数据分析:「312」事件要比「85」暴跌严重5倍!

marsbitPublished on 2024-08-07Last updated on 2024-08-08

加密货币市场单日最大的一次暴跌是什么?

在过去十年中,全球加密货币市场最严重的一次调整是 2020 年 3 月 13 日因新冠疫情暴跌 39.6%。大规模抛售导致加密货币总市值在一天之内由从 2237.4 亿美元暴跌至 1351.4 亿美元。 

相比之下,今年迄今为止最大的加密货币市场抛售幅度要小得多,仅为 -8.4%,发生在 2024 年 3 月 20 日。同样,虽然最近的一次下跌连续 4 天下跌,导致加密货币总市值从 8 月 2 日的 2.44 万亿美元缩水至 8 月 6 日的 1.99 万亿美元,但这些跌幅都不足以被视为市场调整。

(本文研究方法将资产市值调整即暴跌定义为下跌 10% 或以上,参考Investopedia,并以日环比DoD 为基础。在本研究中,截止值被扩大到 -9.95%,因为在某些情况下,百分比也会四舍五入到小数点后 1 位,这将导致这些数字被视为 -10.0%。

事实上,自 2022 年 11 月 FTX 崩盘以来,加密货币还没有经历过一天的市场暴跌。 

以太坊

由于全球不确定性导致加密货币投资者隔夜逃离风险资产,比特币还在 2020 年 3 月 13 日录得最大价格回调,为 -35.2% DoD,而以太坊在同一天录得第二大价格回调,为 -43.1% DoD 。

第二次最大的加密货币回调发生在 2017 年 9 月 14 日,当时加密货币总市值经历了 -22.3% 的回调,从 1365.5 亿美元跌至 1061.4 亿美元。这与比特币同一天的第三次最大价格回调 -20.2% 一致。此次回调是在全年表现相对强劲的基础上进行的,加密货币市场和比特币都在第二天迅速恢复,这凸显了加密货币的高波动性。

加密货币修正会持续多久?

在过去十年中,最长的加密货币修正最多只持续了 2 天。从 2014 年至今,全球加密货币市场经历了 3 次这样的连续修正。这些发生在 2018 年初,当时加密货币市场在达到新高后降温,以及在 2022 年末,由于 FTX 崩盘和传染:

  1. 2018 年 1 月 16 日(-11.8%)至 17 日(-13.4%)
  2. 2018 年 2 月 5 日(-10.3)至 6 日(-19.0%)
  3. 2022 年 11 月 9 日(-10.1%)至 10 日(-13.5%)

尽管如此,加密市场也曾出现过相继出现但并非连续发生的调整。例如,在 2022 年 Terra Luna 崩盘期间,加密总市值在 5 月 10 日下跌了 12.0% DoD,第二天短暂稳定下来,但随后在 5 月 12 日又下跌了 11.0% DoD。

与此同时,比特币仅出现过两次连续几天的加密货币调整。第一次是在 2015 年初,当时监管问题和不利发展(包括 Bitstamp 中心化加密货币交易所被黑客攻击)。比特币的下一次 2 天价格调整发生在拟议的 Bitcoin Unlimited 分叉辩论期间。 

值得注意的是,比特币最长的两次价格调整都与特定资产的问题有关,而不是与更广泛的加密货币发展有关:

  1. 2015 年 1 月 13 日(-17.5%)至 14 日(-22.3%)
  2. 2017 年 3 月 17 日(-11.8%)至 18 日(-10.4%)

另一方面,以太坊迄今为止已经历了 6 次连续的价格调整日。虽然以太坊前两次最长的价格调整发生在该资产的早期,但 2016 年 6 月的第三次价格调整是 The Dao 黑客攻击的结果。以太坊随后的 2 天价格调整与 2018 年熊市和 2022 年 FTX 崩盘期间的全球加密货币抛售一致。

  1. 2015 年 10 月 30 日(-10.5%)至 31 日(-12.9%)
  2. 2016 年 2 月 16 日(-17.9%)至 17 日(-14.3%)
  3. 2016 年 6 月 17 日(-24.9%)至 18 日(-27.3%)
  4. 2018 年 2 月 5 日(-11.4%)至 6 日(-18.0%)
  5. 2018 年 11 月 20 日(-15.4%)至 21 日(-12.6%)
  6. 2022 年 11 月 9 日(-15.0%)至 10 日(-17.9%)

加密货币调整期有多少天?

从 2014 年至今,加密货币经历了 62 天的市场调整,占这段时间的 1.6%。这些天加密货币市场的平均调整幅度为 -13.0%,仅比市场调整的技术临界值高出 3 个百分点。

2018 年,加密货币遭遇了 18 次市场调整,是历史最高,为 2017 年(9 天)的两倍。2018 年加密货币市场调整的频率可能是由于当时波动的看跌条件所致,因为加密货币从牛市中降温,而牛市让这一资产类别获得了更多的主流认可。

以太坊

值得注意的是,尽管宏观经济环境充满挑战,但加密货币市场仍在盘整并逐步复苏,因此2023 年加密货币价格没有出现任何调整。比特币和以太坊去年同样没有出现任何价格调整。

虽然今年迄今为止全球加密货币市场和比特币都尚未经历任何调整日,但 2024 年剩余时间是否仍将如此还有待观察。另一方面,以太坊今年已经经历了 2 天的价格调整,分别是 3 月 20 日的 -10.1% 和 2024 年 8 月 6 日的 -10.0%。

Related Reads

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

The article argues that blockchain's fundamental limitation is not the scalability trilemma (decentralization, scalability, security), which has been largely solved, but the lack of **privacy** and, until recently, clear **legitimacy**. Blockchain is described as a slow, expensive, globally shared computer whose core value is censorship resistance and verifiability. While ideal for native digital assets like money (e.g., stablecoins), its default transparency acts as a **tax**, exposing all transactions and enabling MEV extraction, which deters serious institutional capital. Simultaneously, its permissionless nature created regulatory ambiguity. The piece contends that **privacy** is the missing critical feature. It rejects the false choice between total transparency and complete anonymity. Modern cryptography (like zero-knowledge proofs) enables **compliant privacy**: users can prove facts (solvency, KYC status, compliance) without revealing the underlying sensitive data (specific holdings, identities). This preserves auditability for regulators and eliminates the leak of financial information. With recent regulatory progress (e.g., the GENIUS Act) addressing legitimacy, adding default, provably compliant privacy becomes a pure upgrade. It transforms blockchain from a costly, public ledger into a confidential settlement layer, finally bridging the gap to mainstream institutional and individual adoption of on-chain finance.

链捕手8h ago

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

链捕手8h ago

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

The global optical chip industry is experiencing a massive wave of expansion driven by surging AI data center demand. Major players across the US, Japan, Europe, and China are aggressively investing to ramp up production capacity. In the US, Coherent is expanding its 6-inch Indium Phosphide (InP) semiconductor fab in Texas, supported by CHIPS Act funding and a $2 billion strategic investment from NVIDIA. Lumentum is building a new factory for InP optical devices, and Nokia is scaling its advanced photonic chip packaging and testing capabilities. NVIDIA's investments aim to secure future supply of critical lasers and optical interconnect products for AI infrastructure. Japan's JX Advanced Metals, a leading InP substrate supplier, plans a multi-billion yen investment to increase its capacity 7-10 times, strengthening its grip on the crucial upstream materials market. In Europe, IQE and Tower Semiconductor settled a patent dispute and signed a multi-year InP epitaxial wafer supply agreement, highlighting that next-generation silicon photonics platforms will integrate high-performance InP components. STMicroelectronics and Sivers Semiconductors are also expanding silicon photonics production and partnerships. China is rapidly building out its domestic supply chain. Dongshan Precision's subsidiary, Source Photonics, announced a $12 billion project to expand optical chip and module production. Companies like Sanan Optoelectronics and Yunnan Germanium are scaling up InP chip manufacturing and substrate production, moving towards vertical integration from materials to modules. While debate continues around the exact future architecture—whether CPO (Co-Packaged Optics), NPO, or pluggables will dominate—analysts like Morgan Stanley argue the underlying driver is unchangeable: the explosive growth in bandwidth demand. This will inevitably increase the volume of optical engines, lasers, and related content per GPU, regardless of the final technical path. The competition for "more light" in the AI era has intensified into a global, full-chain capacity race.

marsbit10h ago

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

marsbit10h ago

Stablecoins Finally Find Real Yield: An In-Depth Look at On-Chain Reinsurance Re | A Conversation with Re Founder Karan Saroya

Stablecoin Real Yield Found: A Deep Dive into On-Chain Reinsurance with Re's Karan Saroya As stablecoin supply exceeds $170 billion, the search for sustainable, non-speculative yield intensifies. Re, an on-chain reinsurance platform, provides an answer: connecting stablecoin capital to the trillion-dollar traditional reinsurance market. Re operates as a regulated reinsurer, accepting stablecoin deposits as collateral to back US insurance companies. These insurers pay premiums, generating yield that flows back to on-chain depositors. Currently supporting 35 insurers and underwriting $500 million, Re projects scaling to over $1 billion soon. Key insights from a Bankless podcast with founder Karan Saroya and investor Avichal of Electric Capital: 1. **Uncorrelated, Real-World Yield:** Re offers stablecoin holders access to reinsurance returns (targeting 12-14%+), an asset class entirely separate from crypto or equity markets. 2. **Operational Efficiency via Smart Contracts:** Re replaces traditional, labor-intensive capital fundraising with smart contracts, allowing a ~12-person team to compete with industry giants. 3. **Regulatory Leverage:** For every $1 of collateral, regulations allow backing $5-7 in written premiums. This leverage amplifies returns from the underlying risk-free rate. 4. **DeFi Integration:** Depositors receive receipt tokens, which can be used in protocols like Morpho for "looping," potentially pushing yields to 18-20%+. 5. **The "DeFi Mullet" Model:** A compliant front-end (regulated reinsurer) paired with a decentralized back-end (smart contracts, DeFi capital markets). 6. **RE Governance Token:** Modeled on Lloyd's of London, the token governs the central capital pool's allocation, counterparty acceptance, and parameters. 7. **Real Economic Impact:** Capital funds real-world productivity (factories, clinics, businesses) via insurance, moving beyond crypto's internal loops. The discussion highlights a pivotal moment: DeFi's supply-side infrastructure is now met by real demand for productive yield, potentially kickstarting a flywheel where vast on-chain stablecoin capital seeks these real-world returns.

链捕手11h ago

Stablecoins Finally Find Real Yield: An In-Depth Look at On-Chain Reinsurance Re | A Conversation with Re Founder Karan Saroya

链捕手11h ago

1996 or 1999? Walsh's First Test is 'How to View AI'

"1996 or 1999? Wall's First Big Test Is 'How to View AI'" Federal Reserve Chairman Wall's initial challenge is not whether to raise or cut rates, but a more fundamental judgment: what kind of boom is the current AI boom? This will determine the Fed's policy path and define his legacy. Economics is split between two opposing views, according to reporter Nick Timiraos. One sees imminent productivity gains that will increase supply and cool inflation, allowing the Fed to hold steady. The other argues that while productivity benefits are distant, demand shocks are here now, and waiting for data confirmation risks missing the intervention window, forcing sharper rate hikes later. Wall has signaled a leaning toward the first view, echoing 1996-era Alan Greenspan, who embraced strong, productivity-driven growth without fear of inflation. However, Wall faces a different macro environment than Greenspan did, with tariff pressures, expanding fiscal deficits, and diminishing globalization benefits, which could force more significant inflation pressures even if AI benefits materialize. Wall's logic, expressed before taking office, is that AI-driven productivity gains won't show in official data for years. If the Fed waits for confirmation, it might mistakenly tighten policy and choke off the very growth that could suppress inflation. This argues for using forward-looking narratives over lagging data. Chicago Fed President Austan Goolsbee presents a key counter-argument. He distinguishes between expected and unexpected productivity booms. A widely anticipated boom, like the current AI wave, can cause people to spend future wealth gains in advance, overheating the economy before productivity actually rises, thus requiring preemptive rate hikes. He cites rising costs for AI data centers as evidence of such overheating. Fed Governor Christopher Waller offers a rebuttal to Goolsbee, noting the "expected spending" mechanism only works if people can borrow against future income, which many households cannot do due to borrowing constraints. Wall also faces a paradox related to his desire to reduce the Fed's use of "forward guidance" (pre-announcing policy moves). This practice was established in 1999 when Greenspan began signaling hikes to avoid market shocks. If the economy follows a less optimistic path, Wall may be forced to choose between using the guidance he wants to abolish or risking market volatility by staying silent. The ultimate question defining Wall's first major test remains: Is this 1996 or 1999?

marsbit12h ago

1996 or 1999? Walsh's First Test is 'How to View AI'

marsbit12h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片