$BX funding rate goes to zero. This is the key structure behind the spot market’s 5.888% drop over the past 24 hours.
Political pricing of traditional financial instruments is starting to fail. With the rate at zero, the cost of the derivatives game for both long and short sides disappears—no side needs to keep paying in order to maintain positions. Coupled with the price decline, this points to a fact: the long positions that were previously held based on specific policy expectations (such as regulatory easing or tax incentives) are being closed out and exiting the market. The process of the funding rate moving from negative to zero is a mixed result of shorts taking profits and longs admitting defeat; it is currently a temporary equilibrium, but the direction is already indicating the choice.
The strongest counter-argument is that the U.S. election outcome could bring disruptive policies that instantly flip the industry’s fundamentals. But uncertainty in the political cycle is precisely the core factor suppressing risk appetite right now. The second-order impact is that funds that bet on policy tailwinds and allocated them to traditional financial-linked assets like $BX may be forced to reassess their positions and rotate into instruments with better liquidity and less sensitivity to political narratives.
Conditions for my thesis to be wrong: $BX ’s price continues to rebound and holds above 138, along with the funding rate turning positive and open interest expanding. That would mean optimism about policy is once again dominating, and my view on the short-side structure would be wrong.
Trading tags: #TradFi #链上美股 #BX
Where do you think this set of conclusions is most likely to be wrong?
Political pricing of traditional financial instruments is starting to fail. With the rate at zero, the cost of the derivatives game for both long and short sides disappears—no side needs to keep paying in order to maintain positions. Coupled with the price decline, this points to a fact: the long positions that were previously held based on specific policy expectations (such as regulatory easing or tax incentives) are being closed out and exiting the market. The process of the funding rate moving from negative to zero is a mixed result of shorts taking profits and longs admitting defeat; it is currently a temporary equilibrium, but the direction is already indicating the choice.
The strongest counter-argument is that the U.S. election outcome could bring disruptive policies that instantly flip the industry’s fundamentals. But uncertainty in the political cycle is precisely the core factor suppressing risk appetite right now. The second-order impact is that funds that bet on policy tailwinds and allocated them to traditional financial-linked assets like $BX may be forced to reassess their positions and rotate into instruments with better liquidity and less sensitivity to political narratives.
Conditions for my thesis to be wrong: $BX ’s price continues to rebound and holds above 138, along with the funding rate turning positive and open interest expanding. That would mean optimism about policy is once again dominating, and my view on the short-side structure would be wrong.
Trading tags: #TradFi #链上美股 #BX
Where do you think this set of conclusions is most likely to be wrong?