数据显示加密货币熊市可能是一个遥远的威胁

币界网Published on 2024-08-16Last updated on 2024-08-16

币界网报道:

平均而言,加密货币熊市持续约一年,有时甚至长达两年。这一阶段发生在供应超过需求时,导致价格在较长时间内下跌。

2022 年发生了最严重的熊市之一。在此期间,按交易量计算最大的加密货币交易所之一 FTX 在大规模银行挤兑后倒闭。此次倒闭引发了区块链反应,导致多家对冲基金和借贷协议倒闭,标志着该行业跌至低谷。

熊市心理解析

最近,有传言称加密货币市场将重回熊市。自 3 月份比特币 (BTC) 达到 73,750 美元以来,许多加密货币都陷入困境。这种下跌引发了人们对市场可能进入又一个长期价格下跌期的担忧。

令人惊讶的是,这一事件发生在减半之前,给市场带来了冲击。当时,许多人认为加密货币价格将创下更高的高点。

但事实并非如此。相反,BTC 的价格与其他加密货币一样,要么在盘整,要么在下跌,要么出现假突破。

这些因素以及其他因素导致一些参与者认为市场可能正走向熊市阶段。

sAaaVLwJsOyBlEM7ZoRFfZoaIfpIjZ2aS1aeuBi3.jpeg

该K线走势图显示了 14 个不同的阶段。例如,当加密货币开始进入牛市阶段时,怀疑阶段标志着熊市的结束。此外还有兴奋、焦虑、兴奋或自满的阶段。

从表面上看,怀疑阶段发生在 2023 年第一季度左右,当时比特币价格开始持续上涨。与此同时,“激动”时期可能发生在今年 1 月初的 ETF 批准期间,因为有人呼吁人们加倍购买 BTC。

狂热可能出现在 3 月之间,当时 BTC 和许多其他山寨币和 meme 币达到了不同的高度。最近的降温可能表明,这一周期处于自满与焦虑之间,这通常是熊市的前兆。

尽管 ETH 存在问题,但比特币持有者仍坚决抵制低迷

然而,自满和焦虑时期可能只是虚惊一场。比特币长期持有者卖方风险比率提供了线索。该指标衡量了与过去市场周期相比的获利回吐水平。

目前,该比例仍低于 2021 年牛市期间的峰值,表明长期比特币持有者并未抛售。

OUI1PB1TSu6DHzXigUnil5k4S9JB4711mG089Duv.jpeg

此类行为表明长期持有者信心十足。

然而,由于某些山寨币(尤其是以太坊 (ETH))表现不佳,一些市场参与者仍持怀疑态度。

2021 年,在比特币创下历史新高(新高)后,ETH 也迅速跟进并超越了之前的峰值。然而这一次情况有所不同,甚至推出了现货以太坊 ETF。

目前,ETH 的交易价格为 2,567 美元,较其历史最高价下跌了 45%。此前,许多市场参与者自信地预测该山寨币将达到 8,000 美元至 10,000 美元之间,但这些预期尚未实现。

rTsya8ILGGKGBeRsZ5M1wHxyCupr8NOFqWh00b8t.jpeg

随着 ETH 继续表现不佳,一些乐观预测已经消退,这增强了人们对熊市即将来临的信念。然而,重要的是要认识到,包括 BTC 和 ETH 在内的顶级加密货币最近经历了一段分配期,这导致了最近的价格调整。

熊市仍在潜伏,等待加密的寒冬

市场参与者可能还担心加密货币鲸鱼购买 BTC 的速度已经放缓。然而,这些停顿在牛市周期中很常见。尽管如此,仍建议谨慎行事,正如净未实现利润/亏损 (NUPL) 所示。

NUPL 衡量投资者是盈利还是亏损。读数增加时,表明更多投资者获得更高的利润。相反,读数下跌则表示收益下跌。

该指标还有助于判断市场是否已进入熊市阶段。上涨表明牛市周期更强劲,而大幅下跌则增加了熊市的可能性。

2Ij7l0Pda8pVPi3BebpyECuaufysjS7817BqasTV.jpeg

截至发稿时,比特币的 NUPL 为 0.46。7 月份,类似的下跌导致 BTC 的价格跌至 55,857 美元。上一次该指标达到这一水平时,比特币的价格跌至 42,576 美元。

这使得当前读数成为市场的关键点。如果 NUPL 继续下跌并达到 0.40 或更低,空头可能会占据主导地位。

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.

marsbit5m ago

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

marsbit5m 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 News11m ago

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

Foresight News11m 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.

marsbit27m ago

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

marsbit27m 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?

marsbit33m ago

Why Do Crypto Projects Keep Changing Their Names?

marsbit33m ago

A Trillion-Dollar Entry Point for Pension Funds? Franklin's Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment ETFs Come with a Built-In Selling Pressure Ceiling

Franklin Templeton filed for two ETFs on June 18 that embed a "default option" logic into Bitcoin investing. These funds—the Franklin US Equity Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment Index ETF and the Franklin US Innovative Equity Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment Index ETF—aim to automatically allocate a portion of investor dividends to Bitcoin, initially with a 95% stock and 5% Bitcoin allocation. The mechanism is designed for financial advisors, not retail investors. By packaging Bitcoin exposure within a standard equity fund label, advisors can bypass internal compliance restrictions against direct cryptocurrency allocation for their clients. Dividends from the stock holdings are automatically used to buy Bitcoin via spot ETFs, futures, or options. However, the structure imposes strict rebalancing rules: if Bitcoin's allocation exceeds 5%, it is trimmed back to 4.5% quarterly, with a hard cap of 20%. This means the fund becomes a systematic seller during Bitcoin price rallies. Realistically, the potential buying pressure is minimal. Based on dividend yields (approximately 1.05% for broad market, 0.52% for innovative equity), the annual inflow into Bitcoin would be a tiny fraction of the fund's assets. For comparison, Franklin's existing Bitcoin ETF ($359 million AUM) would generate only about $3.6 million in annual Bitcoin purchases—negligible against Bitcoin's daily trading volume. The innovative equity fund, heavily weighted in low-dividend stocks like Nvidia, would have even weaker buying power. The product utilizes an offshore Cayman subsidiary to hold Bitcoin, a common compliance tactic for commodity exposure in mutual funds. A key drawback for investors is the tax liability: they must pay taxes on dividends that are automatically converted into Bitcoin, requiring out-of-pocket cash for a gain they never directly receive. For the strategy to scale significantly, such funds would need to become a default or near-default option in retirement plans like 401(k)s. Recent regulatory moves, including a Trump executive order and a Department of Labor proposal offering fiduciary safe harbors for including crypto assets, could pave the way. However, widespread employer adoption likely awaits further legal clarity. Ultimately, the fund's model leverages investor inertia and automated systems, rather than convincing anyone to actively choose Bitcoin. While it creates a new, albeit small, structural buyer, its rebalancing rules also establish a built-in "selling ceiling" that could dampen price upside if similar products proliferate.

Foresight News35m ago

A Trillion-Dollar Entry Point for Pension Funds? Franklin's Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment ETFs Come with a Built-In Selling Pressure Ceiling

Foresight News35m ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片