Despite the negative performance on the market, XRP is still feeling good in terms of fundamental metrics.
A quiet but powerful liquidity flush this week has shaken up markets. The Federal Reserve pulled off one of its largest overnight operations in years. And the ripple effects may reach far beyond banks, possibly even into crypto infrastructure, including XRP. On December 1, 2025, the Fed injected $13.5 billion into the banking system through overnight repurchase (repo) agreements. That amount makes it the second-largest single-day liquidity injection since the COVID-19 era. The move came just as the Fed formally ended its multi-year quantitative tightening (QT) program — a dramatic reversal in monetary policy. What This Says About Broader Financial Stress Such a large repo operation usually signals more than temporary cash-flow smoothing. It hints at deeper pressures in the funding and credit markets. Liquidity injections of this magnitude typically indicate that banks need short-term funding support quickly. Some analysts now view this as a “warning shot” — a sign that traditional banking rails may be under strain. THIS IS ONE OF THE BULLISH CATALYSTS FOR $XRP $13.5B just hit the system overnight. But this is not just liquidity. it's a warning shot. The Fed injected one of the largest single-day repo operations since COVID, exceeding anything from the dotcom era. That’s not normal.… pic.twitter.com/1h8BGqwyls — X Finance Bull (@Xfinancebull) December 4, 2025 Why This Matters for Crypto, and Especially for XRP For years, crypto assets like Bitcoin or Ethereum responded to Fed liquidity surges. Risk-on appetite rose. But in this case, liquidity stress might push capital to seek faster, leaner settlement rails. Embedded in that logic is the idea that blockchain-based payment rails may attract institutional migration. XRP’s ledger is built to support high-speed, low-cost value transfers across institutions and borders. Proponents argue that when traditional rails crack under stress, liquidity naturally flows to permissionless, efficient, and ready rails. This is precisely the narrative advanced by X Finance Bull, which sees the $13.5 billion repo as a potential catalyst for capital to flow into XRPL-based infrastructure. We are on X, follow us to connect with us :- @TimesTabloid1 — TimesTabloid (@TimesTabloid1) June 15, 2025 From Theory to Real-World Constraints That said, adoption of blockchain rails by institutions is far from guaranteed. Legacy custodial frameworks, regulatory uncertainty, and liquidity provisioning remain barriers. Even a massive liquidity injection doesn’t guarantee immediate large-scale flow into any given crypto, such as XRP. Instead, it raises the probability. Liquidity might act as a spark, but execution, on-ramps, and regulatory clarity will determine whether XRPL captures any of that flow. A Plausible Catalyst, with Caveats The Fed’s $13.5 billion repo operation on December 1, 2025, stands out. It may be a sign that traditional funding markets are under duress and that capital could begin to explore alternatives. In that environment, XRP stands out as a purpose‑built rail for global fund transfers . The narrative from X Finance Bull is provocative and market-sensible. It frames this liquidity event not as random or trivial — but as an early signal of capital seeking new, faster pathways. Investors should treat this development as a credible, emerging catalyst for XRP. But they should also recognize that liquidity injections do not guarantee adoption. Execution, timing, and structural adjustments will determine whether the promise of “overflowing pipes” becomes real. Disclaimer : This content is meant to inform and should not be considered financial advice. The views expressed in this article may include the author’s personal opinions and do not represent Times Tabloid’s opinion. Readers are urged to do in-depth research before making any investment decisions. Any action taken by the reader is strictly at their own risk. Times Tabloid is not responsible for any financial losses. Follow us on Twitter , Facebook , Telegram , and Google News The post Pundit: This Is One of the Bullish Catalysts for XRP appeared first on Times Tabloid .
Ex-Jack Dorsey associate Mike Brock has warned investors of an imminent Bitcoin crash, predicting a global financial crisis to become the primary trigger.
A senior financial policy expert has challenged the narrative surrounding Bitcoin's role in investment portfolios. Rebecca Patterson from the Council on Foreign Relations argues that Bitcoin remains fundamentally speculative despite growing institutional adoption. Patterson outlined her concerns during an appearance on Bloomberg. She questioned whether investors grasp Bitcoin's true function in modern portfolios. The digital asset continues to exhibit speculative characteristics rather than the defensive properties many attribute to it. The Store of Value Debate Patterson disputes the common classification of Bitcoin as a store of value. She points to the cryptocurrency's history of significant price drawdowns and its reaction to changing liquidity conditions. These patterns contradict the stability investors expect from traditional stores of value. The mislabeling creates real portfolio risks. Investors purchasing Bitcoin for protection may discover the asset cannot deliver during market stress. Patterson describes this as applying mature asset characteristics to something that remains immature. Bitcoin has not demonstrated consistent behavior across multiple market cycles. Patterson believes this inconsistency indicates that the asset retains its original high-risk exposure. Sharp reversals remain a defining feature rather than an anomaly. The gap between perception and reality matters for allocation decisions. Treating Bitcoin as a hedge when it behaves as a risk asset leads to poorly constructed portfolios. Patterson suggests investors need clearer thinking about what Bitcoin actually provides. New Contagion Pathways Emerge Earlier cryptocurrency crises largely remained isolated within digital asset markets. Patterson notes the landscape has changed substantially. Corporate treasuries now hold Bitcoin positions. Publicly traded companies maintain massive cryptocurrency exposures. Passive index funds connect indirectly to these firms. Strategy serves as Patterson's primary example. The company is scheduled to undergo an MSCI index review on January 15. The outcome will determine whether major passive funds continue holding the stock. Removal from the index would trigger automatic selling by funds tracking that benchmark. MicroStrategy's substantial Bitcoin holdings mean the impact extends beyond equity markets. Patterson identifies this index-channel exposure as a critical, yet overlooked, risk. The mechanics of passive fund rebalancing could create selling pressure across multiple markets simultaneously. These connections represent structural changes from previous crypto downturns. FTX's collapse affected primarily those directly involved in cryptocurrency markets. Patterson argues the next major disruption will spread differently. Traditional finance now contains multiple transmission channels for crypto market stress. Patterson challenges the assumption that institutional involvement reduces volatility. She argues the opposite may prove true. Each new connection between digital assets and mainstream markets creates potential for cross-market contagion. Large institutional players move significant capital. Their entry and exit from positions can amplify price swings rather than dampen them. Patterson notes that these dynamics differ from the retail-dominated markets of Bitcoin's early years. The question has shifted for portfolio managers. Bitcoin's independence from traditional markets is no longer the central concern. Patterson frames the issue differently: Can traditional markets remain insulated from the turbulence of Bitcoin?
Disclosure: This article contains affiliate links. If you click a link and make a purchase or sign up for a service, Bitcoin.com may receive a commission. Our editorial content is independent and based on objective analysis. As traders prepare for 2026, the top crypto exchanges 2025 continue to define what transparency, innovation, and security mean
Bitwise Chief Investment Officer Matt Hougan is pushing back against one of the loudest bearish narratives around bitcoin treasury company Strategy (MSTR, formerly MicroStrategy): that it could be forced into a liquidation of its roughly $60 billion bitcoin stack. In his latest CIO memo, Hougan writes bluntly that “Michael Saylor and Strategy selling bitcoin is not one of” the real risks in crypto. Will Strategy Sell Its Bitcoin? The immediate trigger for market anxiety is MSCI’s consultation on whether to remove so-called digital asset treasury companies (DATs) like Strategy from its investable indexes. Nearly $17 trillion in assets tracks those benchmarks, and JPMorgan estimates index funds might have to sell up to $2.8 billion of MSTR if it is excluded. MSCI’s rationale is structural: it views many DATs as closer to holding companies or funds than operating companies, and its investable universes already exclude holding structures such as REITs. Hougan, a self-described “deep index geek” who previously spent a decade editing the Journal of Indexes, says he can “see this going either way.” Michael Saylor and others are arguing that Strategy remains very much an operating software company with “complex financial engineering around bitcoin,” and Hougan agrees that this is a reasonable characterization. But he notes that DATs are divisive, MSCI is currently leaning toward excluding them , and he “would guess there is at least a 75% chance Strategy gets booted” when MSCI announces its decision on January 15. He argues, however, that even a removal is unlikely to be catastrophic for the stock. Large, mechanical index flows are often anticipated and “priced in well ahead of time.” Hougan points out that when MSTR was added to the Nasdaq-100 last December, funds tracking the index had to buy about $2.1 billion of stock, yet “its price barely moved.” He believes some of the downside in MSTR since October 10 already reflects investors discounting a probable MSCI removal, and that “at this point, I don’t think you’ll see substantial swings either way.” Over the long term, he insists, “the value of MSTR is based on how well it executes its strategy, not on whether index funds are forced to own it.” The more dramatic claim is the so-called MSTR “doom loop”: MSCI exclusion leads to heavy selling, the stock trades far below NAV, and Strategy is somehow forced to sell its bitcoin. Here Hougan is unequivocal: “The argument feels logical. Unfortunately for the bears, it’s just flat wrong. There is nothing about MSTR’s price dropping below NAV that will force it to sell.” He breaks the problem down to actual balance sheet constraints. Strategy, he says, has two key obligations: about $800 million per year in interest payments and the need to refinance or redeem specific debt instruments as they mature. Smaller DATs Are The Bigger Problem On interest, the company currently has approximately $1.4 billion in cash , enough to “make its dividend payments easily for a year and a half” without touching its bitcoin or needing heroic capital markets access. On principal, the first major maturity does not arrive until February 2027, and that tranche is “only about $1 billion—chump change” compared with the roughly $60 billion in bitcoin the company holds. Governance further reduces the likelihood of forced selling. Michael Saylor controls around 42% of Strategy’s voting shares and is, in Hougan’s words, a person with extraordinary “conviction on bitcoin’s long-term value.” He notes that Saylor “didn’t sell the last time MSTR stock traded at a discount, in 2022.” Hougan concedes that a forced liquidation would be structurally significant for bitcoin, roughly equivalent to two years of spot ETF inflows dumped back into the market. He simply does not see a credible path from MSCI index mechanics and equity volatility to that outcome “with no debt due until 2027 and enough cash to cover interest payments for the foreseeable future.” At the time of writing, he notes, bitcoin trades around $92,000, about 27% below its highs but still 24% above Strategy’s average acquisition price of $74,436 per coin. “So much for the doom.” Hougan ends by stressing that there are real issues to worry about in crypto—slow-moving market structure legislation, fragile and “poorly run” smaller DATs , and a likely slowdown in DAT bitcoin purchases in 2026. But on Strategy specifically, his conclusion is direct: he “wouldn’t worry about the impact of MSCI’s decision on the stock price” and sees “no plausible near-term mechanism that would force it to sell its bitcoin. It’s not going to happen.” At press time, BTC traded at $92,086.
Aster eyes $1.1 recovery, potential $1.3 breakout, but risks invalidation if $1 support fails.
BitcoinWorld Stunning $311 Million USDC Transfer: Whale Moves 310 Million to Deribit In a move that has captured the cryptocurrency community’s attention, blockchain tracking service Whale Alert reported a staggering 310,662,076 USDC transfer from an unknown wallet to the Deribit exchange. This transaction, valued at approximately $311 million, represents one of the most significant stablecoin movements recently observed on public ledgers. Such substantial transfers often signal major market participants preparing for significant actions, making this event particularly noteworthy for traders and analysts alike. What Does This Massive USDC Transfer Mean? When a whale moves over $300 million in stablecoins, the market naturally pays attention. This USDC transfer could indicate several possibilities that market participants should consider. The sender’s identity remains unknown, which adds an element of mystery to this substantial movement of digital assets. First, institutional players or large investors might be positioning themselves for upcoming market movements. Second, this could represent collateral movement for derivatives trading on Deribit, one of the leading cryptocurrency options exchanges. Third, it might signal preparation for major cryptocurrency purchases or sales in the near future. Why Are Whale Transactions So Important? Whale transactions serve as crucial indicators in cryptocurrency markets for several compelling reasons: Market Sentiment Barometer: Large transfers often precede significant price movements Institutional Activity: Such volumes typically indicate institutional rather than retail participation Liquidity Signals: Movements to exchanges suggest impending trading activity Network Health: Demonstrates the capacity of blockchain networks to handle substantial value transfers The timing of this particular USDC transfer becomes especially interesting when considering current market conditions. Stablecoin movements to exchanges have historically correlated with increased trading volume and potential volatility in cryptocurrency markets. Understanding Deribit’s Role in This Transaction Deribit stands as one of the world’s leading cryptocurrency derivatives exchanges, particularly renowned for its options trading platform. The destination of this USDC transfer provides important context for interpreting the whale’s potential intentions. Deribit primarily deals in cryptocurrency derivatives rather than spot trading. Therefore, this massive stablecoin inflow likely serves one of several purposes: Collateral for options positions Margin for futures trading Preparation for market-making activities Settlement of existing positions The exchange’s prominence in options trading suggests this USDC transfer might relate to sophisticated hedging strategies or directional bets on future cryptocurrency prices. What Can Retail Investors Learn From This Movement? While retail investors don’t move $311 million, they can still glean valuable insights from monitoring whale activity. This substantial USDC transfer offers several lessons for market participants of all sizes. First, tracking large transactions provides early warning signals about potential market shifts. Second, understanding the relationship between stablecoin flows and exchange activity helps predict liquidity changes. Third, recognizing patterns in whale behavior can inform better trading decisions. However, it’s crucial to remember that correlation doesn’t equal causation. While whale movements provide valuable data points, they represent just one piece of the complex cryptocurrency market puzzle. The Broader Implications for Cryptocurrency Markets This significant USDC transfer occurs within a broader context of increasing institutional cryptocurrency adoption. As more traditional financial players enter the space, such large transactions may become more commonplace. The transparency of blockchain technology allows anyone to verify these transactions, creating unprecedented market visibility. This particular movement demonstrates several key aspects of modern cryptocurrency markets: The growing importance of stablecoins in cryptocurrency ecosystems The sophistication of institutional trading strategies The maturity of blockchain infrastructure handling billion-dollar transfers The evolving relationship between spot and derivatives markets Conclusion: Decoding the Whale’s Message The $311 million USDC transfer to Deribit represents more than just a large transaction—it’s a signal in the complex language of cryptocurrency markets. While the exact intentions behind this movement remain unknown, its scale and destination provide valuable clues about potential market developments. As cryptocurrency markets continue maturing, such whale movements will likely become more frequent and sophisticated. The key for market participants lies in developing the analytical frameworks to interpret these signals accurately while maintaining appropriate risk management practices. To learn more about the latest cryptocurrency market trends, explore our article on key developments shaping institutional adoption and market dynamics. Frequently Asked Questions What is a whale transaction in cryptocurrency? A whale transaction refers to exceptionally large cryptocurrency transfers, typically involving amounts that could significantly impact market prices. These are usually executed by wealthy individuals, institutions, or investment funds with substantial cryptocurrency holdings. Why would someone transfer $311 million to Deribit? Large transfers to exchanges like Deribit typically serve purposes such as providing collateral for derivatives trading, funding margin accounts for leveraged positions, preparing for large spot trades, or facilitating market-making activities. How can I track whale transactions myself? You can monitor whale activity using blockchain explorers like Etherscan for Ethereum-based transactions, or specialized tracking services like Whale Alert that report large cryptocurrency movements across multiple blockchain networks. Does a large USDC transfer always mean price movement is coming? Not necessarily. While large stablecoin transfers to exchanges have historically correlated with increased trading activity, they don’t guarantee immediate price movements. Many factors influence cryptocurrency prices, and whale activity represents just one data point among many. What is USDC and how does it differ from other stablecoins? USDC (USD Coin) is a regulated stablecoin pegged 1:1 to the US dollar, issued by Circle and Coinbase. Unlike algorithmic stablecoins, each USDC token is backed by cash and short-term U.S. Treasury reserves held in regulated financial institutions. Is Deribit a safe exchange for cryptocurrency trading? Deribit is a well-established cryptocurrency derivatives exchange known for its options trading platform. Like all exchanges, it carries certain risks, and users should conduct their own research, understand derivatives risks, and employ proper security measures when trading. Share Your Thoughts Found this analysis of the massive USDC transfer helpful? Share this article with fellow cryptocurrency enthusiasts on your social media platforms to continue the conversation about whale movements and market implications. Your insights and discussions help build a more informed cryptocurrency community! This post Stunning $311 Million USDC Transfer: Whale Moves 310 Million to Deribit first appeared on BitcoinWorld .
According to an analytics report, XRP traded near $2.06 on Friday as social chatter around the token turned sharply negative after a two-month slide of about 30%. Related Reading: A New Era Begins: CFTC Approves Spot Bitcoin On Regulated US Markets Traders and data firms flagged a sudden rise in bearish messages, a shift from the more mixed views seen earlier this year. The mood has tightened around crypto, and XRP is not immune. Crowd Mood Shifts To Fear Based on reports from Santiment, its chart tracks XRP’s price against positive and negative comments and a combined sentiment line that aims to measure crowd feeling. Recent readings pushed the balance into what Santiment calls the fear zone, where negative talk outweighs optimism. On this same model, Santiment pointed to Nov. 21 as a comparable moment. Back then, XRP rallied more than 20% over the next three days before gains cooled. That past move is being used as a reference point by traders who watch social signals closely. 😨 XRP (-31% in the past 2 months), unlike Bitcoin, is seeing the most fear, uncertainty, & doubt (FUD) since October, according to our social data. 🔴 Circles indicate days where there are abnormally higher BULLISH comments compared to BEARISH comments, about XRP (Greed Zone)… https://t.co/lJNW8zlRwK pic.twitter.com/ZoFmwrtw3h — Santiment (@santimentfeed) December 4, 2025 Short Squeezes And Reflexive Moves Extreme pessimism can become a catalyst. When weaker holders sell and shorts pile in, a quick reversal can squeeze sellers and lift price sharply. This is the scenario many are watching: heavy bearish chatter could clear the way for a reflexive rebound if buying pressure appears. Santiment urged followers to keep an eye on the same dashboard to spot rapid shifts in sentiment, and some traders say the crowd’s mood often leads price in the very short term. Price Moves And Market Backdrop XRP was last reported down about 4% at $2.04, extending a loss of roughly 6% over the past month. The total crypto market value slipped about 1% to $3.22 trillion on the same day, a pullback that has dragged on many altcoins even as liquidity stays concentrated in the largest tokens. Order books on smaller pairs have thinned and leveraged positions were trimmed, leaving less depth to absorb big moves. Traders also cited uncertainty around upcoming US policy decisions as a factor behind cautious positioning. Institutional Push And On-Ledger Activity Analysts watching the token say it still has room to run toward $2.50 to $2.75 if cross-border liquidity flows pick up and stablecoin projects on the XRP Ledger gain momentum. Reports have disclosed that Ripple has been moving to broaden its institutional reach. Buy XRP. Stop focusing on any other Crypto Coins They don’t matter — Cameron Scrubs (@imcameronscrubs) December 2, 2025 Last month, the firm launched digital asset spot prime brokerage services in the US after acquiring Hidden Road and folding it into Ripple Prime, a combined trading and custody setup for professional clients. That push is being watched as a potential longer-term support for demand. Related Reading: Bitcoin Crash Fails To Shake Ripple CEO — He Still Calls For $180K Vocal Bulls And Market Signals Despite the FUD surrounding XRP, Cameron Scrubs, founder of Tradeship University, has again urged followers to “buy XRP,” stating that other crypto assets “don’t matter.” In previous posts, he also called to “sell everything and buy XRP.” Traders are watching these statements closely as sentiment shifts, while on-chain data and social signals are being monitored for indications that the current negative chatter may be starting to ease. Featured image from Gemini, chart from TradingView
Summary In financial markets, the performance of retail investors and institutional investors often presents a stark contrast. While retail investors still cannot match the vast capital of institutions, the difference between them stems more from differences in methodology, trading methods, and risk management than from differences in transaction costs or information. Government and central bank interventions, or commitments to intervene, are common sources of implicit subsidies. Originally published on November 6, 2025 For most investors, the question "What is trading?" is one they've never seriously considered. Many see trading as a means to "get rich overnight," while others equate it with "gambling." In reality, the "trading" understood by retail investors and the "trading" understood by institutional investors are completely different things, and this is the key reason for the difference in investment results. In financial markets, the performance of retail investors and institutional investors often presents a stark contrast. According to multiple studies, over 70% of retail investors fail to outperform the market in short-term trading and even incur losses of principal. In contrast, institutional investors, such as hedge funds, pension funds, and banks, typically achieve relatively stable and consistent returns. This gap is not accidental but stems from multiple factors, including behavioural psychology, information resources, strategy execution, and market structure. Decades ago, the gap between individual and institutional investors was almost "insurmountable." Institutional investors possessed sufficient information asymmetry, gaining access to information days earlier than retail investors. They could also borrow large sums of money or seek powerful partners to influence or even manipulate the market. In contrast, retail investors cannot use derivatives and must place orders through brokers when buying and selling stocks, incurring significant transaction costs; as a result, day trading is virtually impossible. However, in the 2020s, thanks to the development of the internet and blockchain technology, everything changed. Retail investors can easily access tools like options, using leverage to beat short-selling institutions. Retired legendary traders share their trading strategies in communities, leading investors to previously unattainable returns. Algorithmic trading is no longer the exclusive domain of hedge funds and market makers, and real-time data and charts are readily available on any device. Clearly, the difference between institutions and retail investors has narrowed significantly, and in some areas (such as arbitrage trading), it is now merely a difference in scale. Therefore, while retail investors still cannot match the vast capital of institutions, the difference between them stems more from differences in methodology, trading methods, and risk management than from differences in transaction costs or information. However, it is precisely these different methodologies, trading methods, and risk management approaches that lead to different investment results for retail and institutional investors in most situations. In this series of articles, we will take an institutional perspective to "reshape" the investment mindset of retail investors, combining institutional trading thinking and methodologies with daily investment to help investors build the right trading logic and a robust investment framework. What Is Trading? Trading refers to the process of buying and selling various assets in financial markets, with the intention of profiting from price fluctuations or hedging risks. These assets include stocks, bonds, foreign exchange, commodities, cryptocurrencies, and derivatives (such as futures and options). The above definition comes from university classrooms and textbooks. In practice, institutional trading primarily aims to "obtain stable excess returns," that is, to achieve returns exceeding those of risk-free assets, such as government bonds and cash, while keeping risks under control. The reason is simple: one of the primary sources of income for financial institutions, such as banks, is the interest rate spread. Without excess returns, after inflation correction, the interest rate spread may not be able to withstand inflation's erosive effects. For retail investors, this is also one of the main purposes of trading: to hedge against asset devaluation caused by inflation. On the other hand, "hedging risk" itself may also be a purpose of trading . Many companies participate in futures and options trading to hedge against risks associated with inventory price fluctuations and ensure stable cash flow. With the gradual democratisation of derivatives, retail investors can also use derivatives to hedge some of the higher-risk exposures in their portfolios, such as cryptocurrencies and small-cap stocks. It is not difficult to see that the core of trading is not speculation, but rather the management and effective allocation of risk. In this process, investors choose to bear certain risks and opportunity costs in exchange for potential portfolio performance optimisation and additional returns. Of course, speculative elements also exist in trading, but they typically occur after additional returns have already been achieved. When there's a surplus, many people will use the money meant for chewing gum or chocolate to buy a lottery ticket. Similarly, for institutions, using a portion of surplus funds for speculative trading is nothing new - it can even be seen as a potential means of enhancing returns: even if these funds are completely lost, it won't significantly impact this year's revenue, while a successful bet can "add icing on the cake" to portfolio performance. However, it must be acknowledged that in most cases, the stable returns of institutions do not come from those bets. So, where do the excess returns of institutions come from? Source of Trading Profits: Implicit Subsidies Implicit subsidies are one of the magic wands institutions use to generate trading profits. In financial markets, implicit subsidies are a unique phenomenon referring to premiums paid for trades that are not for traditional risk-return optimisation purposes. Unlike regular risk premiums, implicit subsidies arise from market inefficiencies, offering investors stable trading opportunities and returns. To some extent, implicit subsidies can be viewed as a service fee. In the derivatives industry, implicit subsidies are referred to as "convenience yields," which represent the costs incurred in holding derivative contracts. A typical example is BTC ETF issuers: after acquiring BTC spot, they open short positions in BTC futures on the CME, obtaining convenience yields while hedging against price volatility risk. Convenience yields depend on the supply and demand of the contract, not the price, and are consistently positive over the long term, providing institutions with continuous and stable returns. In fact, implicit subsidies are widespread in financial markets. Government and central bank interventions, or commitments to intervene, are common sources of implicit subsidies. Issuers of emerging market bonds typically pay a premium to investors to compensate for potential liquidity risks and higher default risks compared to more developed markets. During periods of significant price volatility, risk-averse investors are often willing to pay a higher premium to buy options or other derivatives to protect their positions, or pay substantial slippage to liquidate their holdings. Based on these market participants' needs, institutional investors can obtain implicit subsidies from multiple sources: banks can receive subsidies from central banks by providing liquidity in the repo market, fixed-income traders can obtain subsidies from the bond market through curve trading, and hedge funds and market makers can obtain subsidies by selling volatility and getting slippages—this is the secret to their long-term profitability. It's important to note that these sources of profit are not significantly related to the performance of the asset price itself. This is also a point that retail traders need to learn: directional trading does not guarantee long-term, stable returns. Clearly, institutional trading profits are not limited to implicit subsidies; this will be discussed in subsequent chapters. Stay tuned… Disclaimer: The information provided herein does not constitute investment advice, financial advice, trading advice, or any other sort of advice, and should not be treated as such. All content set out below is for informational purposes only. Original Post Editor's Note: The summary bullets for this article were chosen by Seeking Alpha editors.