「无视」行情拉锯,这两类账户坚定看空后市 | CFTC 比特币持仓周报

Foresight ResearchPublished on 2022-08-08Last updated on 2022-08-08

Abstract

8 月 6 日公布的最新一期 CFTC CME 比特币持仓周报( 7 月 27 日 - 8 月 2 日)显示,比特币标准合约总持仓量自 14957 下降至 12849。

8 月 6 日公布的最新一期 CFTC CME 比特币持仓周报( 7 月 27 日 - 8 月 2 日)显示,比特币标准合约总持仓量自 14957 下降至 12849,该数值过去几周的涨势戛然而止,直接创出了近 7 个统计周期新低。统计周期内比特币先涨后跌,不过最终仍然取得了相当幅度的涨幅,行情表现相比于前一统计周期明显转强,不过在这种背景下总持仓量却出现了明显回落,哪几类账户进行了明显减仓将是本期周报的关键。

规模最大的经销商账户多头头寸自 126 下降至 94,空头头寸自 2239 下降至 2153,空头头寸自历史高点回落,此前三周连涨的势头告一段落。与此同时这类账户的已对冲头寸大幅下降,自 690 下降至 29,前一统计周期在 7 月底出现「异常」增长后最新统计周期内迅速回落。由此可见,规模最大的一类账户在最新统计周期内进行了明显的仓位减持,这类过去一段时间里坚定单边做空的账户在行情回暖的环境中风控意愿有所增强,不过从多空持仓比上来看,这类账户本已相当极端的偏空持仓状况进一步「极端化」,大型机构对于后世的偏空态度并没有明显的松动迹象出现。

资管机构多头头寸自 6580 上涨至 7082,空头头寸自 1138 下降至 957,已对冲头寸自 1162 下降至 374。资管机构在最新统计周期内又一次进行了清晰的净多调仓,这也是这类账户连续三个统计周期进行净多调仓,行情的止跌反弹对这类机构账户「坚持己见」提供了非常直接的助推效应,而两类机构账户的「对立」则愈发明显。

杠杆基金多头头寸自 2184 上升至 2233,空头头寸自 6814 上升至 7094。杠杆基金在最新统计周期内进行了多空双向同步增持,虽然相比于前一统计周期内双向的减持幅度加仓的力度明显更小,但是这类账户在最近几个统计周期内反复的同增同减显示杠杆基金在短期内至今仍然没有明显的多空偏好,行情波动几乎「决定」了这类账户的加仓或者减仓的选择。

大户账户多头头寸自 1337 下降至 1085,该数值创出近 13 个统计周期新低,空头头寸自 275 上升至 627。大户账户在最新统计周期内进行了净空调仓,相比于上一统计周期的调仓思路,这类账户的看空态度愈发激烈,大户账户已经逐渐成为了与规模最大的经销商账户态度相似的空方拥趸。

散户多头头寸自 1160 下降至 1085,空头头寸自 921 下降至 748,散户在最新统计周期内进行了多空双向同步减持,行情的震荡反复对于散户情绪造成了一定影响,近几个统计周期内持续减仓,这类账户同样缺乏明确的单边偏好。

比特币微型合约总持仓量自 22196 下降至 18206,该数值自近 10 个统计周期高点回落,并直接创出四周新低。

经销商账户多头头寸自 2222 下降至 1660,空头头寸保持 0 不变,经销商账户在微型合约中又一次进行了清晰的净空调仓,短期看空思路明确。

资管机构账户多头头寸自 189 张下降至 188 张,空头头寸自 862 张上升至 975 张,资管机构在微型合约中进行了净空调仓,配合标准合约仓位调整来看,这类账户在微型合约中的调仓主要是用于风险对冲。

杠杆基金多头头寸自 4484 下降至 1332,该数值自近 12 周高点回落并直接创出近 64 周新低,也就是创出了比特币微型合约这类产品数据纳入统计以来的历史次低点,空头头寸自 12265 下降至 11750,杠杆基金在微型合约中大幅削减多头头寸,上一统计周期净多调仓表达出的偏多态度被彻底颠覆,配合标准合约来看,杠杆基金并没有真正找到方向。

大户多头头寸自 6086 上升至 9058,空头头寸自 1055 上升至 1191,大户账户在微型合约中进行了多空双向同步增持,这类账户在微型合约中的多单持仓占比略有上升,不过同样仅理解为风险对冲处理,不影响标准合约中表达的明确看空态度。

散户多头头寸自 3217 下降至 3005,空头头寸自 2016 下降至 1327,散户在微型合约中同样进行了多空同步减持,散户短期内的「危机感」显露无疑。

Trending Cryptos

Related Reads

Glue Finance Founder: ETH Has Entered a Phase of Non-Consensus, an Inflection Point Is Coming

"Glue Finance founder argues Ethereum's current price underperformance stems from its 'unfinished machine' status. Despite record usage and settlement value in 2026, ETH remains below its 2021 peak because the protocol's continued development creates a dependency on the Ethereum Foundation for guidance and fixes. Key issues include centralized L2 sequencers, governance-based freezes (as seen with Arbitrum), state bloat, a vulnerable public mempool, and looming quantum computing threats. This 'dependency discount' prevents ETH from accruing the 'ossification premium' that markets award to immutable, trustless systems like Bitcoin. The author, a self-described Ethereum maximalist, rejects two flawed escape paths: a 'war mode' shift towards centralization for speed (which would sacrifice Ethereum's core value), or simply replacing the EF with another governing body. The only solution is the 'Manhattan Plan' or 'Lean Ethereum': a concerted, accelerated effort to complete and then *freeze* the protocol's neutral core. This involves finalizing critical upgrades in consensus (Lean Consensus), scaling (targeting 1 trillion gas/sec), quantum resistance (leanXMSS signatures), and full ZK-provable execution. The goal is to pass the 'walk-away test'—where Ethereum could run forever, neutrally, without the EF. Success would transform Ethereum into the first programmable, quantum-resistant, immutable global settlement layer, flipping its current discount into a unique 'eternity premium' that surpasses Bitcoin's. Failure—stagnation or trading neutrality for speed—would relegate it to being a slower, less trustworthy competitor."

marsbit24m ago

Glue Finance Founder: ETH Has Entered a Phase of Non-Consensus, an Inflection Point Is Coming

marsbit24m ago

Glue Finance Founder: ETH Has Entered a Phase of Non-Consensus, an Inflection Point Is Approaching

Glue Finance founder argues that Ethereum's current price underperformance, despite high on-chain activity, stems from its incomplete state and lingering dependency on central stewards like the Ethereum Foundation. The core thesis is that the market is discounting ETH not for lack of use, but because the protocol remains a "machine under construction." Key unresolved issues include centralized L2 sequencers with limited escape hatches, state bloat, vulnerable public mempools, and the looming quantum computing threat. This perpetual "work-in-progress" status forces reliance on a small group of maintainers, undermining the network's promise of credible neutrality and immutability. The author, a self-described Ethereum maximalist, rejects two flawed paths: a "wartime mode" of centralizing for speed (surrendering Ethereum's unique value) or merely replacing the Foundation with another governing entity. The only solution is to complete and then "freeze" the protocol's neutral core through a focused "Manhattan Project" dubbed "Lean Ethereum." This project aims to bundle critical upgrades—consensus layer overhaul, massive scaling via ZK-proofs, quantum resistance, and statelessness—into a decisive push to finalize the base layer. Once the core rules are cryptographically solidified and beyond anyone's control (passing the "walk-away test"), Ethereum would shed its dependency discount and earn a "rigidity premium" for its credible neutrality and programmability, potentially surpassing Bitcoin's valuation. The race is between completing this hardening and the risks of protocol capture or stagnation.

链捕手26m ago

Glue Finance Founder: ETH Has Entered a Phase of Non-Consensus, an Inflection Point Is Approaching

链捕手26m ago

Hackers Steal Nearly $17 Million in 40 Days as 'Zombie Contracts' Become Their ATMs

According to an analysis published by ZeroDrift on June 22, 2026, attackers have stolen approximately $16.9 million over 40 days from five deprecated but still operational smart contracts across various blockchains. The primary issue is not a specific vulnerability but the incomplete decommissioning of legacy contracts. These "zombie contracts" often retain economic value, operational permissions, and callable functions, making them prime targets long after teams cease active development. The most significant loss occurred at DxSale, where an old locker contract lost about $7.3 million due to a forgotten control path becoming accessible again. Other affected projects include TrustedVolumes (~$5.87M), Raydium's legacy AMM pool (~$1.34M), Aztec Connect (~$2.28M), and Huma Finance V1 pool (~$101k). These incidents involved diverse systems—RFQ settlement, credit pools, liquidity lockers, AMMs—demonstrating the widespread nature of the risk. The analysis highlights that automated tools are lowering the cost for attackers to systematically scan for these long-tail targets, which have public code and weaker monitoring. In contrast, defensive practices for contract retirement remain underdeveloped. While the DeFi industry has mature audit processes for new deployments, it lacks strict protocols for securely sunsetting old contracts, which only become truly "retired" after all funds, permissions, authorizations, and trust assumptions are removed.

marsbit1h ago

Hackers Steal Nearly $17 Million in 40 Days as 'Zombie Contracts' Become Their ATMs

marsbit1h ago

Valuation Rout of Old Titans: The Demise of a Generation's Asset Valuation Framework

"The Old Titans' Valuation Collapse: The Death of an Era's Valuation Framework" Between Alibaba's 2014 NYSE debut at $93.89 and its 2026 price of ~$95, twelve years have passed with zero price appreciation. This stagnation symbolizes a wholesale valuation reset for an entire generation of Chinese internet assets. Companies like Tencent, Pinduoduo, Meituan, Bilibili, and Kuaishou have seen catastrophic declines of 80-98% from their peaks. The core question arises: what framework now prices these companies, or has the framework itself expired? The valuation logic for Chinese internet stocks followed a clear "anchor-setting and anchor-removing" process. From 2014-2017, the dominant narrative was "US comparable discounting" – applying a growth premium and governance discount to US peers' multiples. This anchor loosened with the 2018 US-China trade war and the VIE structure risk, then was violently uprooted by the 2020-2021 regulatory crackdowns (Ant Group, Didi, anti-monopoly fines). The 2022 delisting panic and subsequent 2025-2026 geopolitical shocks (US military lists, AI espionage accusations) completed the demolition. The old "US对标打折" model is dead. However, this is not solely a China story. A structural mirror exists in US "old titan" stocks ("老登股"). In 2026, even Microsoft – with robust fundamentals – saw its PE compress from a 34x median to 22x, its worst performer status among the "Magnificent Seven" driven by a $190 billion annual AI capex crushing free cash flow. The core dilemma is universal: legacy platform giants, whether Alibaba or Microsoft, are spending colossal sums to chase an AI paradigm that may颠覆 their own high-margin, user/subscription-based business models. They have shifted from "companies defining the future" to "companies needing to prove they won't be淘汰ed by the future." This phenomenon of a dying valuation坐标系 has a historical precedent: post-1989 Japan. After its bubble burst, the "Japan premium" narrative ("most efficient manufacturing + perpetual growth") collapsed. A 25-year valuation vacuum ensued until Warren Buffett provided a new language in the 2010s: "low valuation + high dividend + governance reform." China's internet sector is now in a similar vacuum six years into its reset. While different from Japan's deflationary context, the parallel is clear: the old macro assumption of "deep integration with global capital" is falsified, but a new pricing framework is absent. Potential "new languages" for Chinese internet valuations are contradictory. AI transformation requires gutting profitable core businesses (e.g., Alibaba's ad-driven e-commerce) for an unproven consumption-based model, risking a Microsoft-like cash flow crunch. Alternatively, shareholder returns (buybacks/dividends) could build a floor, following Buffett's Japanese playbook, but current scales are insufficient to form a standalone anchor. The current state mirrors mid-1990s Japan: the old framework is dead, the new one unborn. The market waits in a vacuum for a重新定义ing force – a person, event, or proven business model shift – to answer "why buy." This may only be the middle phase of a prolonged re-rating.

marsbit1h ago

Valuation Rout of Old Titans: The Demise of a Generation's Asset Valuation Framework

marsbit1h ago

Trading

Spot

Hot Articles

What is $BITCOIN

DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN): A Comprehensive Analysis Introduction to DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) is a blockchain-based project operating on the Solana network, which aims to combine the characteristics of traditional precious metals with the innovation of decentralized technologies. While it shares a name with Bitcoin, often referred to as “digital gold” due to its perception as a store of value, DIGITAL GOLD is a separate token designed to create a unique ecosystem within the Web3 landscape. Its goal is to position itself as a viable alternative digital asset, although specifics regarding its applications and functionalities are still developing. What is DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN)? DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) is a cryptocurrency token explicitly designed for use on the Solana blockchain. In contrast to Bitcoin, which provides a widely recognized value storage role, this token appears to focus on broader applications and characteristics. Notable aspects include: Blockchain Infrastructure: The token is built on the Solana blockchain, known for its capacity to handle high-speed and low-cost transactions. Supply Dynamics: DIGITAL GOLD has a maximum supply capped at 100 quadrillion tokens (100P $BITCOIN), although details regarding its circulating supply are currently undisclosed. Utility: While precise functionalities are not explicitly outlined, there are indications that the token could be utilized for various applications, potentially involving decentralized applications (dApps) or asset tokenization strategies. Who is the Creator of DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN)? At present, the identity of the creators and development team behind DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) remains unknown. This situation is typical among many innovative projects within the blockchain space, particularly those aligning with decentralized finance and meme coin phenomena. While such anonymity may foster a community-driven culture, it intensifies concerns about governance and accountability. Who are the Investors of DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN)? The available information indicates that DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) does not have any known institutional backers or prominent venture capital investments. The project seems to operate on a peer-to-peer model focused on community support and adoption rather than traditional funding routes. Its activity and liquidity are primarily situated on decentralized exchanges (DEXs), such as PumpSwap, rather than established centralized trading platforms, further highlighting its grassroots approach. How DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) Works The operational mechanics of DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) can be elaborated on based on its blockchain design and network attributes: Consensus Mechanism: By leveraging Solana’s unique proof-of-history (PoH) combined with a proof-of-stake (PoS) model, the project ensures efficient transaction validation contributing to the network's high performance. Tokenomics: While specific deflationary mechanisms have not been extensively detailed, the vast maximum token supply implies that it may cater to microtransactions or niche use cases that are still to be defined. Interoperability: There exists the potential for integration with Solana’s broader ecosystem, including various decentralized finance (DeFi) platforms. However, the details regarding specific integrations remain unspecified. Timeline of Key Events Here is a timeline that highlights significant milestones concerning DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN): 2023: The initial deployment of the token occurs on the Solana blockchain, marked by its contract address. 2024: DIGITAL GOLD gains visibility as it becomes available for trading on decentralized exchanges like PumpSwap, allowing users to trade it against SOL. 2025: The project witnesses sporadic trading activity and potential interest in community-led engagements, although no noteworthy partnerships or technical advancements have been documented as of yet. Critical Analysis Strengths Scalability: The underlying Solana infrastructure supports high transaction volumes, which could enhance the utility of $BITCOIN in various transaction scenarios. Accessibility: The potential low trading price per token could attract retail investors, facilitating wider participation due to fractional ownership opportunities. Risks Lack of Transparency: The absence of publicly known backers, developers, or an audit process may yield skepticism regarding the project's sustainability and trustworthiness. Market Volatility: The trading activity is heavily reliant on speculative behavior, which can result in significant price volatility and uncertainty for investors. Conclusion DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) emerges as an intriguing yet ambiguous project within the rapidly evolving Solana ecosystem. While it attempts to leverage the “digital gold” narrative, its departure from Bitcoin's established role as a store of value underscores the need for a clearer differentiation of its intended utility and governance structure. Future acceptance and adoption will likely depend on addressing the current opacity and defining its operational and economic strategies more explicitly. Note: This report encompasses synthesised information available as of October 2023, and developments may have transpired beyond the research period.

463 Total ViewsPublished 2025.05.13Updated 2025.05.13

What is $BITCOIN

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of BTC (BTC) are presented below.

活动图片