Turning Point Approaching: The "Net Long vs. Net Short" Structure Presents a Historically Rare State

Odaily星球日报Publicado a 2026-03-09Actualizado a 2026-03-09

Resumen

Kyle Soska analyzes the perpetual futures market structure using Ethena's transparency dashboard to gauge crypto market risk sentiment. Ethena's deployed capital has fallen to a multi-year low, just 71% of its 2025 minimum, indicating a sharp decline in excess long demand. Historically, directional longs significantly outnumber directional shorts, but the current market shows an almost 1:1 balance—a rare and typically unsustainable structure. This equilibrium is likely driven by increased directional shorting and hedging demand from VCs, projects, and crypto firms locking in prices or managing exposures, rather than a lack of leveraged long interest. While this balance could become the new normal, similar structures in other asset classes rarely persist long-term, suggesting a potential market turning point may be near.

This article is from: Kyle Soska

Compiled by | Odaily Planet Daily (@OdailyChina); Translator | Azuma (@azuma_eth)

Editor's Note: The market has been oscillating at low levels for a sustained period. Will the future direction be up or down? Ramiel Capital Chief Investment Officer Kyle Soska, in his latest article, analyzes the long-short structure of the perpetual futures market and attempts to provide an answer by examining changes in market risk appetite.

The highlight of Kyle's analytical method lies in incorporating data disclosures from Ethena, which excludes basis positions and hedging positions that have some noise impact on the price direction, focusing only on net long and net short positions that more directly determine the market's direction. His final point is that the current market's net long vs. net short structure is in a historically rare state. While it's possible this could become the new normal, observing other asset markets reveals that such a trend is generally extremely difficult to sustain long-term. In other words, a turning point may be imminent.

Below is the original content by Kyle Soska, compiled by Odaily Planet Daily.

The cryptocurrency market has been in a risk-off state for several consecutive months. I have been sifting through various forms of market data, hoping to find signs of a potential market turnaround. This article will delve into the market structure of perpetual futures and, combined with data from the Ethena transparency dashboard, explore changes in market risk appetite.

Ethena's currently deployed capital has fallen to its lowest level in years, only 71% of the low point in 2025. This is not a criticism of Ethena, but rather a reflection of the current market state. Directional shorts have almost reached parity with directional longs — an extremely rare structure in the crypto market and one that has historically been difficult to sustain long-term.

The cryptocurrency market has long been characterized by extremely high asset volatility and the widespread use of high leverage by traders. Since the BitMEX era, perpetual futures have become the highest volume product, with trading volumes typically 5 to 20 times that of the spot market. As the core hub providing leverage to retail traders in the market, observing the perpetual futures market can provide a good reflection of the overall risk appetite of the crypto market.

And Ethena provides us with a unique window into the crypto derivatives market. As shown in the figure below, Ethena's strategy essentially executes a carry trade in cryptocurrency, and its logic is very simple — when a trader goes long on a crypto asset, Ethena acts as the counterparty and goes short. Simultaneously, Ethena will buy an equivalent amount of the asset in the spot market to hedge its short position.

In a sense, Ethena provides "Leverage-as-a-Service":

  • Traders want exposure to rising crypto assets but lack sufficient capital;
  • Ethena has capital but has a lower risk appetite;
  • Therefore, traders borrow capital from Ethena via perpetual futures, and their cost is the "basis" + "perpetual funding rate".

According to the structure of perpetual futures, every long position is matched by a short position; they are always 1:1. Each open interest represents a cash flow agreement between two parties. The exchange's role is to match these contracts, ensuring that every contract always has a sufficiently funded long and short holder. The matrix below shows the four possible outcomes when an exchange matches contracts.

Every trade has a buyer and a seller. When the buyer and seller of a contract are both long or both short, the exchange only needs to transfer the contract ownership between the two parties. 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: the buyer gets the long position, the seller gets the short position, thereby increasing the open interest by 1. Conversely, if the seller is long and the buyer is short, the exchange can unbind both parties from a specific contract and delete that contract, thereby reducing the open interest by 1.

So who actually holds these contracts in a typical market? Essentially, there are four types of contract holders:

  • Directional longs want exposure to price increases. They are risk-seeking participants, and their risk demand depends on the strength of market risk appetite.
  • Directional shorts comprise two types of participants: those who want exposure to asset price declines, and those who wish to hedge their held assets in a more tax-efficient manner. For example, VCs and company employees who receive compensation in tokens often want to hedge future unlockable tokens to lock in the current price. For many altcoins, market liquidity is often too thin to support effective direct hedging, or relevant markets may not even exist. In such cases, companies like Cumberland, Wintermute, FalconX, Flowdesk, Amber, etc., can construct a dynamically managed synthetic position: by shorting several highly liquid and correlated assets (like Bitcoin and Ethereum) to hedge an exposure to a less liquid asset (e.g., Monad). This category also includes projects like Neutrl, which use this hedging structure as a yield strategy.
  • Basis traders are opportunistic shorts. They are not concerned with price direction but voluntarily match the excess demand from directional longs when market imbalances occur. In most market environments, long demand tends to exceed short demand, and their role is to fill this gap. Their scale is usually highly elastic and can expand or shrink rapidly.
  • Perp-Perp arbitrageurs simultaneously hold both long and short positions in perpetual futures. Their role is to connect prices between different perpetual futures markets and eliminate any slight price differences after deducting trading fees. Their longs and shorts are perfectly matched at any given moment.

According to the structure of perpetual futures, every contract must be 1:1 long-short matched, so we know that "Directional longs + Arbitrage longs = Directional shorts + Basis shorts + Arbitrage shorts"; furthermore, due to the arbitrage structure, we also know that "Arbitrage longs = Arbitrage shorts"; canceling this relationship out from the first equation yields "Directional longs = Directional shorts + Basis shorts".

Ethena provides us with a proxy metric for all basis shorts, thereby helping us observe the structural comparison between directional longs and directional shorts.

The chart below shows the balance sheet disclosed by Ethena, which divides assets into cash and deployed capital, for the period from December 27, 2024, to March 7, 2026.

In 2025, following the launch of the TRUMP token in January, the market quickly entered a risk-off state, continuing to decline during the initial tariff discussions and the "Liberation Day" event in April. During this period, Ethena's deployed capital plummeted from over $5 billion to about $1.1 billion, a drop of more than 75%.

Remember, Ethena's deployed capital can be seen as a proxy for excess long demand in the market. Although Ethena is not the only institution executing this trade, its scale is very large (at times accounting for about 25% of the total size on Binance and Bybit). As long as Ethena has excess cash, it would theoretically expand its positions to fill the unmet long demand in the market. This means that while overall long demand may not have fallen by 75%, the excess long demand not absorbed by directional shorts did indeed decrease by that much.

The chart below shows the change in deployed capital in Ethena's balance sheet relative to its total size, the 2025 low, and the 2025 high.

Observing the current market, Ethena's deployed capital across all markets (BTC, ETH, SOL, BNB, XRP, HYPE) is $790 million. This value is only 71% of the 2025 low and 12.9% of the pre-October 10th high. This number is not a criticism of Ethena but a reflection of the overall market state — net long demand in the current market is at a historically low level.

It is worth noting that during the market crash when Bitcoin fell to $60,000, Ethena still deployed over $2 billion in capital. Yet, just one month later, after February 8, 2026, deployed capital plummeted by 60%.

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

Since BTC fell to $60,000, Ethena's basis positions have shrunk from over $2 billion to less than $800 million. This change is quite intriguing because the overall market price has been relatively stable during this period. There are three possible explanations for this situation:

  • Basis trades from the February crash are gradually closing. These trades were profitable but unsustainable (the basis became more negative, but the funding rate was also negative);
  • Directional short and hedging demand increased, squeezing out opportunistic basis traders;
  • Insufficient demand for leveraged long exposure.

In my opinion, the reality is mainly a combination of the first two possibilities, with the third possibility having a smaller impact. As shown in the figure above, during the period when Ethena was gradually closing its positions, the open interest of Bitcoin and other major assets remained generally stable. At the same time, funding rates were negative for a considerable period, and coins like SOL had cumulative negative funding rates on multiple exchanges. This indicates that market demand for directional shorting or hedging exposure is rising.

If I had to guess, I think many small and medium-sized crypto companies and VCs are going through a crisis. Think of those small-cap projects (like Eigen, Grass, Monad, etc.). There could be hundreds of such tokens, and each project corresponds to multiple VCs, a project team, a company treasury, and a large number of employees. VCs need to limit losses and lock in profits to meet fund investment requirements, and project companies need to protect their operational capital reserves and employee size. This creates a situation where all participants must squeeze as much yield as possible from limited resources, and the solution is often a "crowded trade" — actively managed structured products that short a basket of correlated assets.

We can see some signs of these structured products in some short-term spikes in ETH, as these rallies often trigger short covering and drive synchronous increases in many small and mid-cap crypto assets. Another piece of evidence is the noticeable crowding out of opportunistic basis trading (e.g., Ethena) from the market.

Whatever the reason, we can ascertain that for almost the first time in crypto market history, directional longs and directional shorts have reached almost complete parity.

Theoretically, there is no reason why this state cannot become the new normal, or that this structure necessarily needs to change. But if we look at markets in other asset classes, we find that such a trend is very rare to sustain long-term.

Preguntas relacionadas

QWhat is the current state of the net long vs. net short structure in the perpetual futures market according to the article?

AThe net long vs. net short structure is in a historically rare state where directional shorts have almost reached parity with directional longs, a situation that is extremely difficult to sustain long-term in crypto markets.

QHow does Ethena's deployed capital serve as an indicator for the market's risk appetite?

AEthena's deployed capital acts as a proxy for the market's excess long demand that is not absorbed by directional shorts. Its current sharp decline to multi-year lows reflects a historically low level of net long demand and a significant risk-off sentiment in the market.

QWhat are the four types of contract holders in the perpetual futures market as described in the article?

AThe four types are: 1. Directional longs (speculating on price increases), 2. Directional shorts (speculating on price decreases or hedging existing holdings), 3. Basis traders (opportunistic shorts filling excess long demand), and 4. Perp-Perp arbitrageurs (holding matched long and short positions to profit from price differences between markets).

QWhat does the sharp decrease in Ethena's deployed capital since February 8th, 2026, suggest about the market dynamics?

AThe 60% decrease in deployed capital, while prices remained relatively stable, suggests a combination of profitable but unsustainable basis trades from the February crash being unwound and a significant increase in directional shorting or hedging demand, which has crowded out opportunistic basis traders.

QWhy does the author believe a major market shift (变盘) is imminent?

AThe author believes a shift is imminent because the current equilibrium, where directional longs and shorts are nearly equal, is a historically rare and unstable structure in crypto markets. Observing other asset classes shows that such a trend is extremely difficult to maintain for a long period, implying a reversion or a breakout is likely.

Lecturas Relacionadas

The Shutdown of Claude Mythos Revealed the True Cost of Renting AI to Me

The sudden shutdown of Claude Mythos this week starkly highlights a critical, often overlooked risk for founders: when your core capability relies entirely on someone else's platform, your fate is not in your own hands. The key question becomes: who truly owns the intelligence your product depends on? For years, the debate around open-source models focused on cost. Now, the evidence is clear: fine-tuned open-source models can achieve frontier-level quality for specific, mission-critical tasks at a fraction of the cost. However, the deeper issue is control. Relying on a third-party API is like renting; it works until the landlord changes the rules, raises the rent, or asks you to leave—as Mythos experienced. The lesson is not to stop using frontier models—they are incredible infrastructure. The goal is ownership. Ownership means starting with a powerful open-source model and shaping it around what makes your company unique: your data, workflows, domain expertise, and definition of "good." Over time, the model becomes less generic and more reflective of your business, creating durable value. The optimistic conclusion is that AI's future doesn't hinge on one superior model. There is no single frontier. The frontier includes proprietary models, models fine-tuned on company-specific knowledge, specialized models for narrow problems, and intelligent routers orchestrating model ensembles. The most interesting development is not models getting smarter, but intelligence becoming increasingly customizable. The winning companies will be those that transform intelligence into a unique, owned asset. Looking ahead, the vision is not one model dominating all, but many teams owning the part of the frontier that matters most to them.

marsbitHace 35 min(s)

The Shutdown of Claude Mythos Revealed the True Cost of Renting AI to Me

marsbitHace 35 min(s)

Tiger Research: U.S. Strategic Bitcoin Reserve - Should the Market Be Happy or Disappointed?

Tiger Research analyzes the evolution of U.S. legislative efforts regarding a strategic Bitcoin reserve, concluding the market impact is limited in the short term but potentially positive long-term. The core event was a March 2025 executive order by former President Trump, which designated confiscated Bitcoin as a strategic reserve and promised not to sell existing holdings (approx. 190k BTC). As it contained no mandate to purchase new Bitcoin, the market reacted negatively, with prices dropping 5.7%. Legislative history shows a significant retreat from initial ambitions. The 2024 "BITCOIN Act" proposed mandatory purchases of 1 million BTC over five years. Reintroduced in 2025, it stalled due to high fiscal costs, concerns over dollar hegemony, and opposition from the Treasury Secretary. The current frontrunner, the 2026 "American Retirement and Monetary Advancement (ARMA) Act," is a compromise. It lacks any purchase requirement, instead focusing on consolidating existing government-held Bitcoin and legally prohibiting its sale for at least 20 years. While ARMA has higher passage odds due to bipartisan support and no purchase mandate, its immediate market effect is neutral. It eliminates potential government selling pressure but creates no new demand. The long-term significance is that formally establishing Bitcoin as a national reserve asset in law could later reignite debates on mandatory purchases. Therefore, the path to a government buyer is longer than initially priced by the market, but the directional narrative remains intact.

marsbitHace 38 min(s)

Tiger Research: U.S. Strategic Bitcoin Reserve - Should the Market Be Happy or Disappointed?

marsbitHace 38 min(s)

US Stock Market Trend (June 16): SpaceX Rises 42% in Two Days, New Fed Chairman Takes Office Today

**U.S. Stocks Trend (June 16): SpaceX Soars 42% in Two Days, New Fed Chair Takes Office Today** Markets surged on Monday following former President Trump's social media announcement of a completed U.S.-Iran deal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, pending a June 19 signing. The news triggered a broad risk-on rally: oil prices crashed, tech stocks soared, bond yields fell, and defensive sectors lagged. **Market Performance:** The Nasdaq jumped 3.07%, led by semiconductor stocks like Micron (+9.2%). The S&P 500 gained 1.65%, and the Dow rose 0.92% to a record high. However, the Russell 2000 small-cap index underperformed (+0.72%). SpaceX continued its hot streak, rising another 5% pre-market after disclosures of large buys by an Australian billionaire and Cathie Wood's ARK. Boeing also rallied on the transportation optimism. Conversely, energy stocks like Chevron fell over 3% on the oil price plunge, with other defensive sectors also selling off. The day's action showed a clear rotation of funds from energy/defensive plays into AI and tech narratives. **Macro & Outlook:** The VIX fear index fell 8.37%. Treasury yields declined, and WTI crude dropped over 5%. Attention now shifts to a packed schedule: the Bank of Japan is widely expected to hike rates to 1.0% on Tuesday. The Fed's June meeting concludes Wednesday, marking new Chair Wash's debut. While rates are expected to hold, his tone on stubborn inflation and the "dot plot" will be crucial for gauging the 2024 rate path. The formal Iran deal signing is set for Friday. **Trend Perspective:** While the peace deal is a genuine positive, Monday's explosive rally may have gotten ahead of itself, pricing in a swift resolution to inflation concerns. The shortened trading week faces a triple test: BoJ tightening, the Fed's policy stance, and deal implementation details. Tech and semiconductors, which led the surge, remain vulnerable to any disappointment from these key events. The real price discovery begins with the central banks' communications this week.

marsbitHace 59 min(s)

US Stock Market Trend (June 16): SpaceX Rises 42% in Two Days, New Fed Chairman Takes Office Today

marsbitHace 59 min(s)

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片