Watching the $10 level overnight—just bounced back up from below, and some are already calling this a psychological level that has held. The ledger says otherwise: the long/short ratio is still around 65%, barely moving, and spot ETFs still saw zero inflows on the previous trading day.
$LINK : down about 3.7% in a day / 13.3% in a week, currently around 10.005. Weekly high was around 11.56, a pullback of about 13.4%. Account long/short ratio is around 1.85 (about 65% long; roughly 1.85/65% about a day ago, barely changed). Funding is slightly negative at around −0.0008%/8h, almost flat. Coin-margined OI is up about 0.8% over the past day (USDT-margined OI is down about 2.3%, mostly due to the price drop). Price slid from an intraday high of around 10.59, just bounced back to 10 from around 9.94, and is still in the weekly trough; the long/short ratio is barely moving, funding is almost flat, and capital is only edging up. Don’t treat 10.005—just bouncing back to $10—as proof that the psychological level has held. And don’t take three straight days of zero ETF inflows to mean institutions have finished pricing in this level.
Meanwhile, $BNB is down about 2.4% in a day and 7.2% in a week, currently around 664.9. Its weekly high was around 716.9, a pullback of about 7.2%. About 73% are long (long/short ratio around 2.68; roughly 2.61/72% about a day ago, so the long side has edged up). Funding is near zero, and OI is up about 1.6% over the past day (USDT-margined OI is almost unchanged). The dip is shallower, longs are more crowded and still edging up, and spot ETFs have now seen zero inflows for six consecutive trading days.
One just bounced back to $10, with the long/short ratio stuck and three straight days of zero ETF inflows; the other, another platform token, has a shallower dip, more crowded longs that are still growing, and six consecutive trading days of zero ETF inflows. Has the psychological level really held, or has the price merely bounced back before the longs and incremental capital have caught up? Post counterexamples in the comments.
$LINK : down about 3.7% in a day / 13.3% in a week, currently around 10.005. Weekly high was around 11.56, a pullback of about 13.4%. Account long/short ratio is around 1.85 (about 65% long; roughly 1.85/65% about a day ago, barely changed). Funding is slightly negative at around −0.0008%/8h, almost flat. Coin-margined OI is up about 0.8% over the past day (USDT-margined OI is down about 2.3%, mostly due to the price drop). Price slid from an intraday high of around 10.59, just bounced back to 10 from around 9.94, and is still in the weekly trough; the long/short ratio is barely moving, funding is almost flat, and capital is only edging up. Don’t treat 10.005—just bouncing back to $10—as proof that the psychological level has held. And don’t take three straight days of zero ETF inflows to mean institutions have finished pricing in this level.
Meanwhile, $BNB is down about 2.4% in a day and 7.2% in a week, currently around 664.9. Its weekly high was around 716.9, a pullback of about 7.2%. About 73% are long (long/short ratio around 2.68; roughly 2.61/72% about a day ago, so the long side has edged up). Funding is near zero, and OI is up about 1.6% over the past day (USDT-margined OI is almost unchanged). The dip is shallower, longs are more crowded and still edging up, and spot ETFs have now seen zero inflows for six consecutive trading days.
One just bounced back to $10, with the long/short ratio stuck and three straight days of zero ETF inflows; the other, another platform token, has a shallower dip, more crowded longs that are still growing, and six consecutive trading days of zero ETF inflows. Has the psychological level really held, or has the price merely bounced back before the longs and incremental capital have caught up? Post counterexamples in the comments.
