What Does Ethena's Trend Reveal About the Cryptocurrency Market?

marsbitPublished on 2026-03-09Last updated on 2026-03-09

Abstract

The article analyzes the perpetual futures market structure and risk sentiment in the cryptocurrency market using Ethena's transparency dashboard as a key indicator. It reveals that Ethena's deployed capital has dropped to $791 million, only 71% of its 2025 low and 12.9% of its peak, reflecting extremely low net long demand in the market. A key insight is that directional long positions are nearly equal to directional short positions—a rare and historically unsustainable balance in crypto. The analysis breaks down perpetual contract holders into four categories: directional longs, directional shorts (including hedgers), basis traders (like Ethena), and arbitrageurs. Ethena’s role as a basis trader provides a proxy for excess long demand. The sharp decline in its deployed capital—over 60% since February 2026—suggests either the unwinding of unprofitable basis trades, increased hedging activity from directional shorts, or weak leveraged long demand. Current negative funding rates and stable open interest indicate growing short or hedge demand, possibly from VC firms and crypto companies managing risk in a bearish market. This equilibrium between longs and shorts is unusual and may signal a market regime change, though it remains uncertain whether this balance can persist.

Article Author: Kyle Soska

Article Translation: Block unicorn

The cryptocurrency market has been in a risk-off state for several consecutive months, and I have been carefully studying various market data, looking for signs of a potential market turnaround. In this article, I will delve into the market structure of perpetual futures and, combined with data from the Ethena transparency dashboard, analyze market risk appetite.

In short: Ethena's deployed capital is at a multi-year low, only 71% of the 2025 low. This is not a criticism of Ethena, but rather a reflection of the current market conditions. Directional short positions are almost on par with directional long positions, an extremely rare and historically unsustainable balance in the cryptocurrency space.

The cryptocurrency market has long been characterized by the extreme volatility of its assets and the heavy use of leverage by traders. My previous research, "Understanding Cryptocurrency Derivatives: The BitMEX Case Study," explored the novel 100x perpetual contracts offered on BitMEX.

Since the BitMEX era, cryptocurrency futures have become the highest-volume product in the cryptocurrency market, with trading volumes 5 to 20 times that of the spot market. As a center for leveraged trading for retail investors, perpetual contracts can reflect the risk appetite of the cryptocurrency market and are therefore worthy of our attention.

Ethena provides us with an extremely unique perspective, allowing us to gain deep insights into the cryptocurrency derivatives market. As shown in the figure below, Ethena implements a cryptocurrency arbitrage trade. The strategy is simple: when cryptocurrency traders go long, Ethena acts as their counterparty and goes short. Ethena ensures it buys exactly the same amount of assets as the traders are shorting. In a sense, Ethena provides a leverage service. Traders want to profit from rising cryptocurrency prices but lack capital; while Ethena has capital but limited risk tolerance. Therefore, traders use perpetual contracts to borrow funds from Ethena at the basis plus the funding cost of the perpetual contract.

(Chart: Ethena Mechanism Illustration)

By construction, each long contract corresponds to a short contract in a 1:1 ratio. Each open interest in perpetual contracts represents a cash flow agreement between two parties. The exchange's role is to facilitate the matching of these contracts, ensuring that each contract always has a sufficiently funded long and short holder. The table below shows the four possible outcomes facilitated by the exchange.

Perpetual Contract Matching Matrix

Every trade has a buyer and a seller. When both the buyer and seller of a contract are long or both are short, the exchange merely transfers ownership of the contract from one party to the other. This transfer does not create or destroy any contracts. When the buyer is long and the seller is short, a new contract must be created, with the buyer taking the long position and the seller taking the short position, increasing the open interest by 1 contract. On the other hand, if the seller is long and the buyer is short, the exchange can directly unwind the contracts of the buyer and seller and delete the newly released contract, decreasing the open interest by 1 contract.

So, who are the actual holders of these contracts in a typical market? I believe contract holders can be broadly categorized into four types:

  • [Long] Directional Longs

  • [Short] Directional Shorts / Hedgers

    • a. Direct Asset Shorts / Hedges

    • b. Structured Product Hedges

  • [Short] Basis Traders (e.g., Ethena, etc.)

  • [Hybrid] Perpetual Arbitrageurs

Directional Longs seek exposure. They are risk-takers, and their demand for risk depends on their level of risk appetite.

Directional Shorts include both investors who wish to take on the downside risk of an asset and investors who wish to hedge their assets in a tax-efficient manner. Venture capital firms and company employees compensated with tokens often wish to hedge tokens that vest at current prices. For altcoins, many markets are too small for effective direct hedging, or may not even exist. In such cases, companies like Cumberland, Wintermute, FalconX, Flowdesk, and Amber can construct dynamically managed synthetic positions, using short sales of Bitcoin and Ethereum and other highly correlated assets to hedge exposure to less liquid markets (e.g., Monad). Projects like Neutrl also employ this strategy, offering such hedging as a yield strategy.

Basis Traders are opportunistic shorts. They are not interested in directional risk but actively fill the excess demand from directional longs when market supply and demand are imbalanced. Under most market mechanisms, long demand exceeds short demand, and the basis traders' role is to bridge the gap. Their position sizes are usually highly elastic.

Perpetual Arbitrageurs hold both long and short positions in perpetual contracts simultaneously. Their role is to connect different perpetual contracts and correct any minor price discrepancies, at a cost not exceeding transaction fees. Their long positions perfectly match their short positions at any given moment.

By construction, all perpetual contracts are in a 1:1 ratio, with long positions perfectly matched by short positions, so we know:

Directional Longs + Arbitrage Longs = Directional Shorts + Basis Shorts + Arbitrage Shorts

Furthermore, the structure of perpetual arbitrage tells us:

Arbitrage Longs = Arbitrage Shorts

Canceling this term from the first equation yields:

Directional Longs = Directional Shorts + Basis Shorts

Ethena provides us with a proxy for all basis shorts, which helps us gain insight into the difference between directional longs and shorts.

The chart below is Ethena's self-reported balance sheet, divided into cash and deployed capital, for the period from December 27, 2024, to March 7, 2026:

(Chart: Ethena Balance Sheet 2024-2026)

The market turned sharply risk-off in January 2025 after the launch of the $TRUMP token, followed by a continued decline during the initial tariff discussions and the "Liberation Day" in April. During this period, Ethena's deployed capital plummeted from over $5 billion to around $1.108 billion, a drop of more than 75%.

It is important to note that Ethena's deployed capital can serve as a reference for the degree of excess long demand in the market. Although Ethena is not the only institution conducting such trades, its size is substantial (sometimes around 25% of Binance and Bybit), and as long as it has ample cash, it will expand its positions to meet any unmet long demand. This suggests that while total long demand may not have fallen by 75% by April 2025, the excess demand not met by directional short covering did indeed fall by 75%.

The chart below shows the deployment of Ethena's balance sheet relative to its total size, the 2025 minimum, and maximum values.

<极i data-index-in-node="0" data-path-to-node="29" style="font-size: inherit; font-family: PingFang SC,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,Hiragino Sans GB,Heiti SC,Microsoft YaHei,WenQuanYi Micro Hei,sans-serif;">(Chart: Ethena Deployment Comparison)

Observing the current market, the total capital deployed by Ethena across all markets (BTC, ETH, SOL, BNB, XRP, HYPE) is only about $791 million. This is only 71% of the 2025 minimum and a mere 12.9% of the peak value before October 10th. This figure is not a criticism of Ethena but reflects the current market conditions: net long demand is at a historically low level.

It is particularly noteworthy that during the market crash where Bitcoin price plummeted to $60,000, Ethena deployed over $2 billion in capital. Since just a month ago, on February 8, 2026, Ethena's deployed capital has astonishingly decreased by 60%!

The chart below zooms in on Ethena's deployed capital and the price trend of Bitcoin since January this year.

(Chart: Ethena Deployed Capital vs. Bitcoin Price Trend 2026)

Since the Bitcoin price fell to $60,000, Ethena's basis positions have shrunk by over 60%, from over $2 billion to less than $800 million. This change is puzzling because the market has been relatively stable during this period. The reasons for this are as follows:

  1. Profitable but unsustainable basis trades established after the February crash (the basis turned negative, but funding rates were also negative) are being gradually unwound.

  2. Increased hedging activity from directional shorts and price-insensitive participants is squeezing out opportunistic basis traders.

  3. Insufficient demand for leveraged exposure from longs.

(Chart: Open Interest vs. Funding Rate Trend)

In my opinion, the truth is primarily determined by a combination of factors 1 and 2, with factor 3 playing a minimal role. As shown in the chart above, during this period of gradual Ethereum project unwinding, the overall open interest for Bitcoin (and other major cryptocurrencies) has remained relatively stable. Meanwhile, funding rates have been negative for an extended period, with many cryptocurrencies (e.g., SOL) having cumulative negative funding rates across multiple exchanges. This indicates an increasing demand for shorting or hedging some form of risk exposure.

If I had to guess, I would say that small and medium-sized cryptocurrency companies and venture capital firms are both facing a crisis. Think of small-cap projects like Eigen, Grass, Monad, etc. There are hundreds of such cryptocurrencies, each representing dozens of venture capital firms and a company with capital and employees. Venture capital firms need to control losses and lock in profits to meet fund investment targets, and these companies need to ensure cash flow and headcount. This creates a situation where all participants want to squeeze the maximum benefit from the "stone," and the answer lies in relatively crowded trades through actively managed structured products that short a basket of correlated assets.

We saw the presence of these structured products during Ethereum's (ETH) explosive rally days, which also triggered short-covering rallies in numerous small and medium-sized cryptocurrencies. Another piece of evidence is the significant crowding out of opportunistic basis traders like Ethena.

Regardless of the specific reason, we can be sure that this is the first time in the history of the crypto market that directional longs and directional shorts have almost reached equilibrium. There is no充分 reason why this state cannot become the new normal, nor can it be proven that this market regime must change, but looking at other asset classes and markets, it is very unusual for such a trend to persist.

Related Questions

QWhat does the significant decrease in Ethena's deployed capital indicate about the current cryptocurrency market?

AThe significant decrease in Ethena's deployed capital, which is at 71% of its 2025 low and only 12.9% of its peak, indicates that net long demand is at a historically low level. This reflects a prolonged risk-off sentiment in the market, where there is a lack of excess demand for leveraged long positions that is not being met by directional shorts.

QAccording to the article, what are the four main categories of perpetual contract holders in the crypto market?

AThe four main categories are: 1. Directional Longs (speculators seeking upside exposure), 2. Directional Shorts / Hedgers (those betting on downside or hedging existing assets), 3. Basis Traders (opportunistic shorts like Ethena that fill excess long demand), and 4. Perpetual Arbitrageurs (traders who hold both long and short positions to exploit price differences between contracts).

QHow does the article use the equation 'Directional Longs = Directional Shorts + Basis Shorts' to interpret market structure?

AThis equation, derived from the fact that all perpetual contracts are matched 1:1, shows that the amount of speculative long demand must be balanced by a combination of speculative short selling and the capital provided by basis traders. Ethena's deployed capital serves as a proxy for 'Basis Shorts,' allowing analysts to infer the relationship and imbalance between directional long and short interest.

QWhat are the proposed reasons for the 60% contraction in Ethena's positions since the February market crash, despite relatively stable prices?

AThe proposed reasons are: 1. The unwinding of profitable but unsustainable basis trades established after the February crash (where basis turned negative along with funding rates). 2. Increased hedging activity from directional shorts and price-insensitive participants, crowding out opportunistic basis traders. The article suggests reason 3 (insufficient leveraged long demand) plays a minimal role compared to the first two.

QWhat unique market condition does the current low level of Ethena's deployment reveal, and why is it considered unusual?

AIt reveals a market condition where directional long positions are nearly equal to directional short positions, achieving an extremely rare and historically unsustainable equilibrium. This is unusual because, in most asset classes and market regimes, there is typically a natural imbalance with a greater propensity for long speculation, making such a balance between bullish and bearish directional bets highly atypical.

Related Reads

Wintermute Market Weekly: Iran War Ends, Inflation Meets Expectations, BTC Rebounds to Lower 60ks But Don’t Rush to Buy the Dip

**Wintermute Market Weekly: BTC Rebounds to $60K Lows, But Caution Advised** This week saw a broad market rebound, primarily driven by two converging factors: a US CPI inflation reading that met expectations (4.2% YoY) and former President Trump's announcement of a deal to end the Iran conflict. The latter triggered a sharp drop in oil prices, reducing geopolitical risk premiums and easing inflation fears. Consequently, risk assets like equities and cryptocurrencies rallied, with Bitcoin recovering from lows around $60,000 to close the week up 1.9%, while altcoins gained 3.1%. Despite the price bounce, the underlying liquidity picture for crypto remains weak. Key funding channels—stablecoin flows, ETF inflows, and Digital Asset Treasury (DAT) activity—show no signs of structural improvement. ETF outflows recently hit a record streak, and DAT assets have declined significantly. The rally from $60K to $83K earlier is now viewed as a bear-market rally that has failed. The current environment is characterized by low directional conviction and choppy, range-bound trading, likely persisting into summer. The report advises caution against aggressively buying the dip. While the $60K area offers attractive long-term risk/reward, a sustained bull run requires a visible turnaround in capital inflows, which hasn't materialized. The upcoming FOMC meeting and Powell's commentary, alongside the formal Iran deal signing, are noted as near-term catalysts. The core takeaway is to watch fund flows rather than price action and avoid being whipsawed by volatility before clear signs of institutional or retail capital returning emerge.

marsbit14m ago

Wintermute Market Weekly: Iran War Ends, Inflation Meets Expectations, BTC Rebounds to Lower 60ks But Don’t Rush to Buy the Dip

marsbit14m ago

Cursor, Why Boarded Musk's Starship?

SpaceX announced its acquisition of AI programming startup Cursor's parent company, Anysphere, for $60 billion in an all-stock deal, just days after its record-breaking IPO. The move sent SpaceX's stock soaring, briefly making it the most valuable U.S. company. Cursor, founded in 2022 by MIT graduate Michael Truell and his classmates, is a popular AI coding assistant that allows developers to switch between models from OpenAI, Anthropic, and others. It saw explosive revenue growth, reaching a $4 billion annualized run rate in early 2026. However, its market share was eroded by the launch of competitor Claude Code from its key AI supplier, Anthropic. This dependence prompted Cursor to develop its own AI model, Composer, in early 2026. To scale Composer, Cursor needed immense computing power. In April 2026, it struck a deal with SpaceX, granting the latter an option to acquire it post-IPO. SpaceX exercised this option, offering Cursor access to its Colossus supercomputer, powered by hundreds of thousands of top-tier Nvidia AI chips. For SpaceX, the acquisition is a strategic move to bolster its AI capabilities, particularly for its xAI division, and advance its broader ambition of building orbital, solar-powered data centers. While the deal surprised some employees and investors given Truell's earlier stance on independence, it represents a high-stakes partnership. SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has projected the company could reach $1 trillion in revenue by 2030. For Truell, joining forces with SpaceX is a monumental gamble on an unprecedented scale in the race for AI dominance.

链捕手16m ago

Cursor, Why Boarded Musk's Starship?

链捕手16m ago

The More It Rises, the More Dangerous? The Systemic Risks Behind SpaceX's Soaring Valuation

Summary: The article raises concerns about the systemic risks posed by SpaceX's skyrocketing valuation, arguing that modern market mechanics, rather than fundamentals, are driving its price discovery. Following SpaceX's market capitalization surpassing $3 trillion in after-hours trading, the author contends that the market is no longer functioning properly. The core issue is not SpaceX's business prospects but the unhealthy market structure surrounding it. With limited float and the imminent launch of options trading, the stage is set for a potential "gamma squeeze"—a feedback loop where market makers hedging call options are forced to buy shares, pushing the price higher and attracting more speculative momentum traders. This mechanism, seen previously with Tesla and meme stocks, can decouple valuation from financial reality. The danger escalates as extreme valuations force passive funds, ETFs, pensions, and major indices to hold the stock. If SpaceX grows large enough—hypothetically reaching $5 or even $10 trillion—its performance would increasingly dictate broader market indices, embedding systemic risk. The author warns that when price appreciation itself becomes the primary bullish thesis, the market transforms from a capital allocation mechanism into a self-reinforcing speculative machine, endangering the retirement savings of ordinary investors tied to passive strategies. The piece questions whether such a system can still perform its fundamental role of price discovery.

marsbit21m ago

The More It Rises, the More Dangerous? The Systemic Risks Behind SpaceX's Soaring Valuation

marsbit21m ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片