$SKDD rose 7% over the past 24 hours, and the funding rate is zero. The price moved, but neither longs nor shorts paid the other—this market is pretty interesting.
Political and military events typically increase volatility and drive demand for safe-haven assets. But with $SKDD ’s zero-fee structure, it suggests the derivatives market is indifferent to geopolitical noise in its pricing. The price is up 7%, yet the funding rate hasn’t budged at all—meaning the rally lacks ongoing support from fresh incremental capital. It looks more like a battle between existing positions. Judging purely by the price increase, sentiment appears bullish; combined with the zero funding rate, the longs haven’t been strong enough to force shorts to pay a premium, so the “quality” of the rally is discounted.
The strongest counterargument: If tensions truly escalate, then for a U.S. stock contract as a mapping of risk assets, the funding rate should turn positive first, and open interest should also surge. Neither has happened so far. This indicates that mainstream capital either doesn’t believe this narrative, or thinks the event shock won’t materially affect the underlying.
Second-order effects: Those who bought call options or spot early—betting that geopolitical developments would push prices higher—may be disappointed. Their cost basis hasn’t improved due to the funding rate, and the price gains have been limited. If the event fades, this group’s positions will be the first to get closed.
My view is based on the current price of 7.63 and this zero-funding structure.
Trading tag: #TradFi #链上美股 #SKDD
Where do you think this assessment is most likely to be wrong?
Political and military events typically increase volatility and drive demand for safe-haven assets. But with $SKDD ’s zero-fee structure, it suggests the derivatives market is indifferent to geopolitical noise in its pricing. The price is up 7%, yet the funding rate hasn’t budged at all—meaning the rally lacks ongoing support from fresh incremental capital. It looks more like a battle between existing positions. Judging purely by the price increase, sentiment appears bullish; combined with the zero funding rate, the longs haven’t been strong enough to force shorts to pay a premium, so the “quality” of the rally is discounted.
The strongest counterargument: If tensions truly escalate, then for a U.S. stock contract as a mapping of risk assets, the funding rate should turn positive first, and open interest should also surge. Neither has happened so far. This indicates that mainstream capital either doesn’t believe this narrative, or thinks the event shock won’t materially affect the underlying.
Second-order effects: Those who bought call options or spot early—betting that geopolitical developments would push prices higher—may be disappointed. Their cost basis hasn’t improved due to the funding rate, and the price gains have been limited. If the event fades, this group’s positions will be the first to get closed.
My view is based on the current price of 7.63 and this zero-funding structure.
Trading tag: #TradFi #链上美股 #SKDD
Where do you think this assessment is most likely to be wrong?