BIT Research: After U.S.-China Summit, Markets Begin Repricing "Long-Term Competition"

marsbitPubblicato 2026-05-22Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-05-22

Introduzione

The market is undergoing a macro repricing driven by geopolitics and policy expectations. Initial interpretations of the recent U.S.-China summit as a signal of eased tensions triggered a risk-on rally, boosting tech stocks and Bitcoin while weakening the dollar. However, as details emerged, this optimism faded due to a lack of concrete progress on tariffs, AI export controls, or key geopolitical issues like Taiwan and Iran. Inflation concerns have resurfaced, renewing selling pressure on bonds and precious metals. Longer-term, the summit underscored ongoing strategic competition: a marginal decline in dollar dominance, a push for diversified global reserve assets, AI and semiconductor supply chain restructuring, and intensified rivalry in frontier tech like low-earth orbit satellites. Bitcoin's price action mirrored high-beta tech stocks more than a structural hedge, highlighting its continued sensitivity to risk appetite and liquidity over traditional safe-haven characteristics. While the meeting yielded modest outcomes like a U.S. agricultural purchase pledge and continued dialogue mechanisms, it primarily reflects "managed competition." Structural tensions remain unresolved in areas like tech and geopolitics, affirming trends toward strategic decoupling and prolonged geopolitical risk. The key for markets is the broader repricing of global liquidity, real yields, and this enduring competitive landscape.

The market is currently undergoing a phase of macro repricing jointly dominated by geopolitics and policy expectations. Initially, the recent U.S.-China summit was interpreted by the market as a signal of easing bilateral relations, leading to gains in tech stocks, a weaker U.S. dollar, and an upward move for Bitcoin. The market had anticipated relief from tariff pressures, stabilization of the AI supply chain, and a reduction in Taiwan- and Iran-related geopolitical risks, fueling a rapid uptick in risk-on sentiment.

However, as the details of the meeting emerged, the market realized that the earlier optimistic pricing lacked sufficient support: there was no substantial relaxation in tariff policies, no breakthrough on AI export controls, and no clear progress on Iran or Taiwan issues. Inflation concerns further evolved into expectations for policy tightening, reigniting selling pressure in bonds and precious metals.

From a long-term perspective, this summit still revealed several noteworthy trends: the marginal weakening of the U.S. dollar's dominance, the diversification of global reserve asset allocations, the restructuring of AI and semiconductor supply chains, and the deepening strategic competition between the U.S. and China in frontier technology areas such as low-earth orbit satellites and space.

From Risk-On to Repricing: The Market Begins Returning to Inflation and Geopolitical Logic

Prior to the summit, the market had briefly traded on a "relationship thaw" narrative. Tech stocks and commodities rose, the dollar weakened, and Bitcoin rebounded in sync, reflecting a clear recovery in market risk appetite. Particularly in the AI and semiconductor sectors, there was initial hope that the U.S. might show goodwill by approving Nvidia's chip sales to China, potentially paving the way for broader easing on other issues. However, as the summit's outcomes were digested, market sentiment quickly cooled. There was no substantive relief from tariff pressures, and the approved sales of chips like the Nvidia H200 did not materialize; meanwhile, Beijing continues to promote AI localization and reduce corporate reliance on foreign AI chips.

More importantly, key geopolitical risks such as those related to Taiwan and Iran were not resolved. Consequently, the market began repricing the risk that oil prices and inflation pressures might persist longer, leading to continued global bond sell-offs. Rising real yields also weighed on the performance of gold and silver. In the short term, this summit is seen as positive for oil prices and negative for gold and sovereign bonds; Bitcoin, once again, demonstrated its characteristics as a "macro liquidity asset."

The issue is that, in the near term, Bitcoin has not been priced as a "structural safe-haven asset." Instead, its performance remains primarily influenced by real yields, risk appetite, and liquidity conditions, behaving more like a high-beta version of the Nasdaq rather than "digital gold." This also implies that in response to macro events like the U.S.-China summit, Bitcoin often behaves more like a risk asset than a traditional safe haven.

From Agricultural Purchases to Space Competition: The Long-Term Competitive Framework Continues to Deepen

Beyond macro repricing, this summit further underscored that the long-term competitive framework between the U.S. and China remains unchanged. Regarding agricultural purchases, China committed to purchasing at least $17 billion worth of U.S. agricultural products annually from 2026 to 2028, slightly above the market's low-end expectations but below the optimistic scenarios some traders had previously bet on.

The market reaction, however, was limited. The reason is that China's incremental import demand remains restrained. Brazilian agricultural products continue to squeeze out U.S. suppliers with their price advantage, while Beijing has also persistently promoted diversification of agricultural import sources since the first round of the Trump trade war to reduce reliance on U.S. products. Part of the positive impact had already been priced in earlier. China had previously committed to purchasing 25 million metric tons of U.S. soybeans, leaving relatively limited new incremental space to be released from this summit. In contrast, fertilizer stocks emerged as one of the few sectors to benefit modestly, supported both by the agricultural purchase commitments and supply disruptions driven by the Iran conflict.

Meanwhile, U.S.-China tech competition is extending further into the areas of low-earth orbit satellites and space infrastructure. China is building a low-earth orbit satellite constellation to rival Starlink but still lags behind SpaceX in terms of scale and capability. The market believes that if SpaceX gains more capital support through a future IPO, its expansion pace could further widen the gap with its Chinese competitors.

Overall, while this summit yielded some interim outcomes, including moderate trade commitments and the continuation of follow-up dialogue mechanisms, the structural contradictions were not truly alleviated. The U.S. and China appear to be "managing competition" rather than "resolving competition": both sides maintain sufficient engagement to prevent further escalation but far from enough to alter the long-term trajectory. Against this backdrop, trends such as the diversification of global reserve assets, the restructuring of AI supply chains, and the persistence of geopolitical risks continue. For the markets, the truly important variables are no longer just a single summit itself, but the ongoing repricing of global liquidity, real yields, and the long-term strategic competition landscape.

Some of the views above are from BIT on Target. Contact us to access the full BIT on Target report.

Disclaimer: The market carries risks, and investing requires caution. This article does not constitute investment advice. Digital asset trading can involve significant risk and volatility. Investment decisions should be made after careful consideration of individual circumstances and consultation with financial professionals. BIT is not responsible for any investment decisions based on the information provided herein.

Domande pertinenti

QAccording to the article, how did market participants initially interpret the Sino-US summit, and what key asset price movements occurred?

AInitially, market participants interpreted the summit as a signal of easing Sino-US relations. This led to a risk-on sentiment, causing tech stocks to rise, the US dollar to weaken, and Bitcoin to move higher in sync.

QWhat were the main reasons cited for the market's shift from 'risk-on' to re-pricing geopolitical and inflationary concerns after the summit?

AThe market shifted as summit details revealed a lack of substantial progress: no meaningful easing of tariff policies, no breakthroughs on AI export controls, and no clear de-escalation on Taiwan or Iran issues. This renewed concerns about persistent inflation and policy tightening, leading to bond and precious metal sell-offs.

QHow does the article characterize Bitcoin's price behavior in response to such macro events, compared to traditional 'safe-haven' assets?

AThe article states that Bitcoin acted more like a risk asset (a 'high-beta version of Nasdaq') than a structural safe-haven asset ('digital gold'). Its price was primarily driven by real yields, risk appetite, and liquidity conditions, rather than functioning as a traditional避险资产.

QWhat does the article highlight about the agricultural trade commitments made during the summit, and why was the market reaction limited?

AChina committed to purchasing at least $17 billion annually of US agricultural products from 2026 to 2028. The market reaction was limited because China's new import demand is constrained, Brazilian products offer price competition, China has diversified its agricultural sources since the trade war, and some benefits were already priced in from prior commitments (e.g., 25 million tons of soybeans).

QWhat is the article's overarching conclusion about the nature and outcome of the Sino-US summit regarding long-term strategic competition?

AThe article concludes that the summit resulted in limited, stage-managed outcomes (like mild trade promises and continued dialogue) but did not resolve structural tensions. It frames the relationship as 'managing competition' rather than 'resolving competition,' with trends like reserve asset diversification, AI supply chain reshoring, and entrenched geopolitical risks continuing to drive long-term market re-pricing.

Letture associate

ETH Bull and Bear Views Compilation: Can Ethereum's Value Flow Back to ETH?

Titled "ETH Bull and Bear Views: Can Ethereum's Value Flow Back to ETH?", this article synthesizes the current heated debate around Ethereum's native token, ETH, following Bankless co-founder David Hoffman's decision to sell his entire ETH holdings. The **bullish case**, represented by figures like Tom Lee (BitMine CEO) and Raoul Pal, argues that ETH's core thesis remains intact. They contend Ethereum is the essential, secure, and neutral foundational layer for future finance—encompassing stablecoins, RWA, DeFi, L2s, and Agentic AI. Bulls bet on ETH's long-term revaluation as institutional adoption of on-chain finance grows, with significant buying activity from entities like BitMine and Consensys cited as evidence. Conversely, the **bearish perspective**, led by Hoffman and analysts like Markus Thielen, questions ETH's value capture mechanism. They acknowledge Ethereum's network success but argue that the value created by L2s, DeFi, and applications does not sufficiently accrue to the ETH token itself. Bears point to ETH's prolonged underperformance versus the broader crypto market, lack of traditional cash flows, weakening "ultrasound money" narrative, and apparent institutional retreat (e.g., Harvard Management Company exiting its ETH ETF position) as key concerns. The debate highlights a pivotal shift: ETH is no longer just a community belief asset. The central question is whether ETH can transition from being a "**used infrastructure**" to a "**continuously bought and held core asset**" as more value enters the Ethereum ecosystem. The market is now critically examining the direct link between network growth and ETH's value.

marsbit37 min fa

ETH Bull and Bear Views Compilation: Can Ethereum's Value Flow Back to ETH?

marsbit37 min fa

Crypto is dead, Perps are forever

The crypto industry is shifting from a focus on creating native assets (like altcoins and protocol tokens) to becoming a "global asset pipeline." Native cryptocurrencies, except for Bitcoin, are seen as failing in their value storage and utility promises, with demand driven largely by speculation. Attention and liquidity are now moving toward real-world assets (RWAs) like U.S. stocks, bonds, gold, and oil traded on-chain via perpetual contracts (Perps). Stablecoins like USDT and USDC set the precedent, proving blockchain's core strength is efficient global settlement and transfer, not inventing new monetary systems. Meanwhile, assets like Ethereum and many DeFi tokens struggle as their narratives weaken against tangible traditional assets and the rapid real-world progress of AI. Perpetual contracts have emerged as a pivotal innovation. They simplify trading by offering pure price exposure to any asset, bypassing complexities of ownership, custody, and traditional market hours. Projects like Hyperliquid gained traction by combining CEX-like efficiency with on-chain transparency, capitalizing on post-FTX distrust, macroeconomic volatility, and the surge in demand for 24/7 stock trading. In conclusion, while the era of speculative native "crypto assets" may be over, perpetual contracts persist as the industry's most potent financial instrument—transforming all assets into globally accessible, constantly tradable instruments centered on price speculation.

marsbit43 min fa

Crypto is dead, Perps are forever

marsbit43 min fa

Tencent, Alibaba, ByteDance in a Battle for the Skill Store

Skill is becoming a key concept in the AI field, essentially serving as a structured "instruction manual" for AI Agents that specifies tool calls, decision logic, and output standards. This allows Agents to execute predefined tasks. As the number of Skills grows, distribution platforms have emerged. Major tech companies are swiftly entering this space. In March, Tencent, Alibaba, and ByteDance launched Skill stores within their respective Agent platforms. Subsequently, players like Zhipu AI, Meituan, and Xiaohongshu joined the fray. This competition for the "Skill store" is fundamentally a battle for the AI-era user entry point; whoever controls distribution controls the users. While ByteDance's Coze has experimented with paid Skills, most platforms offer them for free. The real value lies not in the stores themselves but in using them to attract and retain users within an ecosystem, driving revenue from services like cloud computing, model calls, or advertising. The landscape features three main player types: 1) **Internet giants** (e.g., Alibaba, ByteDance, Tencent, Meituan), leveraging Skills to drive traffic and monetize through their broader ecosystems (cloud services, transactions, ads). 2) **Large model companies** (e.g., Zhipu AI, Moonshot AI), using Skill stores to increase user engagement and monetize model API calls. 3) **Content platforms** (e.g., Xiaohongshu), treating Skills as a new content format to generate traffic and ad revenue. However, transforming Skill stores into a sustainable business faces significant hurdles. Key challenges include: the **difficulty in pricing Skills** due to inconsistent outputs across different models and contexts; **lack of cost transparency** (varying token consumption); **security risks** like Skill poisoning; and the **absence of standardized protocols** for development and evaluation. Unlike standardized mobile apps, Skills are often personalized workflows resistant to uniformity, which hinders the establishment of a reliable review and monetization system akin to the App Store. While there is genuine user demand for paid Skills—particularly in enterprise (e.g., contract review) and certain personal productivity scenarios—current platforms offer developers limited and unpredictable distribution. The future of Skill stores depends on overcoming these standardization, evaluation, and safety challenges to make acquiring a Skill as straightforward as downloading an app. For now, the stores function more as display shelves than robust marketplaces.

marsbit43 min fa

Tencent, Alibaba, ByteDance in a Battle for the Skill Store

marsbit43 min fa

The Crypto Scene Is Dead, Perpetual Swaps Are Eternal

The crypto industry is undergoing a fundamental shift. The era defined by minting novel, native digital assets (altcoins) is fading. These assets, lacking real-world cash flows or clear value, are losing relevance as attention and capital flow elsewhere. Two powerful external forces are reshaping the space. First, traditional assets like U.S. stocks, bonds, gold, and oil are being tokenized and traded on-chain. Second, the explosive growth of AI, with its tangible products, has overshadowed crypto's once-dominant "future narrative." This marks a critical pivot: crypto is transitioning from being a "factory for new assets" to becoming a "global conduit for existing assets." Its validated utility is not complex financial reinvention but efficient global settlement, transfer, and trading—the original promise of blockchain. Stablecoins like USDT and USDC exemplify this, offering faster dollar movement rather than replacing it. Consequently, native ecosystems like Ethereum face profound challenges. While still crucial infrastructure, ETH struggles to capture value as users interact with Layer 2s or trade traditional assets without needing to hold it. DeFi's grand narrative of rebuilding finance has narrowed to core needs like cheap transfers and deep liquidity. The true breakout innovation is the perpetual contract (Perp). It brilliantly bypasses the complexities of direct asset ownership (custody, compliance, dividends) by creating pure price exposure. Users can speculate on the price movement of *any* asset—NVIDIA, gold, oil—24/7, globally, and with leverage. This "price casino" model, while risky and ethically fraught, delivers unmatched liquidity and accessibility. Projects like Hyperliquid succeeded not by inventing new mechanics but by perfecting the timing and execution of this model. Key drivers included making on-chain Perps feel like centralized exchanges, post-FTX trust migration towards transparency, and rising demand to trade macro assets and equities round-the-clock. In conclusion, the crypto world's most enduring successes are the dollar (via stablecoins), Bitcoin, and trading. Its new frontier is not creating alternative assets but providing a seamless, perpetual trading layer—a new API—for the world's existing financial system. The age of native altcoins is over; the age of perpetual synthetic exposure has begun.

Odaily星球日报52 min fa

The Crypto Scene Is Dead, Perpetual Swaps Are Eternal

Odaily星球日报52 min fa

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片