Tuba的加密笔记

$INTW Over the past 24 hours, the price rose 3.945%, reaching 24.77, but the contract funding rate remains at zero.

This combination is worth examining. When prices rise, it’s usually accompanied by warming long-side sentiment, and funding rates tend to move upward. Now that the rate is at zero, it suggests that among the capital driving the rally, there isn’t a high proportion of high-leverage chasing longs; it looks more like spot buying or short covering is in control. At the current open interest level of 95,942, without funding-rate cost support, the sustainability of the upmove is questionable.

Trading tag: #TradFi #链上美股 #INTW

Where do you think this assessment is most likely to be wrong?

$INTW rose 24.77, up 3.945% in 24 hours. Funding rate is zero; open interest is 95,942 contracts.

Assessment: In the absence of macro catalysts and relevant news, this rally is very likely driven purely by capital flows in the futures/contracts market, with little fundamental support, so its sustainability is questionable.

The fact is the price went up. But since the funding rate is 0, it means neither the long nor the short side paid extra for the position amount—both sides’ willingness to hold positions is not particularly strong.

Trading tag: #TradFi #链上美股 #INTW

Where do you think this assessment is most likely to be wrong?

$INTW Over the past 24 hours, it has risen 3.945%, with a quote of 24.77. The funding rate is zero, and the open interest is close to 96,000 contracts. This is a single-signal read: the market sentiment is heating up, but leverage hasn’t caught up yet.

When price rises, the funding rate stays at zero, which means the long side is not actively chasing the breakout with leverage, and the short side is not being forced to pay. This kind of structure often suggests that the price push is coming from spot buying or from shorts actively closing positions, rather than leveraged longs flooding in. With price up but the funding rate at zero, both sides are waiting to see who breaks the deadlock first.

Trading tag: #TradFi #链上美股 #INTW

Where do you think this assessment is most likely to be wrong?

$BNC fell 9.109% over the past 24 hours; the current price is 4.61. The funding rate remains at a positive level of 0.00037972.

When the price drops, yet the funding rate is still paying from longs to shorts—this is a typical structure where longs are trapped and continue to add to positions to dilute their cost. Longs are effectively paying shorts, and although there are still positions of 2.83 million, it suggests that there hasn’t been large-scale liquidation or a surrender yet. This combination of a down move accompanied by a positive funding rate can easily evolve into a liquidity squeeze: longs’ unrealized losses are widening, while the funding rate continues to drain funds.

My view is that the downward pressure has not been fully released. From a global-news perspective, there is no new positive catalyst. The data itself only shows that the longs are hard-battling. I plan to place a short order just below the current price of 4.61 to test for an opportunity that follows through. If the price quickly rebounds and reclaims the level above 4.61, and the funding rate turns negative, I will immediately cut the loss and exit.

Trading tag: #TradFi #链上美股 #BNC

Where do you think this thesis is most likely to be wrong?

$BNC 24 hours saw a drop of more than 9%, but the funding rate on-chain contracts is still positive at 0.00038. Prices are falling, yet longs are still paying shorts. This structure in the futures market is called “fighting against the trend by holding positions.”

Instead of admitting defeat and exiting, the longs are using a positive funding rate to subsidize the shorts, betting on a rebound. This is usually the behavior of left-side traders—they believe that a 9% drop is already oversold. But from a global-news perspective, there is no sudden positive catalyst to take over this bet. As a result, the price action and funding costs diverge. Every day longs “hold on” adds to their cost, while shorts simply collect the funding fee.

The strongest counter-evidence is that open interest is 2.83 million. Relative to the price volume, it’s not extreme, suggesting there hasn’t been a large-scale liquidation or a squeeze yet. But if this divergence persists, long positions will become increasingly fragile and can be triggered into a chain of liquidations by even minor bad news. At that point, the burden of costs falls on the hard-holding longs, and liquidity will tilt toward the shorts.

The condition that would invalidate my view is: if the price rebounds, holds steady, and pulls the funding rate down into negative territory—that would mean the shorts are starting to be forced out. Until then, this divergence is a risk signal. In trading, I would avoid the long position associated with $BNC , and I might even consider lightly shorting on the rebound, with a stop loss set above today’s high.

Trading tag: #TradFi #链上美股 #BNC

Where do you think this assessment is most likely to be wrong?

$MVLL 24 hours, up 6.928%, current price is 28.86. The funding rate is back to zero—this is a key signal. Usually, when the funding rate returns to zero, it means that in the short term, both long and short sides reach a delicate balance, and any aggressive bets by either longs or shorts are starting to ebb.

This uptrend didn’t receive confirmation from the funding rate. The longs’ cost pressure is temporarily relieved, but the upward momentum has also lost the funding-rate boost. The open interest is 136141 contracts. There’s no historical baseline for comparison, so looking at this number alone isn’t enough to judge whether the positioning is light or heavy—this is only a single-signal assessment.

Trading tag: #TradFi #链上美股 #MVLL

Where do you think this set of判断 is most likely to be wrong?

$MVLL 24 hours up 6.928% to 28.86, with open interest at 136141.38 and the funding rate at zero. From a macro perspective, a neutral funding rate suggests that long and short leverage is balanced, and the price advance has not been accompanied by overheated positions—this is a single signal indicating a mild rebound in risk appetite. The most direct counterargument is that expectations for tighter macro liquidity could heat up; at that time, open interest may drop quickly. If the price continues to hold above 28.86, I will maintain my current position; if it falls below, I will cut the position by half to wait and see. The current structure does not support aggressive adding to the position.

Trading tag: #TradFi #链上美股 #MVLL

Where do you think this judgment is most likely to be wrong?

$MVLL current price 28.86, up 6.928% in the past 24 hours. Trading volume is 51.53 million, but the funding rate is zero. Behind the rise is short liquidation pushing the price up, while longs are not actively chasing higher levels. The open interest is 136,000, with little change. A zero funding rate means the long and short forces are temporarily balanced. But with one-way price appreciation, it suggests the upward momentum comes from short stop-losses or liquidation orders, not from new long capital entering the market.

The strongest counterevidence is trading volume. If trading volume cannot continue to expand afterward, the price increase driven solely by short liquidation is difficult to sustain, and the price is likely to pull back.

Trading tag: #TradFi #链上美股 #MVLL

Where do you think this conclusion is most likely to be wrong?

$VRT fell 9.82% over the past 24 hours, quoted at 263.6, but the funding rate is still positive at 0.0015.

This is a typical adjustment during the fade-out of “Trump trades” expectations, and a positive funding rate provides fuel for that correction. The market previously paid a premium for policy tailwinds; now that price is dropping, that premium is being drained. A positive funding rate means there are still longs holding positions—even adding to them. They are bearing the cost of this round of adjustment. When price moves downward and longs are still paying funding, their holding costs are passively pushed higher, which forces some participants out via stop-losses. This process often drives the move lower with momentum.

The core logic behind “Trump trades” is betting that his policies will boost specific sectors or overall risk appetite. $VRT , as an on-chain U.S. equities contract underlying, is influenced by such macro narratives. The current price decline combined with a positive funding rate reflects a reality: the market’s immediate reaction to the relevant favorable policy has already been realized—perhaps even overdone—and we are now in the phase of testing reality. If subsequent policy signals are not stronger and more specific, there will be little to support an upward repair.

The strongest counterevidence is this: if Trump were to suddenly announce a major new policy platform that clearly points toward traditional finance or the U.S. equities direction associated with $VRT , shorts could quickly cover and the price might rebound sharply. But my view is that in the absence of such clear signals, the path of least resistance is to look for support on the downside. When price falls and the funding rate does not turn negative, it means longs haven’t capitulated, and the drop likely isn’t finished.

The second-order effect is that if the long positions decide to “hold hard,” they must keep paying funding continuously, which steadily erodes their margin. Meanwhile, capital that is waiting on the sidelines, seeing this divergence structure of falling price and positive funding rates, will tend to wait—either until the funding rate turns negative to signal that short pressure has exhausted, or until the price falls further to present a clearer “cheap” signal. Liquidity shrinks amid indecision.

My assessment fails under these conditions: Trump shows clear, stronger-than-expected positive policy measures, and the $VRT price breaks out on increased volume and holds above the current price level. Otherwise, the current technical correction is still ongoing.

In terms of execution, I’m not chasing shorts, but waiting. If price keeps slipping and the funding rate starts to fall quickly, I’ll consider looking for short-long opportunities after stabilization below. Right now—this phase of falling price with positive funding rates—is “garbage time” where neither side feels good, and entering tends to get hit from both directions.

Trading tag: #TradFi #链上美股 #VRT

Where do you think this set of judgments is most likely to be wrong?

$SPCX has fallen 3.69% over the past 24 hours, with the price at 147.48. The funding rate has gone to zero, and open interest remains around 2.13 million, with no obvious anomalies.

This is a low-volume adjustment lacking direction. While the price is down, the funding rate stays at zero, indicating neither longs nor shorts have the urgency to pay fees—market heat is low. Open interest hasn’t increased in sync, suggesting the decline isn’t driven by large-scale new short openings or liquidations of existing long positions; it’s more likely due to a slow outflow of existing capital or players staying on the sidelines.

What is the market currently ignoring? The global news backdrop is calm, with no major events to trigger movement, but the liquidity of on-chain US stock futures contracts is quietly narrowing. In this kind of structure, any one-sided move caused by sudden news can be amplified because market depth is insufficient.

After breaking below the prior low of 147.5, the bears are temporarily in control, but a downtrend without funding-rate support is hard to sustain. If over the next 24 hours the price rebounds and breaks above the 150 level while open interest increases, I’ll consider testing a long position with a small size. Before the price breaks below 145 or above 152, my plan is to wait and not participate in the current disorderly fluctuations.

Trading tag: #TradFi #链上美股 #SPCX

Where do you think this set of judgments is most likely to be wrong?

$SPCX 24 hours falls 3.69% to 147.48, trading volume $1.537 billion. The funding rate returns to zero, with open interest at 2.134 million shares.

There is a lack of clear top headlines in the global news mix, and U.S.-stock-related assets have entered a vacuum period. The funding rate at zero suggests that long and short forces are temporarily balanced, but the continued decline in price indicates that selling pressure comes from actual sell orders rather than a leveraged squeeze. Open interest has not shown any major change, meaning the existing capital has not withdrawn—buyers are simply hesitant.

In this kind of structure, rallies lack catalysts. If there is no major news in the U.S. premarket, the price may test 145. The counterargument is a sudden positive catalyst—such as a large tech earnings report exceeding expectations—which could quickly pull the price back to 150.

I currently will not go long. Only if the price holds above 150 and the open interest rises would it be a long signal. Otherwise, under 148 I would try a small short position, with a strict stop loss set at 150.5.

Trading tag: #TradFi #链上美股 #SPCX

Where do you think this setup is most likely to be wrong?

$SPCX 24 hours of decline of 3.69%, with the funding rate remaining at zero.

This move in itself is a signal: in the absence of sudden news-driven catalysts, the price moves first in a weaker direction, indicating that market sentiment is cautious, or that it is pricing in potential upcoming global news events as a form of prevention. A zero funding rate means that the long and short forces are temporarily balanced, with neither side paying high carry costs. This usually appears during a trend formation period or a phase when the short-term direction is unclear.

My core view is that this low-volume selloff more likely reflects holders’ watch-and-wait behavior rather than panic selling. Open interest is over 2.13 million contracts—it's not small. Yet the price is falling while the funding rate stays unchanged, suggesting that any new short-side pressure is not aggressive. It looks more like long-term longs are gradually exiting.

The strongest counterargument is: if bearish news truly emerges later, the current level lacks a clear backstop, and the drop could accelerate. A zero funding rate also means there is no urgent need for shorts to take profit during the decline.

The second-order effect is that if the price continues to drift lower, it will test the support around 147.48. Once it breaks, it is likely to trigger algorithmic sell orders and passive stop-losses, creating a self-reinforcing downward loop.

My action is to continue observing.

Trading tag: #TradFi #链上美股 #SPCX

Where do you think this set of judgments is most likely to be wrong?

$CRCL in the past 24 hours, the price dropped 4.79% to 92.98, yet the funding rate is still positive at 0.00020899. This combination forms a liquidity stress test in the macro picture. Price declines are usually accompanied by the funding rate falling; if the rate hasn’t dropped, it suggests that long positions haven’t been cleared—they’re still hard-holding or even adding.

My view is that the long positions’ cost basis is accumulating here. A positive funding rate means longs are continuously paying shorts, and a drifting downward price is eroding their margin. With both factors combined, the long liquidation risk is larger than what the numbers indicate.

Trading tag: #TradFi #链上美股 #CRCL

Where do you think this assessment is most likely to be wrong?

$CRCL 24 hours drops 4.79%, price reaches 92.98. But the funding rate is still positive at 0.0002.

Price is falling while the funding rate is positive—this is a typical signal that long positions are trapped and still holding through. Not only are longs losing on the spread, they also have to keep paying funding fees to the shorts. Open interest is maintained at 960,000 lots, suggesting that not many people are voluntarily closing positions to cut losses; instead, they are hard-holding.

The current structure favors the shorts. However, the opposing view is: if $CRCL can quickly rebound and hold above 92.98, the momentum for longs to passively liquidate could weaken, and the market may shift into a range-bound consolidation.

Trading tag: #TradFi #链上美股 #CRCL

Where do you think this analysis is most likely to be wrong?

$CRCL 24 hours fell 4.79%, current price is 92.98. During the same period, the funding rate stays at a positive level of 0.00020899, and the open interest is 960,000.

Prices are down but the funding rate is positive—this is a typical long positioning trap with an accumulation structure. The longs are paying for the decline, yet their positions don’t fall noticeably, suggesting bullish capital is still hardening it out.

At present, there’s a lack of macro news driving the move; the market is driven purely by on-chain position battles. The strongest counter-evidence is this: if the price quickly rebounds above 95 and the funding rate turns negative, it would indicate that the shorts are starting to give up and close positions—then this judgment would no longer hold.

Trading tag: #TradFi #链上美股 #CRCL

Where do you think this call is most likely to be wrong?

In the past 24 hours, $RKLB has fallen 6.274%. The price is now 63.49. Meanwhile, the funding rate is stuck in the positive zone at 0.00011112—longs are still paying shorts. This combination is not a coincidence.

Price decline on top of positive funding directly says one thing: the bullish side has been trapped, but they haven’t admitted defeat. They’re even adding to increase their positions and average down. This is common during the hesitation period after political or policy announcements: traders bet that good news is coming, but what arrives is selling pressure.

$RKLB belongs to the semiconductor sector. What this industry fears most right now is tariffs changing direction or tighter regulation being introduced. Any hint of trouble will first hit this area. With an open position size of 185884.82—this is not small—this kind of long-heavy, hard-holding structure, once a negative policy is actually implemented, can easily trigger a chain liquidation.

The strongest counterproof is simple: if on the weekend there suddenly comes positive news such as U.S. semiconductor subsidies or a tariff exemption, the funding rate could instantly turn negative and the price could rebound quickly. But there are currently no signals of that kind, so I can only judge based on the existing data.

The second-order impact is this: if longs start closing because they can’t maintain a positive funding rate, the price drop could accelerate. Shorts may then take profits, causing a brief rebound before the market slips into further sideways-to-downward drift. The cost is borne entirely by the longs who chased higher prices—they’re paying funding fees and also have to endure further price declines.

My view is based on two data points: the price falling and the funding rate being positive. If the funding rate breaks below zero, or if the price rebounds and holds above 66 (close to the pre-market open level), then this fragile bullish assumption for longs fails. Until then, the structure remains bearish.

The action is clear: avoid or reduce long exposure. If you’re holding $RKLB longs and the price breaks below 62, you should leave decisively. If you’re shorting, since the funding rate is positive right now and shorts are receiving payments, you can hold positions but don’t add—because a policy reversal could come at any time.

Three scenarios: (1) Aggressive—try a small short at the current price; stop-loss at 66. (2) Cautious—wait and watch; act only after the funding rate turns negative or the price stabilizes. (3) Avoid—stay away directly; during political and policy uncertainty, the semiconductor sector is not suitable for holding overnight positions. The market is ignoring how passive the longs are under positive funding. The longer they hold, the more violently they blow up.

Trading tag: #TradFi #链上美股 #RKLB

Where do you think this setup is most likely to be wrong?

$BNC fell 12.094% in the past 24 hours, with a quote of 4.768. At the same time, the funding rate remains at 0.00080540, meaning longs are still paying. While the price is moving down, the funding rate hasn’t turned negative; this structure indicates leveraged longs have not yet been liquidated.

In terms of the funding rate mechanism, 0.0008 means that longs have to pay shorts their position cost every 8 hours. The further the price drops, the more their actual losses are squeezed by a double hit: “price decline + ongoing payments.” This often triggers a wave of forced liquidations or position reductions, making it more complex for the price to find a bottom. The Trump trade, as a recent macro variable, has a narrative that can ebb or reverse repeatedly, and any resulting suppression of sentiment toward such TradFi contracts is likely to be more direct.

My view is that the current combination of price and funding rate is unfavorable for leveraged longs. Unless a strong policy catalyst flips expectations, $BNC may still need to work through this portion of unrealized-loss capital. I would choose to wait and observe unless both of these conditions occur at the same time: first, the funding rate quickly drops to zero or even turns negative, indicating that the long unwinding wave may be over; second, the price consolidates above 4.5 with trading volume clearly declining. Until then, I won’t catch a falling knife.

Trading tag: #TradFi #链上美股 #BNC

Where do you think this assessment is most likely to be wrong?

$BNC 24 hours down 12%, but the funding rate is still holding in positive territory at 0.0008. The price is falling, yet longs are still paying shorts — a classic structure of trapped longs adding to positions.

The sentiment premium on the Trump trade is being repriced by the market. The policy tailwind expectations that the market had previously priced in now have to face the gap in actual policy rollout pace, and capital is starting to retreat. But the positive funding rate shows there are still long positions stubbornly holding on, and they may even be averaging down against the trend to dilute their cost basis, which instead is accumulating new liquidation risk.

Open interest is 2.77 million contracts, worth about $132 million at the current price. These long positions are under pressure amid the continued gradual decline. The next step is to watch two things: first, whether there is any new policy catalyst that can trigger a rebound in price; second, whether these stubborn long positions will collectively stop out at some price level and trigger a liquidity cascade. If Trump suddenly makes strong remarks supporting on-chain tokenization of U.S. stocks, sentiment could quickly reverse — that is the strongest argument for the opposite view.

My view is bearish. If longs stubbornly hold in a negative-funding environment, once support breaks it could create a chain of liquidations. If price stabilizes above $5 and the funding rate turns negative, I will revise my view. For now, I’m not chasing longs; if it breaks below $4.5, I’ll consider a short.

Trade tag: #TradFi #链上美股 #BNC

Where do you think this whole judgment is most likely wrong?

$HOOD 24 hours, it dropped 3.898%, quoted at 113.89, but the funding rate column is 0. In an on-chain U.S. stock contract, a price decline while the funding rate goes to zero is an unusual signal.

My judgment is: this is currently a single-signal judgment. The combination of a zero funding rate and falling price suggests that long-side strength is not absorbing the selling pressure with leverage, and the selling may be coming from a deeper shift in expectations rather than a liquidation wave among leveraged longs.

A 3.898% price drop is usually something I would interpret, if the funding rate were negative, as shorts accumulating and bearish consensus strengthening. But the rate is zero, meaning neither longs nor shorts need to pay the other side. This usually happens when the market is extremely balanced or sentiment is highly cautious. Translated into positioning, openInterest is 173643.33. I cannot judge whether that is large or small from the number alone because I lack historical comparison. The key point is that price is falling, but funding cost is zero, which reduces the attractiveness of leveraged positions. Holding leveraged longs has no funding subsidy, and holding shorts has no funding income, so positions become pure directional bets. If macro risk appetite does not improve, this zero-rate state may cause positions to unwind faster.

The strongest counterargument is that if the broader U.S. market stages a strong rebound, or Robinhood's own business data comes in above expectations, it could directly reverse funding-rate expectations, and the price may also snap back quickly. The invalidation condition is simple: if $HOOD 's price rises back and stabilizes above 115, while the funding rate turns positive, even if only 0.0001, it means there are long funds willing to pay the cost to enter, and my bearish structure would be invalidated.

Who will be forced to act next? If the price continues to move sideways near the current level and the funding rate does not change, those arbitrage strategies that rely on funding income may close short positions because there is no profit to be made. At the same time, if the price dips again, longs under a zero funding rate will bear the full loss directly without a cushion, so stop-losses may be triggered more quickly.

So my move is: no chasing long, and no opening a short at the current level. I will wait for one of two signals: either the price stabilizes in the 113-115 range and the funding rate turns positive above 0.0001, in which case I would consider a small long; or the price breaks below 113 directly with volume, while the funding rate turns negative, which would mean shorts are starting to gain strength, and I could follow with a short.

Trading tag: #TradFi #链上美股 #HOOD

Where do you think this logic is most likely to be wrong?

$HOOD dropped 3.9% over the past 24 hours, with trading volume of $64.84 million, yet the contract funding rate is zero. This is not a typical downtrend short “collecting fees” structure; a zero funding rate suggests that earlier accumulated short positions have been taking profits, which may temporarily ease one-way sell pressure. Trading activity remains active, indicating that buy-side interest is being absorbed, but selling momentum has not fully dried up. My view is that this provides a brief breathing room for price, but it is not a trend-reversal signal. The buying pressure from short covering is insufficient to absorb the overall sell pressure, so price is more likely to enter a tug-of-war range between $113 and $115.

A counterpoint: if there is a sudden headline about global risk-asset selloffs, $HOOD —as a traditional brokerage stock tied to crypto—could be dragged down again, causing the funding rate to turn negative once more and reach new lows. That would confirm the start of a new leg lower. The second-order impact is that the current-area oscillation will wear out the patience of short-term traders; trend followers may wait for a rebound above $114.5 before looking for another short opportunity.

My plan is to stay on the sidelines. If price rebounds to around $114.5 and volume expands, I would consider entering a small short position, with a stop-loss placed above $115.2. If price instead breaks directly below $113 and the funding rate turns negative, I will abandon the plan.

Trading tag: #TradFi #链上美股 #HOOD

Where do you think this setup is most likely to be wrong?