Odaily’s Editors’ Tea Talk is described as an informal internal column rather than a formal research note. In this edition, members of the editorial team share immediate reactions to industry news, data, hot events and smaller details around them; investment ideas and opportunity hypotheses that are still being tested; observations from conversations with industry participants; and materials from both inside and outside the team that helped improve their understanding. The column states that it does not accept any form of business advertising and does not constitute investment advice. Its stated purpose is to broaden perspectives and add information sources, not to create consensus. Readers are also invited to join Odaily’s community, including its Telegram group and official X account, for discussion and debate.
Recent trading: BTC, HOOD and prediction markets
In a section introduced with the phrase “still inexperienced, still learning,” one editor said recent trading activity had become somewhat more frequent than in the previous period. On the crypto side, the editor bought a small amount during the recent decline, mainly BTC. However, the entry levels were generally high, in the 6.2 to 6.6 range, so the position had generated little profit. In U.S. equities, the editor added a small amount of HOOD, saying that the logic had already been explained in an earlier article. The editor also said they had been trading World Cup-related positions in prediction markets, combining small, high-frequency copy trades while testing a new tool that felt good so far, with larger and less frequent discretionary orders.
The same editor also discussed HYPE and Hyperliquid. Although HYPE had performed well recently, the editor argued that the more expensive HYPE becomes, the worse it is for Hyperliquid. The reasoning was that Hyperliquid’s most imaginative narrative had previously centered on building a multi-asset trading ecosystem around HIP-3. At present, however, trade.xyz dominates among HIP-3 projects, while Felix and Ventuals have shut down one after another. Building a custom market on HIP-3 requires staking 500,000 HYPE, which is worth more than $35 million at the current price. In the editor’s view, the high HYPE price has become an obstacle to expanding the HIP-3 blueprint. The earlier market imagination was “Hyperliquid plus countless custom markets,” while the current situation looks more like “Hyperliquid plus trade.xyz.” If the upper-layer market becomes fixed around only trade.xyz, the editor said it would fall short of previous expectations in both user reach and future imagination.
Missed trades, hindsight and the discipline to wait
Another contributor, introduced with the phrase “just sold Hynix too early,” focused on trading mentality. The key point was that markets never lack opportunities, but calm capital and a calm mindset are always scarce. Capital markets keep flowing, and a missed opportunity does not end the cycle. A short-term explosive target, a hot sector, or a bottoming move that was missed today is only one small part of the market’s countless opportunities. The contributor wrote that investing does not require catching every move. Instead, investors only need to focus on opportunities within their own knowledge range and risk tolerance. Becoming obsessed with opportunities that have already passed, and being carried away by anxiety, was described as one of the biggest traps in investing.
The contributor also described a recurring phenomenon found in reviewing past trades: when looking back after the fact, high-quality opportunities seem to be everywhere. Looking back at last year, last month, or even just a few weeks ago, it becomes easy to see which assets were at low levels, which sectors were about to break out, and which moves seemed suitable for a heavy position. But that is a form of “rearview mirror thinking”: the market looks clear in hindsight, while the present remains confusing. The contributor’s conclusion was that history contained countless opportunities, and the present is also never short of opportunities. Past opportunities did not disappear; at the time, one’s knowledge was insufficient or one’s mindset was too restless to identify them or act on them. In the same way, the current market still contains investment opportunities of different levels and different risk profiles.
SpaceX, Cursor and the SPCX price discussion
A separate discussion focused on SpaceX. On June 16, SpaceX announced a $60 billion acquisition of Anysphere, the parent company of the AI programming tool Cursor. The contributor described the deal as a case of each side getting what it needs. Elon Musk needs Cursor’s developer data to train his AI model Grok, while Anysphere needs the large computing resources behind SpaceX to train its own AI model Composer and compete against models from its former partner Anthropic. Beyond the strategic meaning for both companies, the contributor highlighted a detail that can be easy to overlook: the impact on SpaceX’s share price, because Musk did not spend cash. The acquisition consideration was paid entirely with SpaceX Class A common stock.
According to SEC filings cited in the discussion, SpaceX carried out the merger with Anysphere through its wholly owned subsidiary X67 Inc. X67 Inc. will merge into Anysphere, and Cursor will survive as a wholly owned subsidiary of SpaceX. When the merger is completed, all common and preferred shares of Anysphere will be converted into SpaceX Class A common stock. The exchange ratio will be calculated based on the volume-weighted average price over the seven consecutive trading days before closing. The contributor argued that Musk gained a larger advantage in this deal: by paying with SpaceX shares, he can use the company’s current high valuation to complete the acquisition while giving up a relatively small amount of equity. In that view, the true acquisition cost is much lower, and much of what is being handed over is valuation premium.
The contributor then raised the core question. As of June 16, when the two sides signed the merger agreement, only three trading days had passed since SpaceX listed. Therefore, the earliest closing of the equity exchange would take place the following week. To complete the acquisition more cheaply and with less equity dilution, the contributor asked whether the “Musk interest group” would actively stabilize SpaceX’s trading volume and market value at a high level. The writer also emphasized that there is no strong causal relationship between the two points, presenting it only as an analytical guess about factors that could affect SPCX’s price. The current SPCX price was described as mainly driven up by market sentiment. According to Vanda Track data cited for the past few days, SpaceX remained the stock most favored by retail money and had ranked first in U.S. single-stock retail net inflows for several consecutive days. The contributor added that retail enthusiasm can fade, and when “belief” reaches a price, institutions would need to take the baton and become the main force stabilizing SPCX’s price.
BTC rebound, Japan and Korea equities, HYPE and ETH
Another group of notes covered BTC, the SpaceX IPO, Japan and South Korea equities, and AI-related IPOs. One editor said BTC had rebounded slightly and that the U.S.-Iran situation had eased. The editor remained bullish for the time being and would consider testing a short position around 6w8 to 6w9. On SpaceX, the editor wrote that the IPO had ended, but the closing price on that day did not hold a $2.2 trillion market capitalization, resulting in an “angry loss of 10 U.” The editor still saw the price reaching above 250 after inclusion in the Nasdaq in July. Japan and South Korea stock markets were described as continuing to move higher, with the strong remaining strong. The editor identified the next landmark events as a Federal Reserve rate hike or Anthropic/OpenAI IPOs, and personally viewed Anthropic as a candidate to challenge SpaceX as another largest IPO in history, with valuation even rising to the $2 trillion to $3 trillion range. The editor also referred to a post shared by a group member saying that the AI industry, like real estate, is a heavy-asset industry, and said the idea of investing defensively in “shovel sellers” made sense.
The final section focused on HYPE and ETH. On trading, one contributor said they bought HYPE for a long position last week when it fell to around $56, then gradually sold after it moved above $70. The sale did not mean the contributor was no longer constructive; rather, the contributor believed a major short-term breakout would be difficult. Over the longer term, the $50 to $60 range was viewed as an important support area, where the contributor plans to continue buying. Two reasons were given. First, during the wave of traditional assets moving on-chain for trading, Hyperliquid captured a large share of the benefits. Fees continued to rise, HYPE buybacks increased sharply, and the average monthly buyback over the past six months exceeded $60 million. The contributor added that 97% to 99% of Hyperliquid’s trading fee revenue is used directly to buy back HYPE on the open market, saying that no other exchange currently appears to be doing this, and that this is the biggest growth flywheel. Second, after the HYPE spot ETF launched, cumulative net inflows reached $180 million, with average daily net inflows of $7.5 million. The contributor said traditional capital’s preference for HYPE was clear, and that this treatment had not appeared after the launch of other crypto ETFs.
On ETH, the contributor described a strange market situation. Pure crypto investors have become deeply disappointed with ETH because its price performance over the past few years has been weak and has led to lost opportunity cost. Traditional investors, especially Wall Street figures represented by Tom Lee, have instead continued to add ETH with real capital and view it as an undervalued “Amazon.” The contributor wrote that neither side can convince the other, so the question will have to be left to time. The contributor’s personal view was that ETH has now fallen to a “bargain” level, and that the current entry cost is lower than Bitmine’s.