检查Cardano、AVAX、MATIC紧密联系 提前获利?

金色财经Publicado a 2024-07-08Actualizado a 2024-07-08

原文来源:钮轱辘瑶

如果市场情绪发生变化,ADA 可能上涨至 0.67 美元,AVAX 可能上涨至 50.35 美元,MATIC 可能上涨至 1.06 美元。

get?code=MmIyMWJiNWY5MjMyM2UwMTI0NDZmZWIzMmJmMzY3NGUsMTcxNjc5NTQ3MjkxNA==

根据 IntoTheBlock 的说法,Cardano [ADA]与Avalanche [AVAX]和Polygon [MATIC]的相关性比任何其他顶级加密货币都更强。

截至发稿时,ADA 与 AVAX 之间的相关性为0.99。对于 MATIC,60 天相关系数为 0.98。相关系数值范围从 -1 到 +1,前者表示存在显著差异。

另一方面,接近 +1 的读数表明方向性运动强劲,Cardano 和其他两种货币就是这种情况。截至本文撰写时,ADA 的价格为 0.45 美元,年初至今 (YTD) 下跌了 26.40%。

get?code=MjljN2ExYzYzZTcxMTQyOTUzYTViNTUxZGM0MzgxYmMsMTcxNjc5NTQ3MjkxNA==

深水三人组

AVAX 的价格为 36.94 美元,同期下跌 11.73%。最后,MATIC 的价格为 0.71 美元,下跌 29.21%。

为了确定 Cardano 是否会继续与 AVAX 和 MATIC 保持一致,AMBCrypto 研究了围绕这些项目的情绪。

看一下 Santiment 提供的加权情绪指标,ADA 的读数为 -1.613。就 AVAX 而言,读数为 -1.018,而 MATIC 的读数为 -1.544。

加权情绪显示独特的社交量,以对资产的评论来衡量。如果该指标为正,则意味着市场参与者看涨,对相关资产的需求可能会增加。

然而,由于这三者的读数均为负值,这表明对潜力的信心不足。 鉴于这种趋势,ADA、AVAX 和 MATIC 的价格有可能再次下跌。

get?code=ZTVhYmYyYzgwZjkzMDE5NjUwNDRhZWY0ZmI1ZDAzMjgsMTcxNjc5NTQ3MjkxNA==

与此同时,这种高度负面的情绪可能预示着在出现大幅上涨之前需要一段较长的积累期。

代币可能很快就会回到牛市阶段

但为了证实这一点,我们需要分析市场价值与实际价值 (MVRV) 的比率。该指标可判断加密货币是否被低估。

MVRV 比率越高,持有者的利润就越多,他们愿意出售的资产就越多。另一方面,该指标的下降表明更多持有者正在陷入未实现的损失。

在这种情况下,大多数人会决定持有。截至发稿时,Cardano 的 30 天 MVRV 比率为 -5.313%。这意味着,如果过去 30 天内积累的每个 ADA 持有者都出售,他们就会产生未实现损失。

在 MATIC 的案例中,该指标为 1.608%。但 AMBCrypto 注意到的一件事是,该比率下降了。因此,人们可以假设在牛市背景下代币被低估了。

get?code=ODZiZWEyNzBlOWVmZTBjY2Q1Yzc3MjJiNTMwOGY5MDYsMTcxNjc5NTQ3MjkxNA==

无论现实与否,以下是AVAX 以 ADA 计算的市值

如果价格开始回升,ADA 可能会回升至 0.67 美元。如果 AVAX 也是如此,该代币可能会升至 50.35 美元。

此外,MATIC 的反弹可能使价格朝 1.06 美元的方向发展。

目前我们6个分析师一起投研出来的一些百倍潜力的币,和短期暴涨项目,可以关注我进社区了解,目前都是免费的

Lecturas Relacionadas

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.

marsbitHace 3 min(s)

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

marsbitHace 3 min(s)

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 NewsHace 10 min(s)

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

Foresight NewsHace 10 min(s)

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.

marsbitHace 25 min(s)

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

marsbitHace 25 min(s)

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?

marsbitHace 32 min(s)

Why Do Crypto Projects Keep Changing Their Names?

marsbitHace 32 min(s)

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 NewsHace 33 min(s)

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

Foresight NewsHace 33 min(s)

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片