On the day the bad news was “priced in,” LIT saw a surge of volume followed by a long bearish red candle, dropping by 20%.—A U.S. retail brokerage announced that its own perpetuals would route through its proprietary derivatives channel. The initial list runs from BTC, ETH, and ends with HYPE, but it wasn’t in there.
The premium the market previously priced in was for an order flow from U.S. retail customers that was never actually promised.
According to public discussion, the perpetuals on the broker’s chain are still running at scale, accounting for a double-digit percentage of daily trading volume; this hasn’t been cut. However, that claim still lacks sufficient sources to confirm.
On the day of the drop, trading volume increased by about four times. The next day, volume remained close to $200 million, suggesting someone is still taking part. At the same time, there are addresses holding tens of millions of dollars in unrealized gains on long positions, and other addresses opening shorts at higher levels and profiting. Both sides are present in the market—disagreement isn’t something being performed.
I’m more inclined to think: this is narrative-driven, stripping away the premium and then reallocating positions—not an end to price discovery. But if it wants to break out of the trend, it has to first prove that the capital isn’t only here to execute a one-off liquidity impulse.
What really should be argued is—when this leg fell, was it about valuation, or about the business?
The premium the market previously priced in was for an order flow from U.S. retail customers that was never actually promised.
According to public discussion, the perpetuals on the broker’s chain are still running at scale, accounting for a double-digit percentage of daily trading volume; this hasn’t been cut. However, that claim still lacks sufficient sources to confirm.
On the day of the drop, trading volume increased by about four times. The next day, volume remained close to $200 million, suggesting someone is still taking part. At the same time, there are addresses holding tens of millions of dollars in unrealized gains on long positions, and other addresses opening shorts at higher levels and profiting. Both sides are present in the market—disagreement isn’t something being performed.
I’m more inclined to think: this is narrative-driven, stripping away the premium and then reallocating positions—not an end to price discovery. But if it wants to break out of the trend, it has to first prove that the capital isn’t only here to execute a one-off liquidity impulse.
What really should be argued is—when this leg fell, was it about valuation, or about the business?