Chainlink 价格预测 – LINK 技术分析

金色财经Published on 2024-07-08Last updated on 2024-07-08

Chainlink 价格预测显示,随着价格上涨,LINK 正在从每日开盘价 14.9 美元的水平恢复。

Chainlink 24 小时内下跌超过 3%

在过去 24 小时内,Chainlink 下跌了 3.72%,目前价格为 14.44 美元。这一转变与过去一周的积极轨迹形成鲜明对比,过去一周上涨了 7.0%,从 13.56 美元攀升至目前的价值。尽管最近有所下跌,Chainlink 仍然表现出弹性,证明了其应对市场波动的能力。

Chainlink 预测统计数据:

  • Chainlink 现在价格 – 14.81 美元

  • Chainlink 市值 – 86 亿美元

  • Chainlink 循环供应量 – 5.87 亿

  • Chainlink 总供应量 – 10 亿

  • Chainlink Coinmarketcap 排名 – #16

LINK/美元市场

关键级别:

阻力位:19 美元、21 美元、23 美元

支撑位:10 美元、8 美元、6 美元

图片

LINK/USD 在 9 日和 21 日移动均线内交易,因为该代币触及 14.90 美元阻力位的日高点。截至撰写本文时,Chainlink的换手价为 14.81 美元,在触及 14.36 美元的日低点后,涨幅超过 1.88%。然而,随着最近的复苏,数字资产可能会上涨以增加看涨走势。

Chainlink 价格预测:Chainlink (LINK) 可能会上涨

Chainlink 价格保持在 9 日和 21 日移动平均线 14.81 美元的价格水平内。此外,如果多头开始维持上升趋势,则在通道上限附近交易可能会分别触及 19 美元、21 美元和 23 美元的阻力位。相反,任何强劲的下行抛售压力都可能将价格拖向通道的下限。

然而,如果 Chainlink 价格下滑,可能会触及 10 美元、8 美元和 6 美元的支撑位。同时,9日均线低于21日均线,表明市场可能跟随看跌走势。

LINK/BTC 可能横盘整理

相对于比特币,随着该币在 9 日和 21 日移动均线内波动, Chainlink 价格可能会横向波动,交易价格为 2275 SAT。因此,继近期的积极信号之后,如果买家将价格推高至 21 日移动均线上方,当前的市场走势可能会开始跟随上行走势。

图片然而,如果多头加大压力,市场价格可能会触及2800 SAT 及以上的阻力位。与此同时,重新测试9日移动均线下方可能会将价格降至1800 SAT及以下的支撑位。

此外,@cryptocantoncat 在 X(以前称为 Twitter)上拥有超过 14,000 名关注者,提供了有关 $LINK #Chainlink 的宝贵见解,强调了显着上升趋势之前的模式。这些设置通常涉及看涨交叉、支撑重新测试、持续的鲸鱼活动以及伴随成交量减少的下降趋势。尽管潜力诱人,但用户表示资金有限,选择维持当前持有的资产,而不是购买更多资产。

Related Reads

Trillion-Dollar Pension Fund Entry? Franklin Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment ETF Comes with a Built-in Selling Pressure Ceiling

Franklin Templeton has filed to launch two ETFs that embed a "default configuration" logic into Bitcoin investment, aiming to tap into massive pension fund flows. These "Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment Index ETFs" will initially hold 95% equities and 5% Bitcoin, automatically reinvesting stock dividends to buy Bitcoin. However, a quarterly rebalancing rule forces selling of Bitcoin if its allocation exceeds 5%, capping its maximum holding at 20%. While the product cleverly circumvents advisor reluctance and compliance hurdles by labeling itself as a U.S. equity product, its actual Bitcoin buying power is minimal. Given low dividend yields (e.g., ~1% for broad market indices), annual Bitcoin purchases from a fund the size of Franklin's existing Bitcoin ETF would be a mere $3.6 million—negligible against Bitcoin's daily trading volume. Crucially, during bull markets, the fund becomes a programmed, passive *seller* of Bitcoin, potentially creating sustained sell pressure if many similar funds emerge. The strategy leverages investor inertia and automatic enrollment, similar to the success of target-date funds in 401(k) plans. It also uses an offshore Cayman subsidiary for holding Bitcoin and raises a tax complication where investors must pay taxes on dividends they never receive as cash. Although recent U.S. regulatory changes allow crypto in retirement plans, widespread adoption as a default option faces legal hurdles. The core premise remains: the system doesn't need to convince anyone to buy Bitcoin actively; it simply relies on people doing nothing.

marsbit11m ago

Trillion-Dollar Pension Fund Entry? Franklin Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment ETF Comes with a Built-in Selling Pressure Ceiling

marsbit11m ago

Bitcoin Hits 20-Month Low as Largest Bull Suffers $15 Billion Paper Loss

Bitcoin Hits 20-Month Low as Major Bull Loses $15 Billion On June 25th, Bitcoin fell below $60,000, hitting a low of $58,030—its lowest level since October 2024. The sell-off triggered over $1 billion in leveraged liquidations in 24 hours, with longs accounting for $788 million. This marks a more than 53% decline from the October 2025 all-time high of $126,198. A critical factor in the downturn is the weakening position of MicroStrategy, the largest corporate Bitcoin holder. With 847,363 BTC at an average cost of $75,651, the company now faces over $14.6 billion in unrealized losses. Its core financing flywheel—raising capital to buy Bitcoin—is stalling. Its variable-rate preferred shares (STRC), a key fundraising tool, have fallen 25% below their $100 target. This raises doubts about its ability to continue providing steady institutional demand for Bitcoin. Simultaneously, U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs are experiencing significant outflows, with a single-day net outflow of $469 million on June 24th. This represents the most severe sustained capital flight since their launch. The macroeconomic backdrop remains restrictive, with persistent inflation delaying expected Fed rate cuts. Analysts note a shift in capital allocation, with institutional funds moving away from crypto towards AI infrastructure stocks. Immediate pressure comes from approximately $10 billion worth of Bitcoin options expiring on June 26th, which could increase market volatility. The combined effect of these factors—eroding core demand pillars, macro headwinds, and capital rotation—has decisively broken the $60,000 support level.

Foresight News18m ago

Bitcoin Hits 20-Month Low as Largest Bull Suffers $15 Billion Paper Loss

Foresight News18m ago

STRC Falls Below $80, Can Conservative Investors Still Buy the Dip?

The article analyzes whether the STRC (a perpetual preferred stock issued by MicroStrategy) presents a buying opportunity after its price fell below its $100 par value to around $80, offering a seemingly high yield of 13-15%. The core argument is that STRC's discount reflects market skepticism about the sustainability of MicroStrategy's capital structure model, not just temporary panic. This model relies on issuing securities (like STRC) to raise funds to buy more Bitcoin, a "flywheel" that works in a bull market. The recent small sale of BTC to fund dividends, while minor, broke the psychological "never sell" anchor and signaled potential strain. Key risks identified are not a traditional Ponzi collapse but a potential breakdown in the financing narrative: 1) If Bitcoin enters a deep bear market, crushing MicroStrategy's stock premium (mNAV), its ability to raise cheap capital weakens. 2) If STRC remains deeply discounted, it signifies permanently higher funding costs. 3) The high cash dividend yield represents a significant ongoing expense. 4) If selling BTC to pay dividends becomes routine, the bullish narrative reverses. The conclusion is that STRC is not a risk-free high-yield asset. It is a high-coupon bet on whether MicroStrategy's BTC treasury financing model can withstand a bear market. Buying it is a wager that the market will continue to believe in and fund this structure at acceptable costs. The current price asks if this cycle's "casualty" might be a BTC treasury company's融资 model itself.

marsbit33m ago

STRC Falls Below $80, Can Conservative Investors Still Buy the Dip?

marsbit33m ago

Why Do Crypto Projects Keep Changing Their Names?

**Why Do Crypto Projects Keep Changing Names?** In the crypto world, changing a project's name is common—over 16% of projects have done so, including major ones like Polygon (formerly Matic Network). This contrasts sharply with traditional businesses, which fiercely protect brand equity. The core reason is that in crypto, brand loyalty is often weak. Users are frequently investors, airdrop hunters, or yield seekers, not traditional consumers. A name associated with price crashes, hacks, or failed narratives becomes a liability, not an asset. Renaming can be a strategic reset to shed this baggage. Name changes serve as a potent marketing tool. They can signal a genuine pivot in strategy or scope (e.g., EthSign dropping "Eth" as it expanded). However, they are often used to "narrative surf," rebranding to align with hot trends like AI, RWA, or the metaverse (e.g., Elrond → MultiversX). Critically, renaming is also a PR tactic to distance a project from past failures like security breaches (e.g., Anyswap → Multichain). The most significant risk emerges when a name change is coupled with a token migration or swap. This process can allow projects to reset exchange price charts, erase visible historical downtrends, and create an illusion of a fresh start. It often facilitates liquidity resets, where low float can be exploited for pumps. More alarmingly, migrations sometimes mask overhauls to tokenomics, introducing substantial new token supply through "ecosystem funds" or "node rewards," effectively diluting existing holders. The fundamental issue isn't renaming itself, which can be valid for strategic evolution. The problem is when it functions as an escape from history—a way to avoid accountability for past mistakes, failed promises, and poor performance. When a project announces a rebrand, the critical questions are: What tangible new capability or strategy does it represent? Has the tokenomics changed? And what part of its past is it most trying to make users forget?

marsbit40m ago

Why Do Crypto Projects Keep Changing Their Names?

marsbit40m ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片