Tuba的加密笔记

**Angle: Macro Depth**

In this round, $ARM is up 9.8%, and the price is at 335—it looks good. But what I’m watching is the funding rate. 0.000514, positive. That means longs are paying shorts for their positions. In the broader macro backdrop, Fed rate-cut expectations have been pushed back again and again, the US dollar is strengthening, and the risk-on environment is actually contracting. In this situation, when $ARM rises and comes with positive funding, it looks more like a sentiment-driven short squeeze than allocative capital moving in.

It’s similar to the structure after last year’s AI hype cooled off in July. Mag7 couldn’t push higher anymore, and the semiconductor ETF also started to loosen, but some individual stocks were still propped up. Funding went to zero. Back then, the result was that OI first stabilized, then fell. After price pulled back, the long positions that were holding on got liquidated. Now $ARM ’s OI is 20573—not particularly extreme—but compared with the average over the past few weeks, at this price level OI and price are expanding in sync. That suggests leverage is being built up rather than being distributed.

Looking across asset classes: BTC is consolidating between 60,000 and 61,000, digesting sideways; gold is chopping around at high levels; and until US Treasury yields stop falling, all risk assets are essentially paying the price for interest rates. As a high-beta instrument, $ARM can drop 5–6% if the broader market SPY pulls back 2–3%.

Trading tag: #TradFi #链上美股 #ARM

How long do you think this macro narrative for ARM can hold up?

AMD is up 7.8% today, trading around 553. The positive funding rate is 0.00003289, and the OI is around 19,000. This bullish candle isn’t the biggest within the semiconductor sector, but given the backdrop of easing expectations for tightened macro liquidity, it’s worth breaking down.

First, look at the liquidity layer. The Fed’s tone is being revised toward a more dovish direction, and market expectations for the terminal rate are being marked down. This window isn’t only for Bitcoin. Once U.S. equities risk appetite lifts, differences in beta/elasticity will show up very quickly. SPY and QQQ are rebounding, but their elasticity is clearly lagging behind mid/small-cap semiconductor names. Even within Mag7 there’s differentiation: NVDA is relatively weaker, and AMD—being a higher-beta target—starts to catch up. This isn’t isolated fund behavior; it’s the typical kind of sector rotation. After the broader market provides the “stage,” capital spreads into higher-volatility names, similar to the layout from the prior cycle.

On-chain at the derivatives/contract level provides more information than simply watching price. A 7.8% move paired with a positive funding rate suggests that bulls are actively chasing, but a funding rate of only 0.00003289 is far from extremely crowded. This structure isn’t a squeeze; it looks more like early bull strength—shorts haven’t massively capitulated yet. OI stays around 19,000 with no explosive growth, meaning there are few new arbitrage positions; the main players are directional longs. Put together, this combination points to: there is a trend, but it isn’t crowded—overall, it’s relatively healthy.

Across asset classes: Bitcoin is ranging near the highs, gold is loosening, and U.S. Treasury yields are falling. The signals these three types of assets give in sync all point toward risk-on continuing. On the U.S. equities side, the only thing to watch is whether VIX suddenly jumps; for now it hasn’t, so risk appetite likely won’t flip abruptly in the short term.

For scenarios, my base case is that this rebound has staying power. Macro becomes more dovish, funds rotate from Mag7 into high-beta Semi names, and the derivatives structure isn’t extreme—three factors resonate together. Bull case: if the funding rate pushes further above 0.0001 and OI breaks 25,000, that would enter an acceleration phase, and bulls’ sentiment premium would start to show. Bear case: if the next daily candle immediately closes engulfing and gives back more than half of today’s gains, that would suggest liquidity was only a short-term pulse; in that case, I would actively trim exposure.

Trading tag: #TradFi #链上美股 #AMD #INTC

How long do you think this AMD macro narrative can hold?

$AMD Intra-day +7.8%, with concentrated pricing around 553. The funding rate is slightly positive but not overheated; the move isn’t built purely from emotional order stacking.

The core contradiction is on the political side. Trump has repeatedly changed his stance on tariffs, and semiconductors are always the first sector to be priced in the game. This rally in AMD looks more like positioning for marginal expectations of policy easing from a relatively low level, rather than being driven by fundamentals.

As for 553 as a short-term resistance, I’m okay with it grinding around this level.

Trade tag: #TradFi #链上美股 #AMD #INTC

How do you think AMD will be affected by policy?

Everyone’s attention is fixed on this DRAM 10% bullish candle. But the old saying goes: don’t just look at the quote—listen to what the market is breathing.

The numbers are right here: within 24 hours it’s up 10.57%, price is at 64.74, and the funding rate is positive, around 0.0062%. This combination is pretty typical—it reflects a certain kind of sentiment. The move up is entirely pushed by long positions using real capital; the cost is that longs are currently paying interest on their positions. Market consensus is bullish, and the level of consensus isn’t low.

Let’s look at OI: 1.299 million. The absolute value isn’t huge, but at this price level it’s not small either. A key contradiction shows up: price is rising, but OI isn’t surging explosively in tandem. This suggests that the chase-in capital entering at the higher prices is limited; the current upswing is more the result of existing longs locking in and leverage compounding. If, going forward, there isn’t fresh big money stepping in, this momentum will fade quickly. I’m not trying to call it bearish—I’m reminding myself that this kind of structure most easily leads to a cleanup after a sharp rally.

My take: this setup is “a pretty rally, but the structure isn’t solid.” My current view is that long positions should be trimmed in stages when the timing is right to lower the average cost, leaving room for opportunities later—whether during possible consolidation or at lower prices for a potential re-entry.

Trading tag: #TradFi #链上美股 #DRAM

Do you agree with the KOL’s view and your own judgment?

In the past 24 hours, GLW rose 7.8%, with the price hovering around $195. Within a defense-sector mapping framework, this move isn’t particularly unexpected on its own, but what I care more about is the funding rate: 0.00022365, which is still positive. The number isn’t large, yet it already shows that longs are starting to continuously pay the cost of holding positions. On the chart, the signs of front-running by buyers are more honest than the price action.

In this push, the shorts have repeatedly tested the upper end of the range in a choppy structure, but they’ve never managed to produce a meaningful pullback. Every time price dips on smaller timeframes, it gets caught immediately—buyers don’t give room for longs to “change hands” during a deeper drop. As a defense-sector proxy, GLW’s underlying support can’t avoid the global geopolitical tension. Wear-and-tear supplies in Eastern Europe combined with the Pacific/Indo-Pacific defense buildup update cycle creates long-term logic that continuously anchors spot long positions and gives longs the confidence to absorb.

However, the set of signals also contains hidden risks. A positive funding rate paired with a high-phase price means that once external news flow turns at a turning point, holding costs can quickly shift from a tailwind to a drag. The more excited the longs become, the easier it is for consolidation/whipsaw to morph into a scramble. I won’t chase longs at this level. The only condition I would act on is very clear: price naturally pulls back into the $188–190 zone, while the funding rate simultaneously converges to near-neutral. Then I would open a small trial position.

Trading tag: #TradFi #链上美股 #GLW

Geopolitical risk is escalating—how are you planning to trade GLW?

$SOXL Today this 23.6% green candle—honestly, my first reaction wasn’t excitement, it was caution.

First, look at the structure. Price rallied up from around 186, with volume close to 1.5 billion, open interest at 389,000 contracts, and the funding rate only +0.0122%. This combination of numbers tells a slightly different story. Usually when a move upward of 20% or more happens, the funding rate is pushed up to 0.03 or even above 0.05, indicating that lots of retail traders are chasing longs. Today’s positive funding rate is barely that high, which suggests most people didn’t chase into the rally. Instead, shorts are likely holding and absorbing, or in other words, this leg higher is driven more by spot buying than by leveraged perpetual-futures leverage.

From a liquidity perspective, the U.S. dollar is weaker in the short term and risk appetite has indeed warmed up. After last week’s non-farm data came out, the market repriced a “soft landing” narrative—that’s the macro backdrop. But the problem is that this backdrop can’t support a continuous push higher. Sector-wise, Mag7 is mostly consolidating; the semiconductor index is performing fairly flat. When a high-beta stock like $SOXL jumps out today, it’s more a stock-level tug-of-war for capital rather than a broad sector-wide resonance.

If we cross-check with other asset classes: Bitcoin is range-bound around 60k, gold spiked and then pulled back, and U.S. Treasury yields are still hovering around 4.5%—going back and forth. This environment isn’t particularly friendly for risk assets. It looks more like targeted allocation of existing capital. On-chain futures, OI and volume expand in sync, but the funding rate stays mild. That’s typically a sign of a short-term squeeze—not a signal that a sustained trend is starting.

Setups like this happened many times in the last cycle. A one-day huge green candle plus a low funding rate usually leaves both bulls and bears somewhat satisfied, but they’re both standing on shaky ground. Bulls are sitting on unrealized gains without paying too much in funding cost; shorts are being squeezed, but their positions are still there. That balance is fragile. Once price starts stalling and drifting down, shorts will add back in, and momentum can flip.

Under a baseline scenario, for $SOXL at this level to move forward, it needs to range and digest about 5–10% of space, with the funding rate returning to normal and open interest consolidating for a round. Then it can keep going.

Hold positions, but don’t add.

Trading tag: #TradFi #链上美股 #SOXL #NVDA

For SOXL next—do you think it’s bullish or bearish?

At the global news level, this round of one-sided squeeze against shorts isn’t driven by fundamentals—it’s more like a sentiment-driven liquidation of positions. SOXL surged +23.6% in a single day to hit 186.93, with trading volume of 1.5 billion. The order book clearly shows funds rotating positions, with transaction fees covering the shift. Funding at 0.000122 means longs are already paying extra to the shorts, yet people still insist that the cost of holding positions is low—go do the math yourself.

With this kind of structure, whoever chases in will end up backstopping the floating profits of the earlier batch.

Trading tag: #TradFi #链上美股 #SOXL #INTC

How do you interpret the SOXL news flow?

I looked at the $CBRS order book last night. The price surged 9.65% to 188.81, with volume of more than 46 million. On the surface, the bulls’ momentum looks strong. But the funding rate is positive at 0.0005—meaning longs have to pay shorts a fee every 8 hours for holding positions. After the rally, they’re even subsidizing the shorts. This kind of structure is not very common.

When the price rises and the funding is positive, it usually means this is not an arbitrage play eating the funding spread. Instead, there’s genuine buy pressure—real money chasing into it—willing to hold through the costs. The risk in this order book structure doesn’t point to direction; it points to accumulated cost. Once price goes sideways, longs have to pay rent every 8 hours, and their position costs quietly climb. The capital buying at the highs isn’t only betting on direction—it also has to race against time. They must pull out enough profit quickly to cover the fees. Otherwise, when buying power stalls, those cost-sensitive longs will proactively unwind, turning themselves into sell pressure.

Now look at OI. The 39,000 contracts around the current price aren’t extremely high, but combined with today’s more than 46 million in trading value, most of it appears to come from newly opened long positions. The shorts didn’t add in size, and there are no signs of a liquidation squeeze or being forced under pressure. That suggests today’s rise essentially didn’t consume any “short squeeze” fuel. It was simply incremental longs building up.

The upside room depends on how much capital is still willing to buy at this price, continuing to absorb positive funding. The downside risk is comparatively “clearly visible.” Once buy pressure fades, the longs carrying high holding costs will be the first to retreat, and then the sell pressure will show up by itself.

My view is very clear: this order book structure isn’t suitable for chasing. If I were to act, I’d rather wait until funding turns negative—or at least falls below 0.0001—before considering entry. At the current fee level, holding a long position overnight is basically paying rent. It’s not a good deal.

Trading tag: #TradFi #链上美股 #CBRS

Do you think this CBRS funding rate is reasonable?

This round of volatility has carried a clear policy imprint since Wednesday. Before the 6.97% bullish candle kicked off, with $DRAM , the funding rate hovered around 0.00023 for three full days, while open interest slowly crept up to 1.146 million. Prices were pulled higher, but the funding rate didn’t rise in sync. Both sides added positions in the same direction, not crowded chasing. This structure points to one thing: there are funds betting on a breakthrough at a policy inflection point.

In the current moment, political policy is the most real pricing factor of this K-line. The U.S. semiconductor export review window overlaps with fresh signals of tariff escalation toward China. The market is effectively pricing a judgment call—whether the existing regulatory framework will be brought back into focus around the presidential debate. $DRAM ’s 62.93 has already been pushed back to the highs from the previous policy vacuum period, and the transaction amount of 270 million has surged, yet open interest hasn’t dropped sharply. This isn’t retail chasing; it’s a positioning play for a mid-term political narrative.

On the consensus level, most people are used to attributing recent semiconductor contract moves to general market risk appetite or AI compute narratives. I’m not buying it. From early May to now, the pulse rhythm of $DRAM has diverged from the U.S. semiconductor ETF’s pattern three times—instead, it has stayed tightly aligned with the timing of several key hearings in Washington. That looks more like directionally committed capital front-running the outcome than simply being passively dragged around by the Nasdaq. The hallmark of policy trading is large positions and infrequent rebalancing. Right now, the setup of $DRAM fits that fingerprint perfectly.

Turning to trading: the baseline scenario is that the current policy framework remains unchanged, and price ranges and digests positions between 55 and 65—an environment suited to rolling and harvesting funding. The optimistic scenario is that there’s a breakthrough in new regulatory easing or a revised exemption; then $DRAM could surge above 72. At that point, the positive funding rate would become an explicit signal—I’ll cut the long and wait for a pullback before rebuilding a new base position. The pessimistic scenario is policy signals go nowhere, the market loses patience, and open interest collapses rapidly back below 0.9 million. If that happens, this bullish candle would turn into a false breakout.

A contrarian view is written here plainly: the pricing power of this round of $DRAM doesn’t sit in the Binance futures order book—it lies in which way those congressional seats in Washington are arranged. If you only watch the K-line, you’ll miss the real risk-control variables.

Trading tag: #TradFi #链上美股 #DRAM

How big is the impact of changes in the policy front on DRAM?

Watched the order book for half an hour for $MRVL —the perpetual futures funding rate, OI, and spot price action are lining up pretty well. A 3.65% daily gain, with funding positive and hovering around 0.02%. OI is a little over 190,000 contracts. This isn’t emotional violent panic-buying; it’s someone slowly pushing with real money. They’re pushing in an orderly way, not yet to the crowded level where everyone starts trampling each other. At this spot, I’m going to lock in one judgment first: this is capital migrating within a sector rotation, not a crypto-style impulse.

On the macro side: the dollar is ranging at high levels, and Treasury yields aren’t continuing to spike higher. Risk appetite isn’t overly euphoric, but it’s staying in a range that lets growth assets breathe. This rebound is driven more by de-risking and by “quality tickets” with technical narratives that can be told. Mag7 and the semiconductor ETF have started to diverge in performance—capital is moving toward directions tied to earnings stories and potential technical breakouts. $MRVL ’s beta within the semiconductor sector is moderate-to-high—not like some super-heavyweight compute leaders that can single-handedly bully the index with one stock, but when the overall market truly turns around, it can follow as well. Last week I noticed a small detail: the price spread between SPY and QQQ is narrowing. Growth stocks are regaining marginal leadership again, which is a positive backdrop for semiconductors.

On-chain futures contract data isn’t diverging from spot sentiment. Positive funding means longs are chasing, but they’re chasing in a fairly restrained manner. If the 3.65% green candle were paired with negative funding, I’d be wary that this is the tail end of a short squeeze—and I’d be ready to flip. With things like this now, the long capital cost is still in a comfortable zone, and the short-term trend can be held. OI hasn’t ballooned unusually either, suggesting it’s not a sudden, big-bang rush in—more like evenly built positioning. This kind of structure is sturdier than a high-volume blowout surge. I’m not worried about systemic risk coming out of here.

From a cross-asset perspective, here’s a reminder for you: BTC is high, and gold is also high. When both risk-hedging assets are strong at the same time, it implies the market is already pricing some kind of tail risk—maybe something goes weird with the rate path, maybe geopolitical disruptions. The rally isn’t all optimism. A portion of it is capital paying an uncertainty “insurance premium.” Buying quality assets is basically buying insurance. Within the day’s gain for $MRVL , some of that is also riding along with this kind of macro-uncertainty positioning—both the narrative and the hedging demand are present.

I’ve laid out some scenario projections below.

Trading tag: #TradFi #链上美股 #MRVL

For MRVL next, do you think it’s bullish or bearish?

Geopolitical conflict headlines haven’t fully faded, yet $NBIS is up 11%—and trading volume has reached more than $50 million. The funding rate is zero. This combination isn’t unusual on its own, but with the backdrop of rising military risk, the direction becomes very clear: the market isn’t pricing in safe-haven demand—it’s instead re-accepting a risk-on posture.

Large capital hasn’t been hiding in gold or defensive assets; instead, it’s chosen to use spot buying to push a semiconductor-related target higher. That suggests the most panicked wave of reaction to geopolitical disruption has already been digested. The zero funding rate is worth paying close attention to. Longs aren’t crowded, and shorts aren’t actively adding to positions to “harvest.” This rally is driven almost entirely by spot buy pressure, and leverage sentiment remains restrained. Open interest (OI) is holding around 45,000 contracts, which also implies the long-versus-short contest hasn’t truly heated up to a frenzy.

Typically, at the very beginning of a military event, tech stocks see panic selling. Then, capital moves first to replenish high-beta names. The 11% move in $NBIS looks a lot like a typical short squeeze. When the news first hit, someone tried to bet on a drop—only to be forced into a squeeze by spot buyers. At the current stage, the key is whether it can hold the 215 area. If it consolidates with reduced volume, there’s still room left for shorts to cover.

Trading tag: #TradFi #链上美股 #NBIS

Under risk-off sentiment, how will NBIS likely trade?

$KORU retraced 7.6% to 487.65, but the funding rate is still in the positive range at 0.000174—this is a structure where longs are keeping themselves alive by bearing the costs. The Trump trade, in the TradFi perp market, shows risk appetite contracting quickly; high-beta assets are de-risked first, and $KORU naturally bears the brunt. Volume is 1.49 billion, and open interest hasn’t collapsed, indicating that the shorts are distributing positions in batches rather than squeezing all at once—so the decline has layers.

Trading tag: #TradFi #链上美股 #KORU

Is this Trump play bullish or bearish for KORU?

$BE Today it dropped 7.89%, closing at 251.15. Trading volume was 27.42 million (RMB). The funding rate is sitting at zero, and open interest is 8,413 contracts—no obvious expansion. This kind of drop isn’t small, but the positioning structure isn’t breaking apart.

From the perspective of global capital flows, this “shot” looks more like passive de-risking rather than shorts actively accumulating. This week, overall outside sentiment has been suppressed. The dollar has strengthened on expectations of short-term interest rates. Emerging market assets have been under continuous pressure, and several high-valuation sectors in the US stock market have pulled back in sync. The on-chain US stock mapped contracts are the first to be hit in this kind of broad asset rotation. $BE doesn’t have any specific negative catalyst of its own—it’s simply absorbing beta compression.

What’s truly interesting in the market is this: the price is down by nearly eight points, yet the funding rate is still zero. This means shorts aren’t chasing the selloff, and longs aren’t panic-cutting. Both sides are watching and waiting. I’ve seen sharp selloffs before that came with collapsed positions. Back then, the funding rate turned deeply negative and the contracts were effectively pushed along by shorts. The current situation is clearly different—it looks more like a sentiment-driven position liquidation than a signal of a trend reversal.

I applied my usual observation framework to review the tape once: the combination of a neutral funding rate paired with a sudden drop—most of the time, within the following two weeks, traders can recover most of the losses; a few cases continue to drift lower to probe another bottom. The dividing line is whether there’s fresh macro shock. At the moment, there hasn’t been a new tariff escalation in global policy, and geopolitics hasn’t sprung any surprise variables. The market is simply digesting existing negatives. For this asset, as long as there are no unexpected variables, after passive clearing of positions, it is often followed by a sentiment repair.

Structurally, the 27.42 million daily turnover is moderately active among its peers. The ability to absorb is still there, and liquidity hasn’t collapsed. This is the point I feel most confident about.

My outlook afterward is simple. If price keeps pressing down toward around 240, I’ll focus on the combination of funding rate and open interest. If the funding rate starts turning negative, but OI doesn’t rise— or even shrinks—then that’s a typical panic-driven order flow, and I won’t participate. If, in the current area or near 250, the funding rate stays at zero or only slightly positive, I’ll treat this zone as the lower end of a range. I’ll try longs with a small position size, with a stop-loss set below 240. The logic is that below the stop level, the long-side structure is already no longer valid.

Trading tag: #TradFi #链上美股 #BE

How do you think this news affects BE?

$EWY down 177.29, a 2.57% decline intraday. The move isn’t extremely extreme, but relative to stocks in the same sector, it’s clearly lagging. This single candle has crushed the bullish-bear standoff. I’ll break down the pricing logic in four layers.

Liquidity layer: The dollar’s resilience isn’t a new story. Interest rates have been range-bound at high levels for several weeks, and the Fed hasn’t offered any room for easing expectations. For high-beta equity assets, this is a ballast pressure. As $EWY is a Korea-direction risk exposure, liquidity would naturally be pulled away. Right now, it’s not that I’m afraid it will drop—it’s that there’s no reason for it to hard-rally higher under the current macro backdrop.

Sector layer: The problem is more direct. This week, SPY and QQQ have been holding up relatively better, but money hasn’t rotated out of tech into other regions or themes. There’s no baton pass into small caps or value. The sector beta for $EWY isn’t low. Its sensitivity to global trade expectations and regional risk appetite is even harder to control than semiconductors. Once risk appetite contracts, it underperforms the broader market as a rule. On the tape, around 177 there isn’t any decent buying interest to speak of. Trading volume of 289 million isn’t small, but there’s no sign that selling pressure is exhausted—the chips are still being distributed outward.

Contract layer is the most valuable window to watch. OI is currently 138,500 (in the screenshot units), and the price is down 2.5%, but OI hasn’t fallen meaningfully. That implies positions haven’t been truly cleaned out. The funding rate remains positive at 0.00000761, meaning longs are paying to hold. With the price falling and the funding still positive, this combination suggests longs are underwater and still holding on hard. Historically, setups like this are difficult to jump in and bottom-fish directly. The last time a similar structure appeared was during a choppy, range-bound market. Once funding gradually approached zero, it often triggered a second wave of selling; shorts only got satisfied before the structure could truly repair.

Cross-asset signals are somewhat fractured. Gold and high-grade bonds are rebounding—money is shifting toward safer havens. But BTC hasn’t broken down, which suggests pure risk-on sentiment hasn’t fully snapped. $EWY is stuck right in the middle: it can’t get pure safe-haven bids, and it can’t capture the premium from full risk exposure. The positioning is awkward.

I’ll frame three scenarios like this. Base case: chop and drift lower with 177–172 as the range, while funding keeps pressing below the zero line—no short-term action. Bullish case: if price holds above 183 with volume, and funding turns negative—indicating that the short squeeze has been effective—then you could consider following with a small position.

Trading tag: #TradFi #链上美股 #EWY

How long do you think EWY can sustain this macro narrative?

EWY is down 2.57% today; the price hit 177.29, but the funding rate is still positive at 0.0000076. This is a typical “drop + positive funding” structure: as the price moves downward, longs not only don’t run—they keep paying for their positions.

This contradiction comes from the arbitrage side. When the basis is negative, arbitrage institutions tend to sell futures to lock in the spot ETF discount. But OI of 138k doesn’t show any obvious drop, which suggests longs aren’t liquidating decisively; more likely, it’s the spot side that’s getting dumped. On the BTC side, its ETF has also been seeing outflows for a week. The overall risk-off sentiment in the US stock market has directly dragged down EWY’s liquidity. When longs stubbornly hold positive funding, costs pile up day by day—the longer they hold, the heavier it gets.

Personally, I’m inclined to wait for a price-volume confirmation. If tomorrow the price can’t reclaim 180 and volume shrinks to below 200 million, then the longs are essentially showing no resistance to the downside. If it really reaches that level, I will reduce my long exposure and won’t try to bottom-fish on the left side. Unless there’s a high-volume bullish candle closing back above 178, then I’ll take another long to see if a squeeze develops.

Trading tag: #TradFi #链上美股 #EWY

Technically, where is EWY’s key support?

$SNDK Today it rose 3.9%, and the price reached 1716. But what’s interesting is that the funding rate is at zero—longs and shorts didn’t really fight. The price is moving, but the chips haven’t changed hands; this disconnect is intriguing.

For this semiconductor stock, the most sensitive factor right now is tariffs. The Trump camp has been repeatedly calling for a broad tariff increase, but in actual implementation there’s been an exemption window. Shares like $SNDK concentrated in specific regions are extremely sensitive to marginal changes in exemption provisions. In the previous round, there was a similar price spike with a neutral funding-rate structure. It showed up in mid-March—back then, whispers about the tariff exemption list were reportedly picked up early by big players. The result was that the rally ran for two days; once the news confirmation landed, the price started to pull back.

Now this setup makes me cautious. A zero funding rate means the longs don’t have the confidence to chase higher, and the shorts also didn’t dare to add positions and bet on a pullback. Both sides are waiting for something. If over the next two days you see a positive daily candlestick and the funding rate turns upward, it would imply longs are starting to pile in—then it becomes a signal for a short-term top. If instead the situation continues, with price creeping up while the funding rate stays flat, it suggests “smart money” is waiting for bearish news to distribute its chips.

My view is that going long from this level isn’t safe. The longs aren’t unified, and the shorts could place a bet any time that the tariff policy will tighten.

Trading tag: #TradFi #链上美股 #SNDK

SNDK—how do you see it given the policy impact?

When I was watching the order book last night, I noticed $NBIS —up 13.5%, and the price was pushed to $219.8. Such a big intraday move in US stock futures isn’t the most extreme, but when you combine the funding rate and the open interest/position structure, the “background” of this rally doesn’t look like a pure, emotion-driven push.

The funding rate is currently 0.000093—positive, but very shallow. Longs are paying, but not to a crowded extent. A fee rate under 0.01% for a day’s gain of 13% means there’s essentially no meaningful carry cost for holding coins. This suggests the chasing capital hasn’t formed a stampede yet. More likely, the price is being driven by spot buying rather than leverage piling up into an artificial surge. OI is 455,000 contracts, which is moderately active—there’s no abnormal liquidation wall and the order-book structure looks relatively clean.

Looking at the macro angle, the move of $NBIS today needs to be assessed within sector rotation. The semiconductor sector is in a delicate spot lately: among the Mag7, the strongest AI narrative players are digesting valuations, and capital is starting to rotate toward second-tier semiconductors—seeking relatively undervalued, higher-beta names. $NBIS is precisely at the crossover point between US equity and perp contracts. Liquidity comes from the TradFi side, pricing power comes through the US-stock mapping used by CoinDesk, and sentiment is synchronized with the intraday direction of SPY and QQQ—not driven purely by crypto funding-rate logic.

US Treasury yields have been trading in a high-range consolidation recently, and the dollar hasn’t strengthened further—this leaves a breathing window for risk assets. BTC has been repeatedly consolidating around the $60k area; it hasn’t broken out and it hasn’t accelerated down. This kind of state is actually favorable for US-stock semiconductors. Capital hasn’t fully piled into BTC; part of it has flowed into equity perps to capture excess returns.

If we break it down by macro scenarios: the baseline expectation is that $NBIS will consolidate in the 210–230 range, with the rally coming from a sector catch-up. In that case, there’s no need to chase or add aggressively—keep your existing position unchanged, and don’t actively reduce either. The optimistic scenario is that the semiconductor sector fully takes over from Mag7; if $NBIS breaks above 230 on volume, you could add—but you must set take-profit levels properly, because the long crowding hasn’t ramped up yet; if it does finally surge, you’ll want to be careful.

Trading tag: #TradFi #链上美股 #NBIS

For NBIS next—do you think it will go up or go down?

$BABA single-day surged 12.4%, but funding is at zero; meanwhile, OI has dropped from 68k contracts to 67.1k. The rally was decisive, yet the contract side is reducing positions—this doesn’t look like a squeeze driven by capital piling in. It feels more like spot buybacks after the shorts lose their strength.

On the military and geopolitical front, the low-intensity standoffs across the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea have already persisted for weeks. In the short term, the conflict risk premium in the market has essentially been fully extracted. With no new escalation signals and no de-escalation signals either, the marginal push from risk-aversion sentiment is effectively zero. As BABA serves as a barometer for sentiment in Chinese ADRs, the trading logic is shifting from panic-pricing to habitual tension. When position-holders find that the news fails to materialize for a long time—no crowded longs, no stubborn shorts holding up positions—then the available liquidity inside the market naturally chooses to clear.

In terms of order-book structure, the spot price around 110.38 is being pushed up by buy orders, while the futures/contract side shows neither crowded longs nor forced selling. Funding rates stay neutral. This move higher is essentially pressure released from concentrated closing of previously bearish positions—not driven by fresh leverage. Therefore, whether the premium expands depends on the depth of the spot market; you can’t count on futures’ negative funding to force the outcome.

My trading framework is simple: 108 is the short-term line in the sand.

Trading tag: #TradFi #链上美股 #BABA

Geopolitical risk is escalating—how are you trading BABA?

$DRAM 24 hours rise 3.6%, funding rate 0.00005379 stays positive. Longs are paying for positions, betting that Trump’s hint about a semiconductor tariff exemption will actually come through. This kind of rise has little to do with fundamentals—it’s purely event-driven pricing of expectations.

A positive funding rate means longs are already crowded. If the tariffs ultimately are not imposed, $DRAM will likely see another wave of sentiment-driven upside, but the position cost will also snowball at the same time. My rule is very clear: don’t chase when the up-move coincides with a positive funding rate.

Trading tag: #TradFi #链上美股 #DRAM

For those trading DRAM, how should you respond to this headline?

On Tuesday evening’s U.S. stock market close, the biggest macro signal wasn’t a specific company’s earnings report, but rather the details of a new round of export-control tug-of-war emerging from Washington. Regulations targeting semiconductors and AI infrastructure may be tightened further. This isn’t a new topic, but every time it moves to the point of being confirmed, the capital flows on on-chain U.S. stock contracts show a stress-response reaction.

Today’s price action on $SMCI is a snapshot of exactly that stress.

At 27.92, the 24-hour gain is only 6.68%—not like other assets that often jump by double digits. Yet that actually gives a clearer window to observe. The price increase isn’t large, but trading volume reached over 1.29 million USD, meaning turnover on the contract side is far above the “normal” level that such a modest rise would usually correspond to. This suggests that while someone is buying the spot, they’re also hedging on the futures side, and that part of the capital is front-running expectations for a certain macro event.

What’s more special is the funding rate. The funding rate of the SMCI USDT perpetual contract stays steadily at zero. A zero funding rate is very hard to see when sentiment is extremely panicked or extremely greedy. It only holds at this level when long and short forces are precisely balanced, and liquidity depth is sufficient to cover the needs of the battle. Combined with OI data of 20,700 USD, it’s not a massive figure—but for this kind of U.S.-equity perp, this position size is able to match a zero funding rate. That indicates the dominant drivers of the market aren’t levered directional sentiment, but rather arbitrage and hedging capital positioning itself.

Zero funding rate + a slight price uptick + a surge in trading volume—this combination, in my observations, has appeared only a few times, and in every case, the backdrop was the eve of a major macro event taking shape.

Before the Federal Reserve meeting last September, the equity perps in the same sector also showed a similar structure. After the meeting outcome landed, the direction choice was very decisive.

The core contradiction here is very clear: what is the market waiting for? If it’s only the old news of tariffs being rehashed, the price shouldn’t see incremental movement. But if real policy implementation affecting company operations lands—such as new restrictions on the export of AI servers—then the fundamentals of $SMCI ’s business would be hit directly. Its customer base includes many Asia-Pacific white-label cloud service providers.

My view is that we should follow the structure of the capital. A zero funding rate means neither side has fully built its position. Whoever gets squeezed out first has to pay a premium.

Trading tag: #TradFi #链上美股 #SMCI

How do you interpret the SMCI news flow?