$BABA In on-chain US stock perpetual futures, over the past 24 hours, it dropped 3.153%, with the price pinned at 113.03. At the same time, the funding rate is positive at 0.00055321, and the open interest is 141,344.22 contracts. When the price falls but the funding rate remains positive—meaning long positions are paying shorts—this combination suggests that longs are still digging in hard, losing money while paying holding fees.
This isn’t a typical technical pullback; it’s policy risk pressing in directly. With the tariff logic from the Trump administration, there are now concrete numbers: the Tax Foundation estimates that new tariffs would reduce long-term GDP by 0.4%, reduce the capital stock by 0.3%, and eliminate 345,000 full-time jobs. For e-commerce and cloud computing companies like Alibaba that are deeply involved in global supply chains, tariffs are a direct cost. This isn’t a matter of sentiment—it’s about whether the profit-and-loss statement can withstand it. With longs currently paying a positive funding rate, they’re essentially subsidizing the other side while waiting for the turning point.
A more direct signal comes from Trump himself. A CNBC report said that in June he adjusted his stock portfolio: he sold names like Meta and bought Berkshire Hathaway and RTX. RTX is a defense contractor stock, while Berkshire is a more defensive value-oriented stock. This move is extremely targeted: within Trump’s trading framework, he is actively reducing exposure to tech and consumer sectors and shifting toward defense and traditional value. What the market overlooks is that such a top-level capital allocation shift will be reflected in sector rotation earlier than any macro forecast. $BABA is clearly not in his preferred basket.
What’s the strongest counter-evidence? A PolitiFact report mentioned that although Trump has been stymied on tariffs, he is rebuilding similar policies through other legal channels. That implies the probability of continued policy pressure is high—not just a one-time shock. If later signs show that China and the U.S. reach a temporary truce on specific commodity tariffs, or if the U.S. courts impose new limits on the president’s tariff authority, then the policy premium on $BABA could potentially repair quickly. This is one of the failure conditions.
So the second-order effects are very clear: the ones forced to rebalance will be those with heavier positions in $BABA and higher leverage. A positive funding rate is like slow bleeding; combined with downward price action, it will gradually force out stop-loss orders. In the short term, liquidity will likely flow out of the Chinese concept stock sectors hit directly by tariff shocks, searching for safer harbors.
Trading tag: #TradFi #链上美股 #BABA
Where do you think this thesis is most likely to be wrong?
This isn’t a typical technical pullback; it’s policy risk pressing in directly. With the tariff logic from the Trump administration, there are now concrete numbers: the Tax Foundation estimates that new tariffs would reduce long-term GDP by 0.4%, reduce the capital stock by 0.3%, and eliminate 345,000 full-time jobs. For e-commerce and cloud computing companies like Alibaba that are deeply involved in global supply chains, tariffs are a direct cost. This isn’t a matter of sentiment—it’s about whether the profit-and-loss statement can withstand it. With longs currently paying a positive funding rate, they’re essentially subsidizing the other side while waiting for the turning point.
A more direct signal comes from Trump himself. A CNBC report said that in June he adjusted his stock portfolio: he sold names like Meta and bought Berkshire Hathaway and RTX. RTX is a defense contractor stock, while Berkshire is a more defensive value-oriented stock. This move is extremely targeted: within Trump’s trading framework, he is actively reducing exposure to tech and consumer sectors and shifting toward defense and traditional value. What the market overlooks is that such a top-level capital allocation shift will be reflected in sector rotation earlier than any macro forecast. $BABA is clearly not in his preferred basket.
What’s the strongest counter-evidence? A PolitiFact report mentioned that although Trump has been stymied on tariffs, he is rebuilding similar policies through other legal channels. That implies the probability of continued policy pressure is high—not just a one-time shock. If later signs show that China and the U.S. reach a temporary truce on specific commodity tariffs, or if the U.S. courts impose new limits on the president’s tariff authority, then the policy premium on $BABA could potentially repair quickly. This is one of the failure conditions.
So the second-order effects are very clear: the ones forced to rebalance will be those with heavier positions in $BABA and higher leverage. A positive funding rate is like slow bleeding; combined with downward price action, it will gradually force out stop-loss orders. In the short term, liquidity will likely flow out of the Chinese concept stock sectors hit directly by tariff shocks, searching for safer harbors.
Trading tag: #TradFi #链上美股 #BABA
Where do you think this thesis is most likely to be wrong?