市场押注ETH合并,接着奏乐接着舞

Foresight ResearchPublished on 2022-08-15Last updated on 2022-08-15

Abstract

货币流动性整体紧缩。本周三公布的美国7月CPI数据8.5%好于预期的8.7%,较前值的9.1%大幅回落,预示着美国通胀峰值或许已经过去。

市场观点

宏观流动性

货币流动性整体紧缩。本周三公布的美国7月CPI数据8.5%好于预期的8.7%,较前值的9.1%大幅回落,预示着美国通胀峰值或许已经过去。接下来会有9月22日加息减缓利好,大概率从75BP下降到50BP,具体要看新的8月CPI是否继续下降。CPI目前主要是油价决定,还可能有起伏。美元指数持续下挫1%创一个月新低,促使风险资产全面反弹走高。美股刷新三个月新高,进入技术性牛市,BTC大概率趋同跟随。

BTC依然是长期囤币党主导。随着市场从近期低点反弹,BTC长期持有者并未大幅减持。65%的BTC一年未动过,45%的BTC两年未动过。交易所余额由12.6%降低到12.4%,7日流入量达21个月低点。

外部资金仍然未出现入场迹象。稳定币市值是最好衡量资金入场的根据。USDT继续在少量增加,而USDC则几乎在等量减少,这里更大的可能还是汇率搬砖。外部资金的刺激是市场是否会转向的信号,目前这个信号尚未出现。

BTC长期市场指标

长期趋势指标MVRV-ZScore以市场总成本作为依据,反映市场总体盈利状态。当指标大于6时,是顶部区间;当指标小于2时,是底部区间。当前指标为0.11,依然在底部低估区间。

BTC短期市场指标

期货资金费率:上周资金费率较高,本周明显下降,说明回调时多头止损平仓较多。费率0.05-0.1%,多头杠杆较多,是市场短期顶部;费率-0.1-0%,空头杠杆较多,是市场短期底部。

期货多空比:1.1。市场继续上涨概率大。多空比数据波动大,参考意义有所削弱。

合约持仓量:本周持仓量小幅回落,变动不大。ETH合约量接近新高,历史上首次超过BTC。越来越多的交易者购买ETH现货,然后合约做空套保以获得分叉空投,套利交易变得拥挤。

BTC走势分析

本周BTC维持在反弹趋势线上方。目前大量山寨币市值降低情况下,资金更加偏重在BTC和ETH上。美股已经回到今年4-5月水平,BTC当时波动区间是34000-48000,合理价格约在40000左右。考虑LUNA崩盘、特斯拉减持等多项实质利空影响,打个八折约是30000。技术面上参考前期筹码密集区,上涨阻力位在28000-30000左右。

板块涨跌幅Top 100

本周BTC大涨7%,市场强劲反弹。市场押注ETH2.0合并成功,开发人员预测的日期为9月19日。自2022年6月低点以来,ETH/BTC汇率上涨了50%。大量早期DeFi龙头项目再次开始上涨,由UNI,AAVE,SNX等领导,时间维度与ETH2.0合并背景很好地保持一致。公链赛道(NEAR, AVAX, SOL, DOT)也跟随ETH反弹。或许要等BTC真正站稳25000,才会出现山寨币普涨行情。

市场数据

公链总锁仓量情况

本周整体TVL上升1.6B,上升幅度达2.3%,同期BTC上涨3.3%,ETH上涨达10.97%,上涨远不及主流代币涨幅。

各公链TVL占比情况

虽然同期ETH行情大涨,但占比缺没有出现增长,反而下跌了0.46%,而Optimism链继续出现增长,打到1.64%,目前排在第八位,其余各链占比变化较小。

各链协议锁仓量情况

1)ETH锁仓量情况

ETH Gas fee历史情况

当前链上转账费用约为$0.72,Uniswap交易费用约为$2.44,Opensea的交易费用约为$0.95,本周Gas Price出现触底反弹,有逐渐上升的趋势,高点于8月10日,当日Gas Price均值为27.

NFT市场数据变化

NFT指数市值

NFT市场交易概览

NFT“聪明的钱”购买排序

NFT市场活跃度依旧较低,短期值得关注的项目,一个是NFTiff,由Tiffany & Co公司发行的250个艺术品NFT,在本周出现较高交易量增长。另一个是10KTF发行的Battle.town,10KTF是之前发行以无聊猿为主元素的潮鞋发行商,其可以支持将一部分蓝筹NFT项目做为模板,发行对应的子潮品,本次发行的Battle.town是基于游戏元宇宙背景下,一套以战斗装备为基础的盲盒NFT,近期交易较为活跃。

Trending Cryptos

Related Reads

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 News7m ago

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

Foresight News7m 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.

marsbit23m ago

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

marsbit23m 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?

marsbit29m ago

Why Do Crypto Projects Keep Changing Their Names?

marsbit29m 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 News31m ago

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

Foresight News31m ago

Why Do Crypto Projects Always Love Changing Names?

This article explores why cryptocurrency projects frequently change their names, a practice uncommon in traditional businesses where brand equity is a core asset. Over 16% of crypto projects have reportedly rebranded, often for strategic, marketing, or defensive reasons. The primary explanation is the weak user loyalty in crypto; many users are investors, airdrop hunters, or narrative traders, not traditional consumers. When a project's token price falls, its narrative fades, or it faces scandals/hacks, its old name becomes a liability laden with negative history rather than brand value. Therefore, frequent rebranding aims to shed this historical baggage. Name changes can be a marketing strategy to align with new business directions (e.g., Matic to Polygon), capitalize on trending narratives (e.g., adding "AI" or "Multiverse"), or distance from past failures like security breaches (e.g., Anyswap to Multichain). However, the most concerning aspect often involves a simultaneous token migration or swap. This process can serve as a "liquidity reset": it wipes historical price charts, potentially eases market manipulation, and is sometimes used to introduce new tokenomics that dilute existing holders' value through hidden inflation. The article concludes that while legitimate strategic pivots can justify a rebrand, many crypto name changes are less about building a new future and more about escaping the past—erasing bad memories, failed narratives, and dissatisfied communities. The key questions for any rebranding project are: what genuine new value or strategy does it bring, how has the tokenomics changed, and what part of its history is it trying to make users forget?

链捕手38m ago

Why Do Crypto Projects Always Love Changing Names?

链捕手38m ago

Trading

Spot
Futures

Hot Articles

What is $BITCOIN

DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN): A Comprehensive Analysis Introduction to DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) is a blockchain-based project operating on the Solana network, which aims to combine the characteristics of traditional precious metals with the innovation of decentralized technologies. While it shares a name with Bitcoin, often referred to as “digital gold” due to its perception as a store of value, DIGITAL GOLD is a separate token designed to create a unique ecosystem within the Web3 landscape. Its goal is to position itself as a viable alternative digital asset, although specifics regarding its applications and functionalities are still developing. What is DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN)? DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) is a cryptocurrency token explicitly designed for use on the Solana blockchain. In contrast to Bitcoin, which provides a widely recognized value storage role, this token appears to focus on broader applications and characteristics. Notable aspects include: Blockchain Infrastructure: The token is built on the Solana blockchain, known for its capacity to handle high-speed and low-cost transactions. Supply Dynamics: DIGITAL GOLD has a maximum supply capped at 100 quadrillion tokens (100P $BITCOIN), although details regarding its circulating supply are currently undisclosed. Utility: While precise functionalities are not explicitly outlined, there are indications that the token could be utilized for various applications, potentially involving decentralized applications (dApps) or asset tokenization strategies. Who is the Creator of DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN)? At present, the identity of the creators and development team behind DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) remains unknown. This situation is typical among many innovative projects within the blockchain space, particularly those aligning with decentralized finance and meme coin phenomena. While such anonymity may foster a community-driven culture, it intensifies concerns about governance and accountability. Who are the Investors of DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN)? The available information indicates that DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) does not have any known institutional backers or prominent venture capital investments. The project seems to operate on a peer-to-peer model focused on community support and adoption rather than traditional funding routes. Its activity and liquidity are primarily situated on decentralized exchanges (DEXs), such as PumpSwap, rather than established centralized trading platforms, further highlighting its grassroots approach. How DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) Works The operational mechanics of DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) can be elaborated on based on its blockchain design and network attributes: Consensus Mechanism: By leveraging Solana’s unique proof-of-history (PoH) combined with a proof-of-stake (PoS) model, the project ensures efficient transaction validation contributing to the network's high performance. Tokenomics: While specific deflationary mechanisms have not been extensively detailed, the vast maximum token supply implies that it may cater to microtransactions or niche use cases that are still to be defined. Interoperability: There exists the potential for integration with Solana’s broader ecosystem, including various decentralized finance (DeFi) platforms. However, the details regarding specific integrations remain unspecified. Timeline of Key Events Here is a timeline that highlights significant milestones concerning DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN): 2023: The initial deployment of the token occurs on the Solana blockchain, marked by its contract address. 2024: DIGITAL GOLD gains visibility as it becomes available for trading on decentralized exchanges like PumpSwap, allowing users to trade it against SOL. 2025: The project witnesses sporadic trading activity and potential interest in community-led engagements, although no noteworthy partnerships or technical advancements have been documented as of yet. Critical Analysis Strengths Scalability: The underlying Solana infrastructure supports high transaction volumes, which could enhance the utility of $BITCOIN in various transaction scenarios. Accessibility: The potential low trading price per token could attract retail investors, facilitating wider participation due to fractional ownership opportunities. Risks Lack of Transparency: The absence of publicly known backers, developers, or an audit process may yield skepticism regarding the project's sustainability and trustworthiness. Market Volatility: The trading activity is heavily reliant on speculative behavior, which can result in significant price volatility and uncertainty for investors. Conclusion DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) emerges as an intriguing yet ambiguous project within the rapidly evolving Solana ecosystem. While it attempts to leverage the “digital gold” narrative, its departure from Bitcoin's established role as a store of value underscores the need for a clearer differentiation of its intended utility and governance structure. Future acceptance and adoption will likely depend on addressing the current opacity and defining its operational and economic strategies more explicitly. Note: This report encompasses synthesised information available as of October 2023, and developments may have transpired beyond the research period.

459 Total ViewsPublished 2025.05.13Updated 2025.05.13

What is $BITCOIN

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of BTC (BTC) are presented below.

活动图片