Jeonlees

Seriously stroke your hair

977Following

1.3Kfollowers

Feed

The lottery results for Ledong Robotics have been announced, and I didn't get in again. But the good news is that there are two new stocks for Hong Kong IPOs. Seeing this, I quickly went to subscribe, and the deadline is 9 AM tomorrow!! To conclude, both are worth subscribing to, but the main funds should be focused on Jitai. #Jitai Technology-P (07666) One lot costs 5302.95 HKD, with 500 shares per lot. 1️⃣ Strong sponsorship background: Jefferies + Deutsche Bank + CITIC Securities. International investment banks combined with Chinese brokers, a strong allocation. 2️⃣ Large issuance scale, low public float. Global offering of 201.229 million H shares, with about 10.0615 million H shares initially available to the public in Hong Kong, only 5%, raising up to approximately 2.11 billion HKD. Once it heats up, the winning rate will likely be low. 3️⃣ Strong cornerstone lineup. Public information shows Jitai Technology has introduced cornerstone investors like BlackRock. Based on the issue price, cornerstone investors will subscribe to about 110 million shares, which is the most important plus for this stock. 4️⃣ Hot theme: AI nano delivery / AI pharmaceutical platform. It talks about the AI-driven nanotechnology innovation system NanoForge, and platforms AiTEM, AiLNP, AiRNA. Simply put, it uses AI and nanotechnology to solve drug delivery efficiency issues. ⚠️ Risks are also clear: Jitai Technology is an 18C specialized technology + uncommercialized company; its valuation mainly relies on the technology platform and future expectations, not current profits. #Inpaier Pharmaceutical-B (07630) One lot costs 4393.88 HKD, with 200 shares per lot. IPO price range 19.75-21.75 HKD, expected to list on May 13. I will subscribe to this one but not heavily. 1️⃣ Strong sponsorship background: Goldman Sachs + CICC. Pharma-B stocks rely heavily on institutional recognition, and this sponsorship combo is a plus. Issuance-wise, global offering of 41.977 million H shares, with 10% initially available to the public in Hong Kong, raising up to about 910 million HKD. 2️⃣ Cornerstone investors are notable. Tencent, LAV, Ruiyuan, etc. participate in cornerstone subscriptions, totaling about 35.87 million USD, approximately 281 million HKD. For an 18A innovative drug company, this background is solid. 3️⃣ Core label: synthetic lethal tumor drug. Its highlight is tumor treatment and synthetic lethality, a rare theme but with a high professional threshold. ⚠️ Risks to consider: Inpaier Pharmaceutical is an 18A unprofitable pharma stock; future depends on pipeline, clinical trials, and commercialization, not a safe bet. Currently, Jitai Technology subscription is 3056.63 times oversubscribed. Inpaier Pharmaceutical is 653.8 times oversubscribed. Hope we all get lucky 🙏 Personal advice: participate rationally and DYOR.

Rally has changed my perspective a bit; the creator economy shouldn't always rely on passion alone, but rather reward everyone directly with USDC. Recently, Rally has introduced many new rules that are definitely worth checking out! Moreover, the activities are quite universal. If you're unsure about what to write recently, you can take a look at Rally. For many Web3 creators, the most frustrating part of activities isn't writing content, but often not knowing what they're writing for. A project team says "co-build the ecosystem," and creators output a lot. In the end, whether there are rewards, how they are evaluated, who gets them, and why they get them often feels like opening a blind box. Big accounts can still rely on traffic, but smaller accounts are in a more awkward position, spending a lot of time writing, only to end up just warming up the stage for others. So now when I look at @RallyOnChain, I don't first consider how complex its protocol is, but whether it has pushed this matter forward. What's interesting about Rally is that it transforms "the influence of creators" from an empty phrase into something that can be recorded, verified, and allocated. This change may not be loud, but it's quite crucial. Because a truly healthy creator economy shouldn't just reward those with the most fans, nor should it force creators to survive by guessing the rules. Whether the content has brought real reach, whether the community has gained a better understanding of the project through your expression, these should already be seen. I believe Rally is not just a protocol; it feels more like it's reconstructing the division of labor in Web3 marketing. Project teams are no longer just looking for people to shout, and creators are not just free atmosphere groups. There needs to be a more transparent system in between to connect dissemination, influence, and rewards. In simple terms, those who truly contribute to community attention should have the opportunity to receive corresponding rewards. More importantly, the product feel of Rally comes not just from technology, but from the group of creators behind it. The community is its true product. Some write opinions, some do breakdowns, and some explain complex projects in simple terms; these contents pile up to create the voice of a brand. This is also where I feel the strongest sense of early-stage potential. Participating in Rally now feels less like simply chasing a campaign and more like standing next to a new standard: in the future, Web3 growth may not only look at who can spend the budget, but also at who can organize real creators and allow influence to flow transparently. If this works out, what Rally changes is not just how creators make money. It may change the relationship between projects and communities. Previously, creators chased opportunities. Now, opportunities begin to identify truly valuable individuals. @RallyOnChain 🔗:

This time, Tianxing Medical has again made a big profit from the lottery. Friends in the group sold over 20,000, I'm so envious I'm crying, boo hoo hoo hoo. As for this #LedoRobot-B, let's get to the conclusion first: conservatives do not recommend participating, but I will still go for it, though I will subscribe with cash. One lot is 6060.51 HKD, with 200 shares per lot. The offering price is 24-30 HKD. 1️⃣ The sponsorship background is decent: Haitong International + Guotai Junan International. This time, the co-sponsors are Haitong International Capital and Guotai Junan Financing. These two names are not weak in the Hong Kong IPO market, especially for stocks related to robots and hard technology. With leading Chinese investment banks backing it, at least the market acceptance won't be too bad. 2️⃣ There aren't many cornerstone investors, but the amount is substantial. This time, Kang Cheng Heng Yuan Investment Co., Ltd. has been introduced as a cornerstone investor, with a subscription amount of about 277 million HKD. Based on the midpoint price of 27 HKD, it subscribes for approximately 10.2592 million shares, accounting for about 3.08% of the total capital after the global offering is completed. 3️⃣ The public offering volume is not large, making it easy to speculate. The global offering is 33.334 million H-shares, with the initial Hong Kong public offering only having 3.334 million shares, accounting for 10%, which is about 16,667 lots. According to the current situation, the subscription is 1010.99 times, which is quite popular. However, it will be harder to win the lottery. 4️⃣ The company's background is not a shell: it focuses on robotic visual perception. Ledo Robot is working on the "eyes" of robots, with a core focus on visual perception and LiDAR technology, used in scenarios like floor-cleaning robots, lawn-mowing robots, delivery robots, and inspection robots. This direction is indeed in demand right now, which is why I'm considering participating. Robots, AI hardware, and embodied intelligence are all likely to attract funding as long as market sentiment isn't too poor. 5️⃣ The data is promising, but it hasn't made a profit yet. From 2023 to 2025, the company's revenue is expected to grow from 277 million to 748 million RMB, with the number of intelligent robots equipped with its visual perception technology exceeding 9 million units by 2025, and DTOF LiDAR shipments exceeding 720,000 units. This indicates that it is not just a pure PPT company; it has actual shipments, customers, and scale. ⚠️ But the problem is clear: the company is still in the red. Rapid revenue growth does not mean profits are already coming in. Hardware companies fear that while revenue looks good, R&D, production capacity, and sales expenses will also rise, and in the end, the market might say "valuation is high," causing the stock price to be pressed down. 6️⃣ The fundraising purpose leans towards expansion, indicating that it will continue to burn cash. The net fundraising amount is expected to be about 827 million HKD, with approximately 45% used to enhance the R&D of intelligent robot visual perception technology, about 30% for optimizing production capacity and expansion, and about 10% for brand building and international expansion. This purpose is quite normal, but it also indicates that it is still in a growth and expansion phase, not immediately entering a stable dividend-paying and profit-making company. The advantages of Ledo Robot are: strong sponsors, substantial cornerstone amounts, small public offering volume, hot robot themes, and supported revenue and shipment data. The risks are: not yet profitable, hardware expansion burning cash, and valuation relying on growth expectations, with the listing performance heavily influenced by dark market and same-day sentiment. So, conservatives are not advised to participate, especially since there are many stocks preparing to go public this year, so everyone doesn't need to participate in every stock; if you seek stability, just wait for the next opportunity. 🥰 My personal operational advice is to participate rationally and DYOR.

I thought everyone would be resting during the May Day holiday, but in fact, everyone is quietly working hard. In the fourth quarter of memex, everyone takes a break, but I didn't expect to be replying until midnight yesterday, and today my ranking didn't even make it to the top 30. I'm exhausted. After the puzzle task for Termmax ends, I wonder if there will be any news about TGE, so until it's announced, I can only push for 100k MP again. Right now, I only have 72k MP. I saw someone say that 10,000 MP is equivalent to 80 U, so I will push for one more wave!! When I saw TermMax post 1,163,433 users and counting, my first reaction wasn't "this project is taking off," but rather to raise a question mark: out of these 1.16 million, how many are actually using fixed-rate lending? This isn't to rain on the parade. The number of users in on-chain projects should be viewed with scrutiny. Task interactions, event addresses, and one-time wallets can all be counted. So this number cannot be directly equated to real lending users, nor can it be directly equated to a product that has been successfully implemented. But it still has signal significance. Because what TermMax is doing is not the kind of product that can be picked up in three seconds, but rather fixed-rate lending. This sector itself has a threshold; users need to understand why they need to lock in rates, for how long, how costs are calculated, and how to handle maturity. The fact that they can reach 1.16 million users at least indicates that fixed-rate DeFi is moving from a niche concept into a broader user testing phase. I think the real point of interest for TermMax is not "the user numbers look good," but whether it can convert these users into real demand. In the past, DeFi lending was mostly floating rates, which is simple but unstable. Today, borrowing costs may be acceptable, but tomorrow, if market funds tighten, rates could change drastically. For those engaging in leverage, yield strategies, and collateral financing, the biggest fear is not high rates, but uncertainty. TermMax addresses this pain point: fixed terms and fixed rates allow borrowers to know their funding costs in advance, and also clarify the profit boundaries for lenders. This isn't as exciting, but it resembles a true funding management tool. So I won't interpret this dynamic as TermMax having already won, but rather that it has obtained a ticket to enter the game. What we need to watch next is not how much the user numbers continue to grow, but the depth of the term pool, real lending volume, user reuse rate, and whether features like Vault and one-click leverage are being used continuously. If it's just a one-time interaction brought by an event, then the excitement will pass; if users really start using fixed rates to manage funding costs, then TermMax's value will shift from "telling a story" to "having real lending demand." DeFi is ultimately very realistic. User numbers can look good, narratives can be lively, but whether funds are willing to stay is the final vote.

This time, Termmax's response speed was very fast, addressing everyone's questions about the MP points ranking segments and taking timely measures. I hope @TermMaxFi will have its TGE soon 🥰 TermMax is no longer just a single-chain product. The public roadmap mentions that it has already covered multiple chains including Ethereum, Arbitrum, BNB Chain, Berachain, BSquared, X Layer, and Base. Multi-chain expansion is certainly a good thing, but it also brings another side effect: liquidity fragmentation. What is the biggest fear in a fixed-rate market? It's not that no one is shouting slogans, but that each chain has a little pool, each term has a little depth, and in the end, it looks like there are many markets, but there are not many places that can actually take orders. When a user wants to borrow a stablecoin, they find their assets on Chain A; the suitable interest rate is on Chain B; and the collateral is on Chain C. At this point, no matter how sophisticated the financial design of the protocol is, the user has already been discouraged from the first step. The value lies in hiding this step as much as possible in the background. It is not about helping TermMax reinvent fixed rates, but about compressing the pile of troubles users face before entering the market. Cross-chain, aggregated exchanges, finding paths, and reducing asset migration friction may sound very fundamental, but they are very realistic for lending protocols. Especially for fixed-term markets like TermMax, the more fragmented the liquidity, the harder it is for users to form stable habits; the smoother the entry, the more likely funds are to truly enter the term pool rather than remain in a wait-and-see phase. This is also why I think this collaboration is more worth writing about than ordinary "ecological collaborations." Many DeFi collaborations are just mutual tweeting, logos stuck together, and after a few days, no one remembers. But the combination of TermMax and this project is at least addressing a real problem: fixed-rate lending is not without demand, but the path for users to enter such products is not smooth enough. To be more realistic, if TermMax wants to compete for attention with mature lending protocols like Aave, it cannot rely solely on "my rates are fixed." Fixed rates are an advantage, but they are not a sufficient reason for users to migrate. What users will really ask is: Where are my assets? How do I get in? What are the costs? Do I need to cross chains? How much slippage is there? How do I exit after borrowing? If these questions are not well addressed, fixed rates will become a tool for a few advanced users rather than a large-scale lending entry point. So this point is actually about supplementing TermMax's second-layer capabilities. The first layer is product capability: fixed rates, term markets, lending AMM, Vault, Range Order, predictable returns. The second layer is liquidity capability: allowing users to come in from different chains, different assets, and different entry points, without being stuck by operational paths. I am now more concerned about the second layer. Because DeFi currently does not lack complex products, what it lacks is "complex products that ordinary people can use." If TermMax only stays at the level of professional users crossing chains, calculating rates, and finding markets themselves, its ceiling will be quite obvious. But if it smooths out the cross-chain liquidity entry, fixed-rate lending will have the opportunity to gradually transform from a "tool for smart money" into a more common method of capital management. Of course, we cannot be blindly optimistic here. Multi-chain aggregation itself also carries risks. The more bridging paths there are, the more external dependencies there are; the more frequently assets cross chains, the more contract risks, bridge risks, and execution failure risks users will face. TermMax's approach does not eliminate risks; it only lowers the usage threshold. A truly mature experience should be that users know what paths they have taken and what risks they are bearing, rather than just seeing a "confirm" button. But from a directional perspective, this step is correct. TermMax used to emphasize fixed rates, focusing on "predictable rates"; now it is addressing the issue of user entry. So I would interpret TermMax's latest developments as: it is not simply expanding chains, nor is it just riding the multi-chain narrative, but solving an old problem in fixed-rate DeFi—market design can be very professional, but if users cannot enter, everything is empty. For fixed-rate lending to truly take off, it cannot rely solely on beautiful rate models; it also needs smooth liquidity paths. TermMax's approach is not a big deal, but it is not small either. It is not as easy to tell a story as RWA, but it is closer to the hard problems in product implementation. Sometimes the most valuable upgrades in DeFi are not about inventing a more esoteric concept, but about making users cross one less chain, swap one less currency, and calculate slippage one less time. It sounds simple, but that is what a product is.