Jeonlees

Seriously stroke your hair

979Following

1.3Kfollowers

Feed

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👇

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

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👇

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.

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? 👀

Today, while exploring the creation of a robot, I stumbled upon Bybit's help center and was completely captivated by the Unified Trading Account (UTA) feature. What is UTA for? It directly combines spot, leverage, perpetual, delivery, and options all into one account, sharing margin, and real-time deduction of unrealized profits and losses, significantly increasing capital utilization. Operational upgrade steps👇 Just go to the App asset page and click "Unified Trading Account" → "Upgrade Now" The system automatically merges the Spot and derivatives balances into a USD-denominated margin pool, supporting over 70 coins as collateral, with 100% deduction for USDT/USDC, 95% for BTC/ETH, and discounts for smaller coins. After the upgrade, spot BTC can directly be used as margin for perpetual contracts without needing to transfer manually. In Cross and Portfolio modes, Margin Balance = Wallet Balance + Unrealized P&L - Borrowed Amount. Spot floating profits can be directly used to cover contract risks or open new positions. Switching between the three margin modes is also convenient; just click in the trading page or asset settings, The default is Cross: Isolated (per position): Each position calculates risk independently, suitable for beginners or heavy positions in a single asset, without dragging down the overall situation. I used this to practice when I first started, feeling secure. Cross (full account, default): All account assets and P&L offset each other, allowing spot profits to directly cover contract losses. Borrowed coins can also be automatically repaid, sufficient for most daily operations. Portfolio (combination): Professional-oriented. Use stress testing to see the net risk exposure of the entire investment portfolio; good hedging can significantly reduce margin usage. For example, a long spot position paired with a short perpetual hedge has a much lower initial margin requirement than Cross. Switching has conditions: 1️⃣ Cross requires consistent leverage and risk limits for long and short positions; 2️⃣ Portfolio switching must first close options orders and unpaid borrowed coins. ⚠️ Everyone needs to be very careful when switching; make sure to check clearly before transferring to avoid pitfalls. If it appears in practice, how to "save" contracts with spot For example, during the small flash crash of BTC. If there is spot BTC in the account while holding a USDT perpetual long. In a traditional old account, if the contract margin is running low, you have to manually transfer coins or sell spot, and the slippage can be painful. In UTA Cross mode, spot BTC is directly counted as 95% of the total margin, and when floating losses occur, the system automatically uses the spot value + floating profits to cover, keeping the overall MMR below 100%, avoiding liquidation. The Portfolio mode is smarter; it calculates net risk exposure, and my long spot position naturally hedges part of the contract, directly reducing margin usage. The entire process involves zero transfers and zero manual operations; with just a couple of taps on the phone, you can also conveniently increase your position. The same goes for options. Selling put options to collect premiums while using USDC perpetual to hedge Delta, in Portfolio mode, the value of options and spot/perpetual P&L is calculated together, significantly reducing margin usage compared to Cross. Friends doing arbitrage should love this the most; the capital turnover rate directly improves. In extreme market conditions, the buffer is crucial as the crypto market fears chain liquidations. The maintenance margin rate (MMR) of UTA is account-level; as long as the overall is below 100%, the system will not liquidate, allowing all products' P&L to offset each other. In Cross and Portfolio modes, spot assets become a natural "insurance." Additionally, there are manual/automatic borrowing options, and in April 2026, fixed-rate borrowing will be launched, allowing for cost locking in advance, automatic repayment of floating profits, and controllable interest. I personally didn't catch the big black swan, but from the official logic, the hedging portfolio shows significantly smaller risk exposure under stress testing. Long-term holders will especially enjoy this, as they don't have to monitor transfers daily, allowing strategies to run coherently. Long-term traders' sweet spots like swing trading, trends, and arbitrage strategies that require "time" benefit the most from capital efficiency. UTA turns idle funds into active money, allowing unrealized profits to be reinvested, with zero transfer losses, and sub-accounts can isolate experiments with high leverage. Custom collateral can also exclude high-risk coins, precisely controlling risk. After upgrading, my biggest feeling is that the psychological burden has lightened. I can see the overall account risk at a glance, no longer tangled over "where exactly is the money." Capital utilization has transformed from fragmentation to a true multiplier effect. In short, Bybit UTA is not a flashy new feature; it directly breaks down capital barriers and raises utilization to new heights. If you want to try it, go to the asset page and click upgrade, but first read the risk warnings; leverage trading is risky, manage your positions well, and DYOR. @Bybit_Official

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)

Hong Kong Stock IPO: How to Determine Whether to Subscribe to a Stock Recently, many of you may have come across cases where subscribing to a Hong Kong stock has resulted in profits ranging from thousands to tens of thousands of Hong Kong dollars. However, traditional industries or newly listed stocks with high valuations have also frequently experienced price drops, so subscribing to Hong Kong stocks is not a blind act. Cherish every opportunity to win a subscription and avoid capital loss. Currently, the Hong Kong IPO market in 2026 remains active, with fundraising exceeding HKD 100 billion in the first quarter, and the hard technology sector performing exceptionally well, while the traditional sector has a nearly 50% rate of price drops. So here’s a practical method for subscribing to Hong Kong stocks: Screening process, 5-minute scoring system, key points for placing orders, and exit discipline. By strictly following these steps, you can increase your success rate from about 50% with random subscriptions to over 80%. (Or follow @jeonleetogether, who will analyze and share personal operation steps before each new stock subscription 😁) ⚠️ And definitely avoid financing to chase after unpopular stocks. Here are the steps 👇 Step 1: Efficiently screen the new stock pool in 5 minutes Open the securities app, go to [Hong Kong Stocks] → [New Stock Center], and focus on the "In Subscription" (last 1-2 days) and "Upcoming Listings" sections. At first glance, check the margin multiple (updated in real-time by the app), and mark those with over 100 times as potential targets. Quickly filter three hard indicators: Prioritize industries like AI, semiconductors, biopharmaceuticals, consumer recovery, and new energy; Directly exclude traditional manufacturing, real estate, and cyclical industries. The underwriter must be top investment banks like Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, CICC, and China Merchants International. Cornerstone investors should be checked on the front page of the prospectus, prioritizing institutions like Tencent, Sequoia, Alibaba, and Hillhouse, with a lock-up period of 6-12 months. Additional recommended professional tools: AASTOCKS New Stock Channel ( New Stock Fisher ( Step 2: 6-Dimension Scoring System (Total score 100, must score above 60 to subscribe) Use an Excel spreadsheet for quick evaluation, completing each new stock in 5 minutes: Industry and fundamentals (30%): Is it in a high-growth track for AI/hard technology? Has the compound annual growth rate of revenue over the past three years exceeded 30%? If so, give 9-10 points. Valuation rationality (20%): PE/PB is more than 20% lower than peers, and PEG is less than 1. Cornerstone and underwriter (20%): Top investment bank underwriting + cornerstone accounts for over 20%. Market heat (15%): Public offering oversubscription multiple over 100 times (over 500 times for small-cap stocks). Issuance structure (10%): Pure new stock issuance with a green shoe mechanism is preferred. Personal fit (5%): The amount for a single hand should not exceed 5% of personal funds, and it is recommended to diversify subscriptions across 5-10 stocks. Above 70 points can be heavily invested in 1-2 hands, 60-70 points for small testing, and below 60 points should be abandoned directly. Step 3: Key Points for Subscription Execution 💜 Primarily subscribe with cash for the highest stability. (According to the operations of several Hong Kong securities, cash subscriptions are generally free, while financing incurs fees, and some financing also charges daily interest.) For popular stocks, subscribe for 1 hand; for unpopular stocks, multiple hands can increase the winning rate. Margin should only be used for targets above 70 points, with leverage controlled within 10 times, and daily interest costs must be fully considered. High-quality new stocks reach a peak on the dark market or the first day of listing over 80% of the time, so you can choose to sell decisively to realize certain profits. (This is generally how I operate as well.) Particularly outstanding fundamentals can be held long-term at the right time, paying attention to the performance of the subsequent semi-annual report. For example: MiniMax, which surged 5-8 times upon listing. If the stock drops more than 10% after listing, immediately cut losses to avoid emotional holding. However, my practical experience shows that focusing on "subscribing to new stocks" rather than "speculating on new stocks" and locking in profits on the first day is key to long-term positive returns. So, when subscribing to Hong Kong stocks, try to adhere to the principle of securing profits 💪.

The preSPAX subscribed on bg has a cost price of 650, and it has maintained a profit of 2 USD per share since the opening. It seems we are indeed waiting for SpaceX to go public for the new shares. Regarding the TGE of TermMax, it is indeed on the way. The white paper was just released at the end of March, clearly stating the target is Q2 2026 (April to June), with the exact date still TBA, and no official announcement on the specific day. Recently, there has been activity on-chain regarding test tokens, and someone in the community even posted today that "the TGE is really not far away," feeling more concrete than the previous rumors. I don't know the truth, but for ordinary people, rather than guessing which day the TGE will be, it's better to cherish every day to earn XP, MP, and AP points well. The official has clearly stated: the total airdrop allocation has increased from an early 6% to 15%, including pre-mine, with three sets of points each accounting for a portion. XP is for loyalty, AP is more about trading activity, and MP is for spreading. To get more, you need to genuinely use the protocol; the protocol snapshot looks at USD value and actual contributions. Currently, the TVL is stable at around 63 to 64 million USD, and in March it even reached a new high of 64.22M, with over a million users, and daily active users once ranked second in DeFi lending (only behind Aave). The protocol is not built on subsidies but on solid functions like fixed rates + one-click leverage + RWA lending for the long run. The last 1-2 months before the TGE is the final sprint for points. The most annoying thing in DeFi lending is the fluctuating interest rates. In variable rate pools like Aave and Compound, users don’t know how much interest they will pay tomorrow when borrowing money, and the risk of liquidation is high once leverage is applied. TermMax's approach is very simple and straightforward: fixed rates + fixed terms, allowing you to know how much to borrow and how much to repay as soon as you enter, with direct settlement at maturity, without needing to monitor the market daily. It is not just a simple lending pool but moves the logic of traditional fixed income (like bonds) onto the chain, optimizing it with a concentrated liquidity market-making mechanism similar to Uniswap V3. Lenders can buy Fixed-Rate Tokens (FT), equivalent to buying zero-coupon bonds at a discount, receiving the face value at maturity; borrowers lock in clear costs. The leverage part is packaged with Gearing Tokens (GT), allowing for one-click looping, avoiding the need for manual repeated collateralization and lending, while also preventing the risk of traditional infinite liquidation. In simple terms, it aims to be the "fixed income Uniswap on the chain," allowing retail investors to sleep well and institutions to allocate funds efficiently. @TermMaxFi token allows the community and institutions to govern together. The TGE is not the end but the beginning of the protocol's transition from the "testing phase" to the "governance + revenue sharing" phase. Now, there are at most two months left until the end of Q2, and points are still being snapshot daily; taking action is more useful than just talking.