$INTW Yesterday fell by 8.46%, with a quote of 33. What’s interesting is that the funding rate on its perpetual contract is stuck at zero.
When the price drops, the funding rate isn’t negative—it’s zero. This combination usually means neither longs nor shorts are doing much; the market is in a wait-and-see mode. A zero funding rate indicates that over this recent period, neither side has been paying extra costs for their positions. The longs aren’t rushing to close, and the shorts aren’t aggressively opening new positions to smash the price down. The decline is more likely driven by spot moves or small-scale speculative activity—not by the contract market’s main force leading the direction.
Looking only at this signal, it leans neutral, even slightly weak. If it were a mild pullback with the funding rate not at zero—especially if it were negative—that could instead suggest shorts are amassing power, and the resistance to a subsequent rebound would likely be stronger. In this current setup, with open interest at 95613.82, there hasn’t been any dramatic change either, suggesting that contract funding hasn’t seen large-scale participation.
The strongest counter-evidence would be: if over the next few cycles the funding rate suddenly turns negative and the price continues to move lower, that would mean shorts are starting to build positions and are willing to pay the funding. Then the downside would likely strengthen in persistence. My invalidation condition is simple: the funding rate is no longer zero, or open interest shows a clear increase when the price rises.
At this level, $INTW has been walking in a rather heavy, sluggish way.
Trading tag: #TradFi #链上美股 #INTW
Where do you think this set of conclusions is most likely to be wrong?
When the price drops, the funding rate isn’t negative—it’s zero. This combination usually means neither longs nor shorts are doing much; the market is in a wait-and-see mode. A zero funding rate indicates that over this recent period, neither side has been paying extra costs for their positions. The longs aren’t rushing to close, and the shorts aren’t aggressively opening new positions to smash the price down. The decline is more likely driven by spot moves or small-scale speculative activity—not by the contract market’s main force leading the direction.
Looking only at this signal, it leans neutral, even slightly weak. If it were a mild pullback with the funding rate not at zero—especially if it were negative—that could instead suggest shorts are amassing power, and the resistance to a subsequent rebound would likely be stronger. In this current setup, with open interest at 95613.82, there hasn’t been any dramatic change either, suggesting that contract funding hasn’t seen large-scale participation.
The strongest counter-evidence would be: if over the next few cycles the funding rate suddenly turns negative and the price continues to move lower, that would mean shorts are starting to build positions and are willing to pay the funding. Then the downside would likely strengthen in persistence. My invalidation condition is simple: the funding rate is no longer zero, or open interest shows a clear increase when the price rises.
At this level, $INTW has been walking in a rather heavy, sluggish way.
Trading tag: #TradFi #链上美股 #INTW
Where do you think this set of conclusions is most likely to be wrong?