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"?
Today I checked the timeline, one is that Doubao has started charging, and the other is that Billions can check eligibility, but the airdrop can't be claimed and can only be forcibly locked. It seems like there's nothing else.
But back then I didn't say anything about Billions, I thought I had plenty of time, that I could make it, who knew Kaito changed dramatically overnight... Sigh, so now I cherish every opportunity to speak up.
Real construction projects are so easily countered, it's really a bit exhausting.
I will never have expectations for any project beyond making money again!
I hope @TermMaxFi builds well and gives everyone a big surprise.
TermMax does fixed-rate lending, the core is to let borrowers know the cost of funds in advance, allowing lenders to judge the profit boundaries ahead of time.
This direction isn't flashy, but it's very practical for those doing leverage, cyclical strategies, and stablecoin financing.
However, fixed rates also have an awkward point: what happens after maturity?
If every time you have to manually exit, reopen positions, recalculate rates, and bear slippage and operational risks, then while fixed rates are stable, the experience isn't smooth. Especially when the market is volatile, the biggest fear in fund management is operational interruptions.
So TermMax's One-Click Rollover is worth watching.
It's not just about "clicking a few less times"; it allows users to smoothly continue fixed-rate positions, turning one-time lending operations into continuous fund management. Borrowers can more easily roll over their funding costs, and lenders can more naturally continue their profit strategies.
Of course, one-click renewal doesn't mean there's no risk. The new term's interest rate, pool depth, collateral volatility, and exit liquidity still need to be clearly understood. Simplifying the function doesn't mean the strategy can be used blindly.
But the direction is right.
For fixed-rate DeFi to really grow, it can't just solve "how much to borrow now, and what the interest rate is"; it also needs to address "how to manage after maturity." The value of TermMax's One-Click Rollover lies here: it's not a flashy feature, but it fills the most realistic gap in fixed-rate lending.
In the end, DeFi isn't about who has the most buttons, but about who can make funds flow more stably and predictably.
Jeonlees
This time, Tianxing Medical has again made a big profit from the lottery.
Friends in the group sold over 20,000, I'm so envious I'm crying, boo hoo hoo hoo.
As for this #LedoRobot-B, let's get to the conclusion first: conservatives do not recommend participating, but I will still go for it, though I will subscribe with cash.
One lot is 6060.51 HKD, with 200 shares per lot.
The offering price is 24-30 HKD.
1️⃣ The sponsorship background is decent: Haitong International + Guotai Junan International.
This time, the co-sponsors are Haitong International Capital and Guotai Junan Financing.
These two names are not weak in the Hong Kong IPO market, especially for stocks related to robots and hard technology. With leading Chinese investment banks backing it, at least the market acceptance won't be too bad.
2️⃣ There aren't many cornerstone investors, but the amount is substantial.
This time, Kang Cheng Heng Yuan Investment Co., Ltd. has been introduced as a cornerstone investor, with a subscription amount of about 277 million HKD. Based on the midpoint price of 27 HKD, it subscribes for approximately 10.2592 million shares, accounting for about 3.08% of the total capital after the global offering is completed.
3️⃣ The public offering volume is not large, making it easy to speculate.
The global offering is 33.334 million H-shares, with the initial Hong Kong public offering only having 3.334 million shares, accounting for 10%, which is about 16,667 lots.
According to the current situation, the subscription is 1010.99 times, which is quite popular.
However, it will be harder to win the lottery.
4️⃣ The company's background is not a shell: it focuses on robotic visual perception.
Ledo Robot is working on the "eyes" of robots, with a core focus on visual perception and LiDAR technology, used in scenarios like floor-cleaning robots, lawn-mowing robots, delivery robots, and inspection robots.
This direction is indeed in demand right now, which is why I'm considering participating. Robots, AI hardware, and embodied intelligence are all likely to attract funding as long as market sentiment isn't too poor.
5️⃣ The data is promising, but it hasn't made a profit yet.
From 2023 to 2025, the company's revenue is expected to grow from 277 million to 748 million RMB, with the number of intelligent robots equipped with its visual perception technology exceeding 9 million units by 2025, and DTOF LiDAR shipments exceeding 720,000 units.
This indicates that it is not just a pure PPT company; it has actual shipments, customers, and scale.
⚠️ But the problem is clear: the company is still in the red. Rapid revenue growth does not mean profits are already coming in. Hardware companies fear that while revenue looks good, R&D, production capacity, and sales expenses will also rise, and in the end, the market might say "valuation is high," causing the stock price to be pressed down.
6️⃣ The fundraising purpose leans towards expansion, indicating that it will continue to burn cash.
The net fundraising amount is expected to be about 827 million HKD, with approximately 45% used to enhance the R&D of intelligent robot visual perception technology, about 30% for optimizing production capacity and expansion, and about 10% for brand building and international expansion. This purpose is quite normal, but it also indicates that it is still in a growth and expansion phase, not immediately entering a stable dividend-paying and profit-making company.
The advantages of Ledo Robot are: strong sponsors, substantial cornerstone amounts, small public offering volume, hot robot themes, and supported revenue and shipment data.
The risks are: not yet profitable, hardware expansion burning cash, and valuation relying on growth expectations, with the listing performance heavily influenced by dark market and same-day sentiment.
So, conservatives are not advised to participate, especially since there are many stocks preparing to go public this year, so everyone doesn't need to participate in every stock; if you seek stability, just wait for the next opportunity. 🥰
My personal operational advice is to participate rationally and DYOR.
This time, Tianxing Medical has again made a big profit from the lottery.
Friends in the group sold over 20,000, I'm so envious I'm crying, boo hoo hoo hoo.
As for this #LedoRobot-B, let's get to the conclusion first: conservatives do not recommend participating, but I will still go for it, though I will subscribe with cash.
One lot is 6060.51 HKD, with 200 shares per lot.
The offering price is 24-30 HKD.
1️⃣ The sponsorship background is decent: Haitong International + Guotai Junan International.
This time, the co-sponsors are Haitong International Capital and Guotai Junan Financing.
These two names are not weak in the Hong Kong IPO market, especially for stocks related to robots and hard technology. With leading Chinese investment banks backing it, at least the market acceptance won't be too bad.
2️⃣ There aren't many cornerstone investors, but the amount is substantial.
This time, Kang Cheng Heng Yuan Investment Co., Ltd. has been introduced as a cornerstone investor, with a subscription amount of about 277 million HKD. Based on the midpoint price of 27 HKD, it subscribes for approximately 10.2592 million shares, accounting for about 3.08% of the total capital after the global offering is completed.
3️⃣ The public offering volume is not large, making it easy to speculate.
The global offering is 33.334 million H-shares, with the initial Hong Kong public offering only having 3.334 million shares, accounting for 10%, which is about 16,667 lots.
According to the current situation, the subscription is 1010.99 times, which is quite popular.
However, it will be harder to win the lottery.
4️⃣ The company's background is not a shell: it focuses on robotic visual perception.
Ledo Robot is working on the "eyes" of robots, with a core focus on visual perception and LiDAR technology, used in scenarios like floor-cleaning robots, lawn-mowing robots, delivery robots, and inspection robots.
This direction is indeed in demand right now, which is why I'm considering participating. Robots, AI hardware, and embodied intelligence are all likely to attract funding as long as market sentiment isn't too poor.
5️⃣ The data is promising, but it hasn't made a profit yet.
From 2023 to 2025, the company's revenue is expected to grow from 277 million to 748 million RMB, with the number of intelligent robots equipped with its visual perception technology exceeding 9 million units by 2025, and DTOF LiDAR shipments exceeding 720,000 units.
This indicates that it is not just a pure PPT company; it has actual shipments, customers, and scale.
⚠️ But the problem is clear: the company is still in the red. Rapid revenue growth does not mean profits are already coming in. Hardware companies fear that while revenue looks good, R&D, production capacity, and sales expenses will also rise, and in the end, the market might say "valuation is high," causing the stock price to be pressed down.
6️⃣ The fundraising purpose leans towards expansion, indicating that it will continue to burn cash.
The net fundraising amount is expected to be about 827 million HKD, with approximately 45% used to enhance the R&D of intelligent robot visual perception technology, about 30% for optimizing production capacity and expansion, and about 10% for brand building and international expansion. This purpose is quite normal, but it also indicates that it is still in a growth and expansion phase, not immediately entering a stable dividend-paying and profit-making company.
The advantages of Ledo Robot are: strong sponsors, substantial cornerstone amounts, small public offering volume, hot robot themes, and supported revenue and shipment data.
The risks are: not yet profitable, hardware expansion burning cash, and valuation relying on growth expectations, with the listing performance heavily influenced by dark market and same-day sentiment.
So, conservatives are not advised to participate, especially since there are many stocks preparing to go public this year, so everyone doesn't need to participate in every stock; if you seek stability, just wait for the next opportunity. 🥰
My personal operational advice is to participate rationally and DYOR.
I thought everyone would be resting during the May Day holiday, but in fact, everyone is quietly working hard.
In the fourth quarter of memex, everyone takes a break, but I didn't expect to be replying until midnight yesterday, and today my ranking didn't even make it to the top 30. I'm exhausted.
After the puzzle task for Termmax ends, I wonder if there will be any news about TGE, so until it's announced, I can only push for 100k MP again. Right now, I only have 72k MP. I saw someone say that 10,000 MP is equivalent to 80 U, so I will push for one more wave!!
When I saw TermMax post 1,163,433 users and counting, my first reaction wasn't "this project is taking off," but rather to raise a question mark: out of these 1.16 million, how many are actually using fixed-rate lending?
This isn't to rain on the parade. The number of users in on-chain projects should be viewed with scrutiny. Task interactions, event addresses, and one-time wallets can all be counted. So this number cannot be directly equated to real lending users, nor can it be directly equated to a product that has been successfully implemented.
But it still has signal significance.
Because what TermMax is doing is not the kind of product that can be picked up in three seconds, but rather fixed-rate lending. This sector itself has a threshold; users need to understand why they need to lock in rates, for how long, how costs are calculated, and how to handle maturity. The fact that they can reach 1.16 million users at least indicates that fixed-rate DeFi is moving from a niche concept into a broader user testing phase.
I think the real point of interest for TermMax is not "the user numbers look good," but whether it can convert these users into real demand.
In the past, DeFi lending was mostly floating rates, which is simple but unstable. Today, borrowing costs may be acceptable, but tomorrow, if market funds tighten, rates could change drastically. For those engaging in leverage, yield strategies, and collateral financing, the biggest fear is not high rates, but uncertainty.
TermMax addresses this pain point: fixed terms and fixed rates allow borrowers to know their funding costs in advance, and also clarify the profit boundaries for lenders. This isn't as exciting, but it resembles a true funding management tool.
So I won't interpret this dynamic as TermMax having already won, but rather that it has obtained a ticket to enter the game.
What we need to watch next is not how much the user numbers continue to grow, but the depth of the term pool, real lending volume, user reuse rate, and whether features like Vault and one-click leverage are being used continuously. If it's just a one-time interaction brought by an event, then the excitement will pass; if users really start using fixed rates to manage funding costs, then TermMax's value will shift from "telling a story" to "having real lending demand."
DeFi is ultimately very realistic.
User numbers can look good, narratives can be lively, but whether funds are willing to stay is the final vote.
Jeonlees
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.
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👇
