Sonic rebounds after 17% drop – Yet network usage lags

ambcryptoPublicado em 2025-08-17Última atualização em 2025-08-18

Key Takeaways

Sonic saw a surge in price following an inflow of over $23 million in TVL and positive chain netflows. However, the potential for a sustained boom does not fully align with the recent gains.


In the past day, Sonic [S] emerged as one of the market’s top performers, posting a 10% gain—a sharp turnaround from the 17% drop it had recorded earlier.

AMBCrypto analysis found that while the broader market remains bullish, sentiment across key metrics is not in full alignment, leaving room for a possible decline. Here’s how the situation could play out.

S: Liquidity grows

The Total Value Locked (TVL), which gauges investor confidence in an asset, has taken a major shift as investors adopt a long-term outlook.

Over the past day, this group of investors added $21.05 million worth of S into protocols on the Sonic chain, according to DeFiLlama.

S total value lockedS total value locked

Source: DeFiLlama

This inflow suggests that the funds have been locked, a sign that the dominant sentiment leans toward long-term price appreciation.

Additionally, chain netflow data, which measures liquidity moving in and out of the network, shows that investors bridged assets from other chains into Sonic to acquire its native token.

As of now, $832,000 worth of S has been added to the chain, solidifying its liquidity position at current levels.

On-chain activity doesn’t tally

On-chain activity does not match Sonic’s recent price gains. At the time of the rally, both Active Addresses and Daily Transactions on the chain declined.

Active Addresses typically indicate broader network usage and rising utility for a token, which often correlates with demand.

S active addresses chart.S active addresses chart.

Source: Artemis

Currently, the number of active addresses has dropped to 15,700—just 500 addresses away from the yearly low of 15,200, a level that previously coincided with a price decline.

Similarly, Daily Transactions have fallen. At the time of writing, transactions stood at 294,800, confirming that remaining users are engaging less.

There were an average of 18.7 transactions per user, compared to 27.5 per user in May 2023, when price activity surged notably.

Off-chain sentiment remains weak

Off-chain sentiment on centralized exchanges also remains weak. During this period, liquidity movement and momentum behind the rally were minimal.

For context, Sonic’s daily trading volume stood at $6.14 million—a 32% decline.

Historically, a rise in price accompanied by declining volume indicates weak momentum behind a rally, suggesting a potential pullback.

S derivative data.S derivative data.

Source: CoinGlass

Open Interest data from CoinGlass further confirms this trend. The total liquidity in derivatives stands at just $23 million, with only $340,000 added in the past day.

Liquidation data shows traders removed less than $200 worth of positions from the market, reflecting weak derivatives sentiment and little interest in Sonic.

If this trend in on-chain and off-chain sentiment continues through the week, Sonic may face a reversal of the gains it recorded over the past day.

Share

Leituras Relacionadas

You Use Claude and Codex Every Day, but Meta Has Restricted Internal Use

In May, Meta imposed internal restrictions on its engineers regarding the use of Claude Code and Codex, two widely used AI programming tools. Despite being a major client, Meta's guidelines, still in effect, prohibit these external models from being used for specific tasks to prevent potential "escalations with partners." The core concern is "distillation"—the risk that outputs from Claude or Codex could inadvertently contaminate the training data and evaluation processes for Meta's in-house AI coding assistant, MetaCode. If MetaCode is trained or evaluated using data generated by these external models, it risks learning their capabilities rather than developing its own, blurring the line of intellectual origin. The restrictions are precise: engineers cannot use the external models to generate test questions, debug source code, or suggest test cases. AI-generated content is also barred from environments accessible to MetaCode. However, AI can still assist with peripheral tasks like workflow setup and code organization, provided all outputs are manually reviewed. This caution reflects a broader industry dilemma. While distillation is a common technique, using a competitor's model output for training raises legal and ethical questions about the ownership of derived capabilities. Contractual terms from companies like OpenAI and Anthropic explicitly forbid using their outputs to build competing products, putting enforcement power in the hands of rivals. The move is also financially motivated, as Meta seeks to reduce its hefty internal AI spending, estimated in the billions this year. Meta's policy illustrates the delicate balance companies must strike: leveraging powerful external AI tools while safeguarding the integrity and independence of their own AI development. As AI systems increasingly help build other AIs, distinguishing the origin of capabilities becomes a fundamental challenge for the entire industry.

marsbitHá 1h

You Use Claude and Codex Every Day, but Meta Has Restricted Internal Use

marsbitHá 1h

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

The article "Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?" explores the complex and often contentious integration of AI into the cultural and creative industries, particularly film and television. It begins with the cancellation of Amazon's AI-generated animation "Punky Duck," highlighting the ethical debates surrounding AI content. AI's rapid advancement is transforming video production, enabling cost-effective, full-length AI films (e.g., "RAPHAEL," "Dreams of Violets") while sparking industry resistance over issues like "synthetic actors." The core debate has shifted from whether to use AI to how to use it responsibly. The article analyzes why AI's entry into film is uniquely unsettling. It distinguishes between "cultural fast food" (short-form, fast-paced content like micro-dramas) and "cultural main courses" (traditional, long-form film/TV). AI currently excels at the former, matching its fragmented narratives, shallow emotional needs, and free-to-consumer models. However, venturing into the latter challenges the human-centric essence of storytelling—creativity, emotional depth, and the unique value of human labor and experience. While AI can generate massive volumes of content and lower costs, it risks devaluing human creativity, leading to homogenized output, and creating unfair competition through potential intellectual property infringement. Its efficiency also amplifies content safety risks, making preemptive governance crucial. To counter these risks, the article proposes establishing clear boundaries guided by a human-centered AI content perspective. It outlines four principles: 1) Amplify, rather than displace, human creative space; 2) Respect and protect human creative output; 3) Ensure human creative control and responsibility remain paramount; and 4) Guarantee transparency and traceability in AI creation. The conclusion emphasizes that humans must act as the "helmsmen" of technology, steering AI development to enhance, not replace, the core human values at the heart of cultural expression.

marsbitHá 2h

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

marsbitHá 2h

Trading

Spot
活动图片