.
You can first use 3,000 USDT to build a BTC/ETH spot base;
Then take 4,000 USDT for DCA, for example, investing 500 USDT weekly, executing continuously;
The remaining 3,000 USDT can be placed in Earn as backup funds.
In this way, when the market rises, the spot base can keep up;
When the market falls, DCA can continue to lower costs;
When the market is sideways, the funds in Earn are not completely idle.
The key point of this example is not a fixed ratio, but the logic:
Do not let all funds be in the same state.
Full spot positions have too much volatility pressure; putting everything in Earn can easily lead to missing opportunities; only doing DCA does not maximize fund efficiency.
Combining the three makes the account more like a cyclical system.
When the market corrects, take some funds from Earn to continue DCA; when the spot generates profits, you can take partial profits in batches and put them back into Earn; when the market continues to fluctuate, let DCA and Earn work simultaneously. This way, the sources of income are not just from "price increases," but also from idle funds earning interest and cost optimization from phased positions.
However, this strategy also has boundaries.
⚠️ DCA is not suitable for randomly investing in small coins; it is best used for assets with strong liquidity and high consensus like BTC and ETH.
Earn should not only look at APR but also consider the term, redemption rules, and product risks. The spot base should not be neglected; it is best to set a profit-taking range in advance, such as selling part of it when floating profits reach a certain percentage and putting the profits back into the earning pool.
What I understand by "trading profits + idle interest" is not simply buying coins while managing finances, but ensuring that funds have positions in different market stages.
When the market rises, there are spots to capture trends; when the market falls, DCA can gradually accumulate; when the market is sideways, Earn can improve fund utilization.
In a volatile market, what truly matters is not buying at the lowest point every time, but not letting positions run wild with emotions.
The DCA + Earn + spot combination from @Bybit_Official is suitable for conservative investors who do not want to go all in or stay completely out.
It does not pursue huge profits at once, but can make long-term holdings more disciplined and easier to navigate through the market's repeated pulls.
I hope everyone can find an investment method that suits them, and wish everyone wealth soon 🌷
Does the Hong Kong stock IPO success rate relate to the choice of brokerage firm?
Yesterday, everyone should have seen screenshots of the successful IPO allocations for Xizhi Technology shared everywhere by Futu, Yingli, Huili, Stable, etc. To be honest, I really envy that, but I didn't see any screenshots shared by Changqiao Securities.
So, some friends asked, does the Hong Kong stock IPO success rate really relate to the choice of brokerage firm?
Yes, there is a relationship, but it’s not the kind of relationship where "choosing a certain brokerage can increase your chances of success" as people might think.
The core of the Hong Kong IPO success rate mainly depends on the public offering allocation rules of the new stock itself, subscription multiples, Group A/Group B allocation, the reallocation mechanism, and the tier you apply for.
The Hong Kong Stock Exchange's information also clearly states that retail investors can submit EIPO applications through brokers or custodians, and the successfully allocated shares will enter the corresponding participant's account via HKSCC/CCASS;
this means that brokers are more of a "subscription channel" rather than the judges of your success rate.
The aspects that are truly related to brokers mainly include:
1️⃣ Brokers affect whether you can grab an allocation
For popular new stocks, the financing quota is limited. Some brokers have large financing quotas and quick disbursement, allowing you to apply for higher tiers; while some brokers quickly reach their limits, forcing you to apply with cash or a smaller amount.
If the application tier changes, the success probability will naturally change.
2️⃣ Brokers affect financing costs
For the same new stock, Broker A has low financing rates and fees, while Broker B has high rates and fees.
The success results may be the same, but the final profit and loss could be completely different.
Especially in Hong Kong IPOs, a lot of times the profit comes from the small price difference on the first day of listing; after financing interest and fees take a portion, the returns can become significantly thinner.
3️⃣ Brokers affect dark market and selling experience
Some brokers support dark markets, while others do not;
some dark markets have good liquidity, while others do not.
If a popular stock has already risen a lot in the dark market, whether you can sell early, the speed of placing orders, and the stability of the system will all affect your final results.
4️⃣ Brokers affect refunds and capital turnover
Hong Kong IPOs often require quick capital turnover.
The speed of refunds, the time for funds to arrive, and whether they can be immediately used for the next new stock are very important for those who continuously participate in IPOs.
⚠️ One point to note: don’t think that one person can use multiple brokers to apply for the same new stock to increase the success rate.
Hong Kong new stocks usually identify duplicate or suspected duplicate applications, and related applications may be rejected.
Similar statements are often found in public offering documents: if more than one application is submitted for the same beneficiary through CCASS/EIPO and other channels, the application may be rejected.
So, in practice, it can be understood this way:
The success rate itself mainly looks at the popularity of the new stock and the application tier;
brokers mainly affect your application ability, costs, and selling efficiency.
If you are applying for new stocks with a small capital, you should pay more attention to these broker conditions:
Whether the financing quota is stable, whether the rates are low, whether the fees are transparent, whether they support dark markets, whether the system is stable on listing day, and how fast the refunds are.
It’s not about believing that "a certain broker guarantees success," but rather choosing a channel with low overall costs, high capital efficiency, and stable trading experience.
Jeonlees
What’s what, the A-shares new stock subscription has a winning bid of 300,000!!
Is it true or false?
The answer is true, but it’s far from as simple as we imagine.
This stock is the Sci-Tech Innovation Board new stock Lianxun Instruments, code 688808.
It’s not that “you need 300,000 to subscribe,” but rather that after winning a bid, the maximum floating profit on the first day of listing exceeded 300,000 at one point.
The issue price of Lianxun Instruments is 81.88 yuan/share, and one subscription on the Sci-Tech Innovation Board is 500 shares, so the actual payment for one subscription is approximately:
81.88 × 500 = 40,940 yuan
However, on the first day of listing, the price surged to over 800 yuan at one point, and based on the peak, the floating profit for one subscription is close to 380,000, which is why the market calls it a "big meat subscription."
💜 But here’s the key point: not everyone can subscribe.
A-shares new stock subscriptions mainly look at three conditions:
1️⃣ You need to have the corresponding market's stock value.
A-shares new stock subscriptions are not made with cash directly; it depends on whether you have stock value in your account in the Shanghai or Shenzhen markets.
Generally speaking, the higher the stock value you hold, the higher the subscription limit.
2️⃣ The Sci-Tech Innovation Board requires separate permissions.
Lianxun Instruments is a Sci-Tech Innovation Board stock, and ordinary accounts cannot subscribe directly.
Typically, you need to have account assets of around 500,000 and at least 2 years of trading experience to open the Sci-Tech Innovation Board permissions.
3️⃣ The winning rate is very low.
Just because you qualify for popular new stocks doesn’t mean you will win; most people are just running alongside. What you see is others winning a subscription and making hundreds of thousands, but behind that are many accounts that did not win.
Compared to Hong Kong stock new subscriptions, the differences are also very clear.
A-shares new stock subscriptions are more like a "market value ticket system":
You must first hold A-shares market value to have a subscription limit, pay after winning a bid, and the capital occupation is relatively low, but the threshold is high, especially for the Sci-Tech Innovation Board and the Growth Enterprise Market which have permission requirements.
Hong Kong stock new subscriptions are more like a "cash subscription system":
You use cash to subscribe, and you can finance for new subscriptions, which seems to have a lower threshold, but it occupies capital and also has handling fees, financing interest, and the risk of price drop.
So the core of this Lianxun Instruments is not the "300,000 threshold for one subscription," but rather:
The cost for one subscription is about 40,000, and the maximum floating profit on the first day of listing is over 300,000.
But for ordinary people wanting to participate, they must first solve:
Do they have Sci-Tech Innovation Board permissions? Do they have Shanghai market value? Can they win a bid?
In short, A-shares new stock subscriptions do have opportunities, but it’s not free money. It’s a competition of account thresholds, market value allocation, and luck.
Lianxun Instruments’ big meat subscription is very appealing, but it belongs to a minority of cases and cannot be considered a stable profit model.
So, do you all understand? 👀
In a volatile market, what tests a person the most is not whether you can read K-lines, but whether you can control your position rhythm. This kind of market often gives people the illusion: a slight rise feels like a breakout, a slight drop feels like a turn to bearish, chasing in feels risky, and staying out feels like missing out.
So for conservative investors, the most realistic approach is not to guess the absolute low point, but to use a combination strategy to divide funds into three states: "offensive, waiting, and value appreciation."
💜 On Bybit, this idea can be broken down into DCA for phased positions + Earn for idle interest + core spot holdings.
The role of spot is to retain market participation rights first.
For core assets like BTC and ETH, if the long-term logic has not been broken, there is no need to wait for a perfect low point. Establishing a portion of the base position can avoid being completely left out when the market suddenly rebounds.
The role of DCA is to solve the buying rhythm.
In a volatile market, the pressure of one-time buying is very high, and buying high can easily lead to a collapse in mentality. Using Bybit's regular investment or phased buying tools to break funds into multiple entries can lower the average cost during fluctuations and reduce emotional interference during manual operations.
The role of Earn is to improve the efficiency of waiting funds.
Many people hold USDT waiting for a pullback, but end up waiting for a long time, with funds lying idle. Putting temporarily unused stablecoins into flexible financial products like Bybit Earn can at least yield some passive income, and when the market presents better positions, they can be withdrawn to supplement the position.
A simple example: if you have 10,000 USDT, you don't have to buy it all at once.
You can first use 3,000 USDT to build a BTC/ETH spot base;
Then take 4,000 USDT for DCA, for example, investing 500 USDT weekly, executing continuously;
The remaining 3,000 USDT can be placed in Earn as backup funds.
In this way, when the market rises, the spot base can keep up;
When the market falls, DCA can continue to lower costs;
When the market is sideways, the funds in Earn are not completely idle.
The key point of this example is not a fixed ratio, but the logic:
Do not let all funds be in the same state.
Full spot positions have too much volatility pressure; putting everything in Earn can easily lead to missing opportunities; only doing DCA does not maximize fund efficiency.
Combining the three makes the account more like a cyclical system.
When the market corrects, take some funds from Earn to continue DCA; when the spot generates profits, you can take partial profits in batches and put them back into Earn; when the market continues to fluctuate, let DCA and Earn work simultaneously. This way, the sources of income are not just from "price increases," but also from idle funds earning interest and cost optimization from phased positions.
However, this strategy also has boundaries.
⚠️ DCA is not suitable for randomly investing in small coins; it is best used for assets with strong liquidity and high consensus like BTC and ETH.
Earn should not only look at APR but also consider the term, redemption rules, and product risks. The spot base should not be neglected; it is best to set a profit-taking range in advance, such as selling part of it when floating profits reach a certain percentage and putting the profits back into the earning pool.
What I understand by "trading profits + idle interest" is not simply buying coins while managing finances, but ensuring that funds have positions in different market stages.
When the market rises, there are spots to capture trends; when the market falls, DCA can gradually accumulate; when the market is sideways, Earn can improve fund utilization.
In a volatile market, what truly matters is not buying at the lowest point every time, but not letting positions run wild with emotions.
The DCA + Earn + spot combination from @Bybit_Official is suitable for conservative investors who do not want to go all in or stay completely out.
It does not pursue huge profits at once, but can make long-term holdings more disciplined and easier to navigate through the market's repeated pulls.
I hope everyone can find an investment method that suits them, and wish everyone wealth soon 🌷
Jeonlees
今天摸索创建机器人的时候，刷到了Bybit的帮助中心，被统一交易账户（UTA）这个功能彻底吸引住了。
UTA是干啥的？
就是直接把现货、杠杆、永续、交割、期权 这些全塞进一个账户，保证金共享、未实现盈亏实时抵扣，资金利用率一下子就上来了。
实操升级步骤👇
就在App资产页点“统一交易账户”→“立即升级”
系统自动把Spot和衍生品余额合并成一个USD计价的保证金池，支持70多种币做抵押品，USDT/USDC 100%抵扣，BTC/ETH 95%，小币也有折扣率。
升级完后，现货BTC直接就能当永续合约的保证金用，不用再手动转账。
在Cross和Portfolio模式下，
Margin Balance = 钱包余额 + 未实现P&L - 借币金额。
现货浮盈能直接用来扛合约风险，或者开新仓。
三种保证金模式切换也方便，在交易页或资产设置里点一下就行，
默认是Cross：Isolated（逐仓）：每个仓独立算风险，适合新手或单品种重仓，不会拖累全局。我刚上手时就用这个练手，安心。
Cross（全仓，默认）：全账户资产和P&L统一抵消，现货赚的能直接补合约亏的。借币还能自动还款，大多数日常操作够用。
Portfolio（组合）：专业向。用压力测试看整个投资组合的净风险敞口，对冲做得好，保证金占用能砍一大半。比如现货多头配永续空头对冲，初始保证金要求比Cross低不少。
切换有条件：
1️⃣Cross要求长短仓杠杆和风险限额一致；
2️⃣Portfolio切换前得先平掉期权挂单和未还借币。
⚠️大家切的时候就得非常注意，一定要看清楚了再去划转，避免踩坑。
如果出现在实战里现货怎么“救”合约
例如在BTC那波小闪崩里。
账户里有现货BTC，同时开着USDT永续多头。传统老账户的话，合约保证金快不够了得手动转币、卖现货，滑点一吃就肉疼。
UTA Cross模式下，现货BTC直接95%计入总保证金，浮亏来的时候系统自动用现货价值+浮盈顶上，整体MMR一直没到100%，没触发清算。
Portfolio模式更聪明，它算净风险敞口，我现货多头天然对冲了部分合约，占用保证金直接降下来。
整个过程零转账、零手动，手机上点两下还能顺手加仓。
期权那边也一样。卖看跌期权收权利金，同时用USDC永续对冲Delta，Portfolio模式里期权价值和现货/永续P&L统一算，保证金占用比Cross省不少。
做期现套利的朋友应该最爱这个，资金周转率直接上台阶。极端行情下的缓冲加密市场最怕连锁爆仓。
UTA的维护保证金率（MMR）是账户级的，只要整体没到100%，系统就不清算，所有产品P&L能互补。
Cross和Portfolio模式下，现货资产成了天然的“保险”。另外还有手动/自动借币，2026年4月还上线了固定利率借币，能提前锁成本，浮盈回来自动还，利息可控。
我自己没赶上大黑天鹅，但从官方逻辑看，对冲组合在压力测试下风险敞口明显更小。
长期持仓的兄弟们尤其爽，不用天天盯着转账，策略能连贯跑下去。长期交易者的真香点波段、趋势、套利这些“熬时间”的策略，最吃资金效率。
UTA把闲置资金变活钱，未实现盈利直接再投资，零转账损耗，子账户还能隔离实验高杠杆。自定义抵押品也能剔掉高风险币，精准控风险。
我升级后最大的感觉是心理负担轻了。一眼看全账户风险，不再为“钱到底在哪个账户”纠结。资金利用率从以前的碎片化，变成真正的乘数效应。
总之，Bybit UTA不是花里胡哨的新功能，它直接把资金壁垒砸了，把利用率拉到新高度。想试的可以去资产页点升级，先读读风险提示，杠杆交易风险高，仓位控制好，DYOR。@Bybit_Official
What’s what, the A-shares new stock subscription has a winning bid of 300,000!!
Is it true or false?
The answer is true, but it’s far from as simple as we imagine.
This stock is the Sci-Tech Innovation Board new stock Lianxun Instruments, code 688808.
It’s not that “you need 300,000 to subscribe,” but rather that after winning a bid, the maximum floating profit on the first day of listing exceeded 300,000 at one point.
The issue price of Lianxun Instruments is 81.88 yuan/share, and one subscription on the Sci-Tech Innovation Board is 500 shares, so the actual payment for one subscription is approximately:
81.88 × 500 = 40,940 yuan
However, on the first day of listing, the price surged to over 800 yuan at one point, and based on the peak, the floating profit for one subscription is close to 380,000, which is why the market calls it a "big meat subscription."
💜 But here’s the key point: not everyone can subscribe.
A-shares new stock subscriptions mainly look at three conditions:
1️⃣ You need to have the corresponding market's stock value.
A-shares new stock subscriptions are not made with cash directly; it depends on whether you have stock value in your account in the Shanghai or Shenzhen markets.
Generally speaking, the higher the stock value you hold, the higher the subscription limit.
2️⃣ The Sci-Tech Innovation Board requires separate permissions.
Lianxun Instruments is a Sci-Tech Innovation Board stock, and ordinary accounts cannot subscribe directly.
Typically, you need to have account assets of around 500,000 and at least 2 years of trading experience to open the Sci-Tech Innovation Board permissions.
3️⃣ The winning rate is very low.
Just because you qualify for popular new stocks doesn’t mean you will win; most people are just running alongside. What you see is others winning a subscription and making hundreds of thousands, but behind that are many accounts that did not win.
Compared to Hong Kong stock new subscriptions, the differences are also very clear.
A-shares new stock subscriptions are more like a "market value ticket system":
You must first hold A-shares market value to have a subscription limit, pay after winning a bid, and the capital occupation is relatively low, but the threshold is high, especially for the Sci-Tech Innovation Board and the Growth Enterprise Market which have permission requirements.
Hong Kong stock new subscriptions are more like a "cash subscription system":
You use cash to subscribe, and you can finance for new subscriptions, which seems to have a lower threshold, but it occupies capital and also has handling fees, financing interest, and the risk of price drop.
So the core of this Lianxun Instruments is not the "300,000 threshold for one subscription," but rather:
The cost for one subscription is about 40,000, and the maximum floating profit on the first day of listing is over 300,000.
But for ordinary people wanting to participate, they must first solve:
Do they have Sci-Tech Innovation Board permissions? Do they have Shanghai market value? Can they win a bid?
In short, A-shares new stock subscriptions do have opportunities, but it’s not free money. It’s a competition of account thresholds, market value allocation, and luck.
Lianxun Instruments’ big meat subscription is very appealing, but it belongs to a minority of cases and cannot be considered a stable profit model.
So, do you all understand? 👀
Jeonlees
It's really hard to get a subscription in the Hong Kong stock market, can the subscription rate be improved?
This is probably a question that troubles many people, and recently new stocks have been continuously listed, so how can we improve the subscription rate in the Hong Kong stock market? 🤔
After the new regulations come into effect in 2025, mechanism B has become mainstream—public subscription shares are directly locked at 10%, with no reallocation. Popular stocks can be oversubscribed by thousands of times, and the subscription rate for one lot often drops below 1%, even to 0.x%.
But don't be discouraged, the subscription rate can definitely be improved. It's not a mystery, but relies on mechanism + tools + execution. Many veterans have also increased their effective subscription rates by 2-5 times, or even more, through a combination of strategies!!!!
First, we need to understand the mechanism; otherwise, the strategy is useless👇
Hong Kong stock public subscription is divided into:
Group A (subscription < 5 million HKD);
Group B (≥ 5 million), each accounting for half of the shares.
Group A is the main battlefield for retail investors, using a decreasing allocation:
The fewer lots you have, the higher the probability of winning a subscription for each lot, aiming to let more people at least win one lot.
Group B is the "big investor area"; the more you subscribe, the more you get, but the marginal efficiency will decrease.
💜 Winning a subscription relies on a lottery, not just pure proportion, so diversifying small amounts is often smarter than maxing out a single account.
Under mechanism B, since the public shares are fixed, oversubscription doesn't help, which is why winning a subscription is so competitive now.
Four practical methods (using combinations can double the effect)
1️⃣ Margin leverage: the most direct amplifier
Now over 90% of new stock users are using this.
Securities platforms often offer 10x, 50x, or even higher leverage for popular stocks, and many times the interest is low enough to be negligible (or zero interest).
For example: 100,000 own funds + 10x leverage = 1,000,000 subscription amount,
which is equivalent to buying 9 times more "lottery tickets".
In practice: small and medium funds using leverage to push into Group B can significantly increase the subscription amount. Especially for hot stocks that are expected to perform well on the first day, this tactic is the most effective.
2️⃣ Real multiple family accounts: legal "human sea"
The FINI system blocks the same person from having multiple accounts, but it's completely fine to open accounts for spouses, parents, and adult children. This is why there are hundreds or thousands of accounts.
Each small account in Group A can enjoy higher decreasing dividends.
3 accounts with 1-2 lots usually yield a higher total subscription amount than one large account.
Mobilizing the whole family, 100,000 funds spread across several accounts can significantly increase the overall winning rate.
⚠️ Must be real funds and real beneficiaries; absolutely no borrowing accounts or holding for others. Violations will lead to disqualification and potential trouble.
3️⃣ Stock selection + amount optimization: avoiding pitfalls is better than hard charging
The hotter the stock, the more people there are; everyone shouldn't just focus on the "top flow" with oversubscription of thousands of times, as the subscription rate is too low.
Prioritize looking at oversubscription < 100-200 times, with a larger issuance volume and decent fundamentals.
Use the IPO prediction tools from brokers (most securities companies have "steady one lot" suggestions) to accurately allocate lots and avoid wasting funds.
Diversifying subscriptions across multiple new stocks increases cumulative winning opportunities, rather than going all in on one.
Moderate sprinting in Group B (suitable for those with a bit more funds)
Under popular stocks, Group A is increasingly just a backup.
Some veterans concentrate their funds in Group B, using leverage to target higher tiers.
But this requires judgment on individual stocks; otherwise, winning but facing a drop in price would be awkward.
⚠️ Must mention the risks and bottom line: leverage is not a free lunch:
If you can't win or the listing drops, you bear the interest + losses yourself.
So everyone must control the ratio and leave buffer funds.
If everyone keeps failing to win subscriptions, don't be too anxious,
Winning subscriptions is essentially a game of probability + discipline.
Participate rationally, control your positions, and I wish everyone more good subscriptions in 2026!
(For reference only, investment carries risks, and entering the market requires caution)
