SignalPlus宏观分析特别版:Escalate to De-Escalate?

Odaily星球日报Published on 2025-06-23Last updated on 2025-06-23

Abstract

伊以冲突升级,资金避险情绪加剧。

SignalPlus宏观分析特别版:Escalate to De-Escalate?

SignalPlus宏观分析特别版:Escalate to De-Escalate?

地缘政治紧张局势于周末进一步升级,美军轰炸机对伊朗境内三座深层核设施发动迅速且精确的打击。美方报告称,设施损毁严重,惟尚未得到官方证实核材料是否已被摧毁或事先撤离。

市场本能地抛售风险资产,而加密货币作为唯一周末持续交易的资产类别,自然首当其冲,攻击刚开始时 BTC 自 102 k 以上回落约 4% 至 99 k 左右。须留意的是,在传统金融投资者眼中,加密货币仍持续被视为前沿/高风险资产。

由于局势升级,市场原本担忧周一开盘将出现剧烈风险反应,惟此类疑虑在亚洲早盘已快速消散,市场上逐渐浮现一种观点,认为此番行动或许代表一次成功的「以升级换降温」(escalate to de-escalate),即透过关键的武力展现来推动谈判进展。此外,封锁荷莫兹海峡的实际困难(伊朗石油与天然气出口大多流向中国)也让市场对油价失控飙升的担忧有所缓解。

周一早盘的价格表现似乎也印证此观点,美股期货几乎已回升至上周五的水平,油价稳定在每桶约 75 美元,现货黄金回吐了此前涨幅,美元兑以色列新谢克尔也已回落至冲突前低点。

SignalPlus宏观分析特别版:Escalate to De-Escalate?

一般而言,地缘政治压力往往是短暂的,对股市也只有暂时性的影响。花旗近期一项研究显示,SPX 指数往往会在地缘政治事件风险升温前出现负面反应,但一旦事件实际发生,表现通常不差。若我们相信股市具有一定效率,且能够前瞻性地反映已知与可预见的未知风险,这样的结论便合情合理。除非出现难以想像的大规模毁灭性武器攻击或其他极端突发事件,否则我们预期风险市场将逐渐适应此轮冲突,并重新聚焦于正在进行的关税谈判与经济发展上。

SignalPlus宏观分析特别版:Escalate to De-Escalate?

在利率市场方面,尽管市场对美国巨额利息支出与潜在通胀风险的讨论不断,但利率隐含波动率已回落至中期低点,显示市场并不预期已开发国家央行将有实质行动,整体远期利率轨迹亦维持稳定,债券交易员已重回常态操作。

SignalPlus宏观分析特别版:Escalate to De-Escalate?

与此同时,根据华尔街多数观点,目前市场流动性(即金融形势)仍相当充裕,使得风险资产(例如股票)得以持续攀升「忧虑之墙」,即便经历了解放日、持续的俄乌冲突与以伊紧张局势,SPX 指数仍能强劲回升。

SignalPlus宏观分析特别版:Escalate to De-Escalate?

尽管宏观观察人士可能仍长期抱持悲观立场,投资者却以实际资金投票,在各种预警声中,风险情绪仍明显偏多,整体经济亦持续运转,企业盈利稳步上升。

SignalPlus宏观分析特别版:Escalate to De-Escalate?

可惜的是,加密货币市场并非如此。BTC 下跌 4% ,触及 98.9 k 美元附近,而 ETH 则大跌约 10% 至 2, 150 美元,创下自 5 月初以来最低的盘中价位。随著伊朗空袭消息传出,加密货币作为唯一仍在交易的资产,自然遭到抛售,周末期间有超过 10 亿美元的期货部位遭到清算。

SignalPlus宏观分析特别版:Escalate to De-Escalate?

尽管股票、原油与黄金价格在早盘已扭转周末走势,加密货币价格却难以同步反弹,投资者在冲突发生时仍处于多头部位,且过去一个月帐面波动剧烈,而加密货币价格自第一季度以来始终无法有效突破,BTC 也难以突破 2 月份的高点。

SignalPlus宏观分析特别版:Escalate to De-Escalate?

Glassnode 上周进行了一项出色的分析,显示尽管 TradFi 社群对 BTC 表现出浓厚兴趣,链上交易活动却已显著放缓。简言之,由于主流投资者试图透过传统工具(例如 ETF、期货)获取 BTC 敞口,链下场外(OTC)交易活跃,然而自 FTX 以来,链上活动并未恢复,这从 DeFi 与 Altcoin 表现低迷以及新叙事(除稳定币/RWA 外)乏善可陈的现象中可见一斑。

SignalPlus宏观分析特别版:Escalate to De-Escalate?

同样地,幂律分布现象在加密货币领域也愈发普遍,一方面,BTC 的市值主导地位持续上升,另一方面,其自身的链上转帐活动也愈发集中于大型钱包。根据 Glassnode 的数据,单笔金额超过 10 万美元的交易占比已从 2022 年的 66% 上升至今日的 89% ,进一步证实了「巨鲸」主导市场的观点,而小型帐户在市场上的影响力与参与感也越来越低。

不幸的是,随著加密货币行业日益成熟并加速机构化,这一趋势很可能会持续下去,这或许是无可避免的结果。

SignalPlus宏观分析特别版:Escalate to De-Escalate?

此外,随著 BTC 成为主流资产类别,自然也必须遵循其他宏观资产的运作规则,也就是由资金体量最大的参与者所主导,链下交易远比链上交易活跃。长期观察者指出,本轮周期与过往不同,缺乏 altcoin 热度或新叙事的崛起,但这其实早就在预料之中,TradFi 参与者更倾向透过他们熟悉的工具(链下)参与市场,自主托管与链上叙事对此族群而言吸引力有限,然而,由于他们拥有的资金规模远大于原生用户,他们的行为与偏好将越来越主导价格走势。

SignalPlus宏观分析特别版:Escalate to De-Escalate?

这种宏观相关性的变化,可以通过 BTC 期货未平仓量的大幅增加来观察,自 2024 年第四季度以来,BTC 期货未平仓量的急剧变动正是我们更频繁看到清算缺口(如上周末)的主因。链下活动与期货驱动的价格变动意味著更高的宏观相关性,加密货币原生动能的影响更加薄弱。

SignalPlus宏观分析特别版:Escalate to De-Escalate?

与此同时,本轮周期中加密货币期权交易活跃度也显著上升。整体市场每日交易量从 2024 年的 15 亿美元攀升至近期高点 50 亿美元,显示日益成熟的市场参与者采用更多期权策略来管理风险。欢迎持续与 SignalPlus 团队联系,我们将竭诚协助您探索更多期权策略应用!

SignalPlus宏观分析特别版:Escalate to De-Escalate?

回到当前时点,BTC 的需求动能似乎显得疲弱。根据 CryptoQuant 的数据,其需求动能指数创下历史低点,即使市场拥有一连串利多政策(如 Genius Act、香港稳定币政策等),价格依旧无法有效突破先前高点,短期持币者(即新资金)供给似乎正在放缓。

SignalPlus宏观分析特别版:Escalate to De-Escalate?

波动率市场方面,价格变化显示交易员对这次波动措手不及,隐含波动率自此前单边下行趋势中突然飙升。看跌期权出现显著买盘,尤其是 ETH,显示市场参与者在持有多头 delta 的情况下寻求下行保护,短期内市场可能还有进一步下行压力。

SignalPlus宏观分析特别版:Escalate to De-Escalate?

展望未来,我们认为市场将很快消化并走出此次地缘政治事件,甚至可能看到俄罗斯与伊朗局势都出现某种和平突破,以及关税谈判的实质进展。市场自然会因这些进展而上涨,但届时焦点也将重新回到高估值问题上,目前 SPX 指数已经反映 + 12% 的盈利增长预期至 296 美元(相当于 20 倍远期市盈率),然而美国经济实际上似乎正在放缓(就业指标、CEO 裁员预期等)。

如我们一直以来的立场,不建议逆势做空当前股市上涨趋势,但相信此波反弹行情已接近尾声,现阶段更应聚焦于降低风险。在加密货币市场方面,鉴于近期价格表现,我们更担忧市场可能出现更大幅度的调整,清洗近期进场的追高资金与浮动筹码。我们亦对众多上市公司纷纷将 BTC 纳入公司持币的「财务工程」操作感到警惕,这可能反而是一种负面 FOMO 信号。

保持冷静,控制风险,愿冷静的头脑战胜当前局势。祝各位好运。

SignalPlus宏观分析特别版:Escalate to De-Escalate?

SignalPlus宏观分析特别版:Escalate to De-Escalate?

您可免费使用 SignalPlus 交易风向标功能 t.signalplus.com/crypto-news/all,通过 AI 整合市场信息,市场情绪一目了然。 如果想即时收到我们的更新,欢迎关注我们的推特账号@SignalPlusCN,或者加入我们的微信群(添加小助手微信,请删除英文和数字中间的空格:SignalPlus 666)、Telegram 群以及 Discord 社群,和更多朋友一起交流互动。
SignalPlus Official Website:https://www.signalplus.com

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.

marsbit30m ago

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

marsbit30m 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 News36m ago

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

Foresight News36m 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.

marsbit52m ago

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

marsbit52m 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?

marsbit58m ago

Why Do Crypto Projects Keep Changing Their Names?

marsbit58m ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片