$DRAM 24 Hours dropped 2.439%, price 55.21, funding rate -0.00039904. It didn’t fall much, but the funding rate is negative—shorts are paying. This setup doesn’t look bearish to me.
The semiconductor sector has recently been suppressed by policy expectations. Seeing $DRAM fall a bit along with it is understandable; traders are all going short. When the funding rate reaches -0.00039904, it suggests the shorts are overly concentrated. Their position cost is accumulating every 8 hours. At this level, going short has very poor cost-performance. With the price down and the funding rate negative, historically this kind of structure is more likely to rebound than to keep getting crushed. OI 763458.74 isn’t extreme, but for the shorts to keep making money, they need policy-related negative catalysts to keep coming. There are no new developments now—short positions are just burning time.
The most embarrassing scenario is if the policy backdrop truly turns out to be negative, and semiconductors get smashed again. In that case, the shorts would still be right. But without a new catalyst, I’ll wait for the price to get back above 55.21, while the funding rate remains negative, and I’ll try a small long position. If the funding rate turns positive, that means the shorts are starting to exit—then my long logic is invalid and I won’t touch it.
Trading label: #TradFi #链上美股 #DRAM
Where do you think this thesis is most likely to be wrong?
The semiconductor sector has recently been suppressed by policy expectations. Seeing $DRAM fall a bit along with it is understandable; traders are all going short. When the funding rate reaches -0.00039904, it suggests the shorts are overly concentrated. Their position cost is accumulating every 8 hours. At this level, going short has very poor cost-performance. With the price down and the funding rate negative, historically this kind of structure is more likely to rebound than to keep getting crushed. OI 763458.74 isn’t extreme, but for the shorts to keep making money, they need policy-related negative catalysts to keep coming. There are no new developments now—short positions are just burning time.
The most embarrassing scenario is if the policy backdrop truly turns out to be negative, and semiconductors get smashed again. In that case, the shorts would still be right. But without a new catalyst, I’ll wait for the price to get back above 55.21, while the funding rate remains negative, and I’ll try a small long position. If the funding rate turns positive, that means the shorts are starting to exit—then my long logic is invalid and I won’t touch it.
Trading label: #TradFi #链上美股 #DRAM
Where do you think this thesis is most likely to be wrong?