$SNDK 24 hours up 8.7%, with the price breaking above 1736. One noteworthy detail: its funding rate is 0. In the derivatives market, a zero fee rate is uncommon.
This usually points to two possible scenarios: first, the long and short positions are extremely balanced, so nobody has to pay anyone; second, the underlying asset itself—its design or the current liquidity conditions—means the funding settlement mechanism has not generated any payment flow for the moment. Judging by the upward trend, the first scenario is more likely. When price moves upward without pushing longs to pay shorts funding fees, it suggests that the proportion of shorts actively closing positions or being liquidated passively may be high in this rally—or that longs are not continuously chasing with high leverage.
This implies the structure of the rally is relatively healthy, without an excessive buildup of long positions’ cost. The counterargument is: a zero funding rate also means longs do not receive any extra benefit from shorts paying them, which reduces attractiveness on the returns side. If the price continues to rise while the funding rate remains near zero or turns negative, that would be a warning signal that long momentum may be insufficient.
My view is that this upswing in $SNDK has not distorted the market by piling up leverage at the base level. Next, observe changes in open interest (OI). If the price rises and OI also increases steadily, it indicates new capital inflows. If the price rises but OI falls, then the move is mainly driven by shorts closing positions.
Trading tag: #TradFi #链上美股 #SNDK
Where do you think this assessment is most likely to be wrong?
This usually points to two possible scenarios: first, the long and short positions are extremely balanced, so nobody has to pay anyone; second, the underlying asset itself—its design or the current liquidity conditions—means the funding settlement mechanism has not generated any payment flow for the moment. Judging by the upward trend, the first scenario is more likely. When price moves upward without pushing longs to pay shorts funding fees, it suggests that the proportion of shorts actively closing positions or being liquidated passively may be high in this rally—or that longs are not continuously chasing with high leverage.
This implies the structure of the rally is relatively healthy, without an excessive buildup of long positions’ cost. The counterargument is: a zero funding rate also means longs do not receive any extra benefit from shorts paying them, which reduces attractiveness on the returns side. If the price continues to rise while the funding rate remains near zero or turns negative, that would be a warning signal that long momentum may be insufficient.
My view is that this upswing in $SNDK has not distorted the market by piling up leverage at the base level. Next, observe changes in open interest (OI). If the price rises and OI also increases steadily, it indicates new capital inflows. If the price rises but OI falls, then the move is mainly driven by shorts closing positions.
Trading tag: #TradFi #链上美股 #SNDK
Where do you think this assessment is most likely to be wrong?