$MVLL 24 Down 2.367% in 1,000 hours; current price is 24.75. Funding rate is 0.00009737, positive. The longs are still paying the shorts. Trading volume is 13,944,256.61, open interest is 184,184.12. Put the three numbers together: yes, it’s down—but positions haven’t surrendered.
I think this is a situation where price is moving down while the longs get trapped and add more. A drop of 2.37% that isn’t accompanied by the funding rate turning negative suggests the shorts haven’t forced the counterparty out. The longs are shouldering a negative price and a positive funding cost. In this stage, I won’t chase shorts or go long; I’ll wait for the structure to play out on its own.
A single snapshot can only show me this. Since OI hasn’t changed, I can’t confirm whether this is new trapped positioning or old positions rotating. Trading volume is close to 13.94 million—there is liquidity, but not to the point of being crowded.
The strongest contrary evidence is the absolute OI size: 184,184.12. If that’s the underlying quantity, the overall bet isn’t heavy, and even if a stampede happens later, the downside may not be too deep. This weakens my expectation of a breakdown. If price moves back above 24.75 and the funding rate is still positive, it means the longs have regained marginal pricing power, and I will give up the short thesis.
The second-order effect depends on who is forced to act. Every day price stays below 24.75, longs pay funding, raising their holding cost, and some marginal positions will eventually be closed. The next signal is either: (1) the funding rate flips from positive to negative and shorts start taking control of pricing, or (2) price accelerates lower and OI drops sharply. Before that, any rebound is likely just longs inside the market lifting prices themselves.
My actions: Don’t go long below 24.75. If price is back above 24.75 and the funding rate remains positive, I’ll try a small long position—so small that even if I get blown out, I won’t mind. If the funding rate turns negative and price keeps falling, I’ll simply delete the long option.
Aggressive approach: if the funding rate is still positive below 24.75, lightly try a short—betting on longs getting crushed by their own funding. Conservative approach: wait until the funding rate turns negative or until price returns above 24.75 before acting. Avoidance approach: stay flat—this structure hasn’t offered clear odds for either side.
If the market only sees a 2.37% drop and calls it a “bear trend,” I disagree. As long as the funding rate hasn’t turned negative, the shorts still haven’t obtained pricing power. This leg down is like bleeding; trend confirmation still requires a funding rate flip to negative.
Trading tag: #TradFi #链上美股 #MVLL
Where do you think this set of judgments is most likely to be wrong?
I think this is a situation where price is moving down while the longs get trapped and add more. A drop of 2.37% that isn’t accompanied by the funding rate turning negative suggests the shorts haven’t forced the counterparty out. The longs are shouldering a negative price and a positive funding cost. In this stage, I won’t chase shorts or go long; I’ll wait for the structure to play out on its own.
A single snapshot can only show me this. Since OI hasn’t changed, I can’t confirm whether this is new trapped positioning or old positions rotating. Trading volume is close to 13.94 million—there is liquidity, but not to the point of being crowded.
The strongest contrary evidence is the absolute OI size: 184,184.12. If that’s the underlying quantity, the overall bet isn’t heavy, and even if a stampede happens later, the downside may not be too deep. This weakens my expectation of a breakdown. If price moves back above 24.75 and the funding rate is still positive, it means the longs have regained marginal pricing power, and I will give up the short thesis.
The second-order effect depends on who is forced to act. Every day price stays below 24.75, longs pay funding, raising their holding cost, and some marginal positions will eventually be closed. The next signal is either: (1) the funding rate flips from positive to negative and shorts start taking control of pricing, or (2) price accelerates lower and OI drops sharply. Before that, any rebound is likely just longs inside the market lifting prices themselves.
My actions: Don’t go long below 24.75. If price is back above 24.75 and the funding rate remains positive, I’ll try a small long position—so small that even if I get blown out, I won’t mind. If the funding rate turns negative and price keeps falling, I’ll simply delete the long option.
Aggressive approach: if the funding rate is still positive below 24.75, lightly try a short—betting on longs getting crushed by their own funding. Conservative approach: wait until the funding rate turns negative or until price returns above 24.75 before acting. Avoidance approach: stay flat—this structure hasn’t offered clear odds for either side.
If the market only sees a 2.37% drop and calls it a “bear trend,” I disagree. As long as the funding rate hasn’t turned negative, the shorts still haven’t obtained pricing power. This leg down is like bleeding; trend confirmation still requires a funding rate flip to negative.
Trading tag: #TradFi #链上美股 #MVLL
Where do you think this set of judgments is most likely to be wrong?