暴跌之后往往伴随着暴涨 坚定牛市仍在的信念 才能在币圈实现盈利

币界网Publicado a 2024-08-06Actualizado a 2024-08-06

币界网报道:

最近跌的太狠,好多人问我牛是不是走了?

今天,我们不从复杂的数据或宏观经济角度来分析,而是用最简单、最直白的方式来阐述我的看法。

以全球资产管理巨头贝莱德为例。年初,它与其他财富管理公司刚刚获批比特币ETF,随即展开了积极的购买行动。仅贝莱德一家,在短短半年内就已投资了200亿美元于比特币,而富达等其他公司合计也购买了约300亿美元的比特币。这意味着,仅这几家公司在半年内就为比特币市场带来了500亿美元的资金流入。

面对这样的数据,如果你还在质疑牛市的存在,或者担心牛市已经结束,那么你可能忽略了市场背后的强大动力。市场上有些人可能会跟随他人的观点,认为牛市已经结束,但这种看法过于短视。

我的观点是,牛市不仅没有结束,我们现在所处的只是牛市的一个阶段——一个洗盘的阶段。关键在于,投资者需要有足够的耐心和信心,坚持到牛市再次启动的那一天。正如许多人所知,市场的黎明往往在最黑暗的时刻之后到来。坚持住,保持信念,牛市的下半程仍然值得期待。

图片

提醒大家,牛市中的每次大回调都是补仓的好机会!经历这次回调,很多人应该认识到了仓位管理的重要性。

技术分析用于区分牛熊市、判断趋势,而良好的心态让我们在交易过程中不受行情波动的影响。仓位管理是策略中至关重要的一环。高手从来不会梭哈,而是根据仓位管理来执行,这样才能立于不败之地。

在当前的行情下,能够一直持有的只有现货。面对昨天的断崖式下跌,敢进场的也只能是现货交易,合约交易很容易被市场波动抬走。进场抄底时要注意选择适合的币种,切记不要梭哈,重要的事情说三遍!我们进场都是分批进行,选择的币种也很简单,抄底 BTC、ETH 和 SOL。如果还有资金,可以选择这三大币种下的 MEME 币。

机会是跌出来的

日本股市在经历了“黑色星期一”后,今天大幅反弹。日经指数开盘几分钟内飙升超过8%,而首尔综合指数在初段反弹也超过4%。

我个人认为,昨天亚洲股市的“惊人历史性走势”主要是由于保证金头寸的大幅清算。然而,日经指数的隐含波动率高达70%,这表明未来行情可能还会有显著波动。

在市场低迷期间,以下是一些(投资者)渡过难关的提示: 

  1. 保持冷静和理性:情绪化决策可能导致不良结果。请记住,市场是周期性的,低迷是其中的一部分。

  2. 审查您的投资组合:评估您的持股情况。它们是否多样化?如有必要,重新平衡。考虑您的风险承受能力和投资期限。

  3. 现金储备很重要:手头有现金可以让您在市场低迷期间抓住买入机会。

  4. 避免恐慌性抛售:恐慌性抛售通常会导致锁定损失。坚持您的长期战略。

  5. 质量胜过炒作:关注基本面强劲的优质公司,避免投机性押注。

  6. 机会性购买:寻找被低估的资产,考虑蓝筹股或指数基金。

  7. 避免试图把握市场时机:预测市场底部具有挑战性。采用美元成本平均法可以帮助降低时机风险。

图片

在山寨币方面,接下来的几天将是山寨币超跌反弹的行情,随便买都能赚钱的时候,妖币将陆续重现江湖。

我们之前一直提到:山寨币在八月份会迎来牛市下半场的第一场秀。没想到先是以暴跌开场。绝大多数山寨币已经跌到了新的低点。不要去猜测会不会继续暴跌,现货要大胆加仓,买入并持有,这波超跌反弹的走势和涨势可能会超出你的预期。如果你的持仓依然分散,现在就是你换仓重新布局的好时机。

总之,不要被市场的短期波动所迷惑,也不要被他人的观点所左右。坚定自己的投资理念,理性分析市场趋势,相信市场的潜力和长期价值。牛市的故事,还远未结束。

Lecturas Relacionadas

AI Agents Also Need 'Credit Checks': ERC-8126 is Filling the Gap in On-chain Trust

The article discusses ERC-8126, a proposed standard designed to address the lack of trust and verification for AI Agents operating on-chain. While ERC-8004 provides AI Agents with a basic on-chain identity (answering "Who are you?"), it does not guarantee trustworthiness. ERC-8126 aims to fill this gap by establishing a verification layer (answering "Are you reliable?"). It standardizes how independent verification providers can assess an agent's associated risks across five key areas: Token/Contract Verification (ETV), Media Content Verification (MCV), Solidity Code Verification (SCV), Web Application Verification (WAV), and Wallet Verification (WV). These providers generate a standardized risk score (0-100) and proofs based on their checks, without acting as a single authoritative certifier. This allows wallets, marketplaces, dApps, and other agents to consume these risk signals—for example, to display warnings, filter listings, or make interaction decisions. The standard also incorporates concepts like Private Data Verification (PDV) and Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKP) to allow verification without exposing sensitive underlying data. Positioned alongside ERC-8004 (Identity) and ERC-8183 (Commerce for agents), ERC-8126 represents a step toward building a verifiable and accountable infrastructure for the emerging on-chain AI Agent economy, shifting trust assessment from purely user-based judgment to standardized, consumable signals.

marsbitHace 14 min(s)

AI Agents Also Need 'Credit Checks': ERC-8126 is Filling the Gap in On-chain Trust

marsbitHace 14 min(s)

Rented Conviction: How Much Real Money Is Behind the Bitcoin ETF Flows

Borrowed Belief: How much of Bitcoin ETF flows are real money? Weekly Bitcoin ETF flows, often interpreted as a measure of institutional conviction, are heavily influenced by a hidden arbitrage trade rather than genuine directional buying. A cash-and-carry arbitrage, where traders buy the ETF while simultaneously shorting Bitcoin futures on the CME to lock in a basis spread (the price difference between futures and spot), drives roughly half of the week-to-week flow volatility. This delta-neutral activity appears as ETF inflows but is unrelated to price views. Data shows a strong correlation (0.70) between weekly ETF inflows and increases in hedge fund short positions on CME futures, while Bitcoin’s weekly price returns have almost no explanatory power. However, this arbitrage activity dominates short-term *fluctuations*, not the cumulative *stock* of investments. Of the total ~$55 billion in net ETF inflows since launch, only about $1 billion currently represents net arbitrage exposure. The vast majority consists of steady, directional buying averaging around $400 million per week. The arbitrage trade has been unwinding for two years, with hedge fund short positions peaking near $14 billion in late 2024 and declining to ~$4.5 billion. Recent ETF outflows partly reflect this ongoing unwind as the basis compresses, not a loss of faith in Bitcoin. Thus, ETF flows overstate the *volatility* of belief, not its *level*. The headline number is more a gauge of arbitrage desk activity than conviction. For accurate interpretation, monitor the CME basis relative to Treasury yields and hedge fund net shorts—these reveal how much of the reported “demand” is truly directional.

marsbitHace 16 min(s)

Rented Conviction: How Much Real Money Is Behind the Bitcoin ETF Flows

marsbitHace 16 min(s)

Borrowed Faith: How Much of the Bitcoin ETF Flows Are Real Money

"Rented Faith: How Much of Bitcoin ETF Flows Are Real Money?" Bitcoin ETF inflows are often seen as a barometer of institutional conviction. However, week-to-week analysis reveals they are primarily driven by a hidden arbitrage trade rather than directional bullishness. This is the cash-and-carry trade: buying the ETF while simultaneously shorting Bitcoin futures on the CME to lock in the price difference (basis). This delta-neutral activity registers as ETF inflows but reflects a rate-seeking, not price-betting, strategy. Data shows weekly ETF flow volatility is closely tied to hedge fund ("leveraged funds") short positions on CME futures, with a correlation of 0.70. About half of weekly flow variation can be explained by this single factor. In contrast, Bitcoin's weekly price changes have no statistically significant power to predict flows. Crucially, while this arbitrage trade dominates weekly *fluctuations*, it is not the main component of the cumulative *stock*. Of the ~$55 billion total net inflow, the estimated net arbitrage position is only about $1 billion. The vast majority is steady, directional buying averaging ~$400 million per week. Thus, ETF flows overstate the *volatility* of belief, not its *level*. The "rented" arbitrage capital churns, while "owned" directional capital forms the bedrock. This arbitrage trade has been unwinding for two years, with hedge fund shorts peaking at ~$14 billion in late 2024 and falling to ~$4.5 billion. Recent outflows align with basis compression, signaling the trade's exit, not a loss of faith. For Ethereum ETFs, the same dynamic is weaker due to negative carry from forgone staking yield. The key takeaway: To interpret ETF flows, watch the basis vs. Treasury yields and CME hedge fund net shorts. They reveal how much of the weekly "demand" headline is driven by rented, rate-seeking capital versus real conviction.

链捕手Hace 30 min(s)

Borrowed Faith: How Much of the Bitcoin ETF Flows Are Real Money

链捕手Hace 30 min(s)

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片