$T （TUSDT）In the past 24 hours, the price surged 38.034% and is trading at 0.004972. But during the same period, the contract funding rate has plunged into negative territory, at -0.00522547. Meanwhile, open interest is as high as 1,530,450,092. This is a typical price-volume divergence signal, indicating that the leveraged structure behind the current rally is extremely unhealthy.
My core view is: $T faces a very high risk of topping out in the short term. Aggressive leveraged longs are being punished by the market’s negative funding-rate mechanism, and the probability of a pullback is higher than the probability of continuing to push higher.
The evidence chain has two key dimensions. First, the price and funding rate are severely divergent. Over the past 24 hours, the price has jumped 38.034%. Normally, this should come with a positive funding rate, because longs need to pay a premium to maintain positions. But the current funding rate is significantly negative at -0.00522547, meaning shorts are continuously paying longs. This extreme combination suggests that spot buying or low-leverage buying has driven the price up, but the short-side force in the derivatives market is unusually stubborn—so much so that they are willing to pay large fees to hold positions. Second, large open interest at elevated levels increases risk. With open interest at 1,530,450,092, together with the price rising, it indicates that a large number of leveraged positions were established at these high levels. When the upward momentum slows, these high-leverage longs will become the most vulnerable liquidations.
The strongest counter-evidence is: this could be a textbook “short-squeeze-before-the-squeeze” setup. A negative funding rate itself increases the cost for shorts to hold positions. If spot buying remains strong and forces shorts to cut losses and close (i.e., buy to close shorts), it may trigger an upward acceleration in price, forming a squeeze行情. Open interest as high as 1,530,450,092 provides the fuel for this scenario.
The second-order impact path is clear. If the price pulls back, the most direct victims are the highly leveraged longs chasing at high levels—they will face liquidations, providing downside liquidity to the market. Shorts may pay funding, but they can still profit if price falls. The exchange and liquidity providers will bear systemic risk from the surge in volatility. The market is ignoring the “smart money” short-side positioning revealed by the negative funding rate; they may be setting up based on some fundamentals not yet reflected in price.
Failure conditions are clear: if $T can continue rising under the backdrop of a negative funding rate of -0.00522547, and the price action completely ignores the pressure from shorts, then the above judgment fails. This would prove that buying strength is sufficient to cover all short costs and sell pressure.
My core view is: $T faces a very high risk of topping out in the short term. Aggressive leveraged longs are being punished by the market’s negative funding-rate mechanism, and the probability of a pullback is higher than the probability of continuing to push higher.
The evidence chain has two key dimensions. First, the price and funding rate are severely divergent. Over the past 24 hours, the price has jumped 38.034%. Normally, this should come with a positive funding rate, because longs need to pay a premium to maintain positions. But the current funding rate is significantly negative at -0.00522547, meaning shorts are continuously paying longs. This extreme combination suggests that spot buying or low-leverage buying has driven the price up, but the short-side force in the derivatives market is unusually stubborn—so much so that they are willing to pay large fees to hold positions. Second, large open interest at elevated levels increases risk. With open interest at 1,530,450,092, together with the price rising, it indicates that a large number of leveraged positions were established at these high levels. When the upward momentum slows, these high-leverage longs will become the most vulnerable liquidations.
The strongest counter-evidence is: this could be a textbook “short-squeeze-before-the-squeeze” setup. A negative funding rate itself increases the cost for shorts to hold positions. If spot buying remains strong and forces shorts to cut losses and close (i.e., buy to close shorts), it may trigger an upward acceleration in price, forming a squeeze行情. Open interest as high as 1,530,450,092 provides the fuel for this scenario.
The second-order impact path is clear. If the price pulls back, the most direct victims are the highly leveraged longs chasing at high levels—they will face liquidations, providing downside liquidity to the market. Shorts may pay funding, but they can still profit if price falls. The exchange and liquidity providers will bear systemic risk from the surge in volatility. The market is ignoring the “smart money” short-side positioning revealed by the negative funding rate; they may be setting up based on some fundamentals not yet reflected in price.
Failure conditions are clear: if $T can continue rising under the backdrop of a negative funding rate of -0.00522547, and the price action completely ignores the pressure from shorts, then the above judgment fails. This would prove that buying strength is sufficient to cover all short costs and sell pressure.