解码底部信号:加密市场的崩盘与反弹剧本

链捕手Pubblicato 2025-06-23Pubblicato ultima volta 2025-06-23

原文标题:Market Selloff Dynamics + Bottoming

原文作者:Doc

原文编译:Tim,PANews

 

这篇撰文的目的是让你了解我如何识别市场中的关键信号。我们需要理解风险背后的心理机制,并借此优势来识别潜在的市场底部。

1.共识越低的项目越先崩盘

当不确定性袭来,卖家会抛售他们最不看好的资产。例如,共识低的币将率先崩盘,更早失血。

从逻辑上想想:如果你急需用钱,不会去卖你的贵重物品,而是卖掉那些平时用不着、不值钱的东西。

同样地,当交易员不确定市场走势或希望降低风险时,往往会变卖自己情感依赖最低的资产来套现。

这种现象在比特币每次冲顶时都会发生,绝非巧合。山寨币并非在比特币登顶后上涨,而是伴随比特币登顶同步上涨。它们更早在比特币面前显露出一丝疲态,数周前就已率先见顶。

这是一个早期预警信号。聪明的交易者会在其他人还未察觉要发生什么事之前就先行降低风险。

2.风险 VS 蓝筹币

让我们回到之前的那个逻辑:人们会尽可能长久地保留自己珍视的高品质财物,只有在走投无路时才会忍痛割爱。

那些最受追捧的币种,通常都会尽可能地守住已有的涨幅。这就是为什么比特币总是一副坚挺的样子,而每次市场崩盘前几周,网上总会充斥着“大家慌什么,比特币明明稳得很”之类的推文。

抛售顺序:

a)先是垃圾币

b)然后是蓝筹币

c)最后所有币都被抛售

3.反身性效应出现

疲软会导致更多的疲软。

当巨鲸开始在枯竭需求中抛售时,就会诱发市场疲软。这是典型的筹码派发阶段特征:接盘乏力、需求枯竭、趋势走远等现象。

风险资产的特征转变,将使经验丰富的交易员中核心决策层重新评估策略。

"我没能在顶部卖出,但行情性质已变。是时候降低敞口或平仓了。"

"要是这种跌幅都算核爆级崩盘,我账户里还藏着什么雷?"

突然间:仓位调整引发更大的抛售,这就是反身性,风险偏好消退的正反馈循环。

4.波动性:最后一舞

​​当比特币大跌将至,市场常现诡静:波动骤降、行情窄幅震荡、自满心态登顶。​​

然后,砰~,就崩盘了。

​​现在,让我们聚焦平衡与失衡的市场本质。​​

平衡在市场参与者对何为昂贵、何为便宜逐渐达成共识时达成。这是一场​​共舞​​。这就是​​均衡​​。

均衡则意味着平静。​​ 已知信息已被消化、投机活动减弱、波动性收窄​​。

这场​​共舞​​会持续下去,直到一方感到厌倦、疲惫,或者想去酒吧再喝一杯。即,买方或卖方筋疲力竭;或者供给、需求发生改变。

均衡遭到破坏​​。一旦它被打破:便出现​​失衡​​。

价格剧烈偏离原位。​​ 价值变得模糊不清;​​波动性暴增​​。市场渴望平衡并会​​主动寻求​​ 。

价格常常会​​回归到最近形成过平衡的区域​:如高成交量点、订单块、综合价值区域等。

正是在这些区域,你会看到最​​猛烈的反弹​​。

“​​初测即最佳时机​​”。后续测试的反应会逐渐减弱。情况趋于结构化。价格在新点位企稳。波动性收缩。平衡重现于市。

5.抛售进程及底部识别

投降抛售并非终局的开始,而是中局的终结。

a)山寨VS比特币

本轮周期中,山寨币往往在比特币崩盘前完成主要抛售。

最近案例:Fartcoin在二月底比特币崩盘前,已从高点回落88%。既然该规律成立,我们便可在寻找市场衰竭信号(触底迹象)时将其作为交易信号。

当比特币仍在剧烈波动、寻得新平衡时,最强的山寨币会率先显现相对强势的枯竭迹象。

简单来说,当比特币进入失衡后期阶段时,应该寻找优质替代币来建立平衡仓位。

作为参与者,我们的目标是捕捉这些背离现象。

"市场动能是否转变?"

"波动性是否在收窄?"

"抛售速度是否正在放缓?"

"当比特币创新低时,它是否仍能稳住?"

第二季度见底信号:

  1. 动量减弱 (比如Fartcoin)
  2. SFP、偏离度 (比如Hype、Sui公链)
  3. 更高的低点VS比特币更低的点(比如Pepe币)

山寨币通常先跌为敬,待比特币触底后其跌势反而放缓。

​​甄别优质山寨币的诀窍在此。​​

弱者恒弱。

强者悄然布局,抢在市场行情启动之前。

b)比特币VS标普500

现在给大家安排一个小练习吧。

整合本文的所有概念,或许以下现象就变得合理了:

  • 23年夏季:比特币先于标普500见顶,更早完成筑底
  • 24年夏季:比特币先于标普500见顶,并在区间低位消化了标普因宏观因素引发的暴跌
  • 25年迄今:比特币先于标普500见顶,并在区间低位承受了标普20%的暴跌

​​核心结论​​

市场筑底是过程而非瞬间完成:山寨币先行 → 比特币接力 → 标普殿后

​​操作要义​​:重点观察市场结构演变,而非单纯跟踪情绪波动

Letture associate

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.

marsbit25 min fa

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

marsbit25 min fa

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 News32 min fa

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

Foresight News32 min fa

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.

marsbit47 min fa

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

marsbit47 min fa

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?

marsbit54 min fa

Why Do Crypto Projects Keep Changing Their Names?

marsbit54 min fa

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片