Avalanche (AVAX) 值得关注的 3 个价格水平

金色财经2024-07-08 tarihinde yayınlandı2024-07-08 tarihinde güncellendi

原文来源:钮轱辘瑶

get?code=NjMyNjY2MzM4OGQzMDU1NzBjY2Y2YzFlZGFjMWFkNzQsMTcxNzA1NjIwMjczMw==

正如著名的链上分析平台 IntoTheBlock 所强调的那样, Avalanche (AVAX)的投资者和交易者正在密切关注三个关键价格水平。

这些水平对于预测加密货币的未来走势至关重要。

Avalanche 的三个重要价格水平是什么?

最初,AVAX 在 3 月 18 日达到局部高点65.39 美元,此后下跌约 45%,目前交易价格约为 36.72 美元。

IntoTheBlock 全球资金流入/流出图表上的绿色气泡显示,866,000个地址以平均 31.72 美元的价格购买了约 1449 万个 AVAX。这个数字至关重要,因为它代表了一个关键的需求区,如果价格再次跌至这些水平,它可以提供强有力的支撑。

另一方面,红色气泡表示潜在的阻力位。这涉及约 104 万个地址,这些地址持有约 2275 万个 AVAX,平均购买价格为 48.67 美元。AVAX 价格可能会在此水平面临阻力,因为投资者可能会卖出以达到盈亏平衡。

get?code=MTg1NzI2ZDg1ZjQzY2IxMjdhNTk5MWFlMDczNTI4NjcsMTcxNzA1NjIwMjczMw==

Avalanche Global 的资金流入/流出情况。

此外,灰色气泡标出了 36.77 美元左右的关键供应区,其中 541,000个地址已获得约 2555 万 AVAX。该区域也可能成为阻力位,可能限制价格上涨。

技术分析证实了这些观察结果,表明AVAX 目前正在 31.32 美元至 39.89 美元之间盘整。如果突破这一区间,价格可能会上涨 32%,达到下一个重要阻力位 48.85 美元左右。

此外,加密货币分析师 Ameba 还对 AVAX 的短期价格走势提供了见解。他认为 AVAX 可以在下一轮上涨之前测试较低区间水平。

阿米巴表示:“我希望看到中距离以下的走势,或者如果情况不妙,那么就看区间低点的走势。”

get?code=NTY3ZDJmMzU1NTA2OTQzNGRiYWEwOWI5YjlkNzBlOTcsMTcxNzA1NjIwMjczMw==

对于投资者来说,了解这些水平对于规划 AVAX 市场的有效进入和退出策略至关重要。鉴于当前的市场状况,建议采取谨慎的态度,并需要密切监控以应对近期链上数据确定的潜在阻力和支撑区域。

目前我们6个分析师一起投研出来的一些百倍潜力的币,和短期暴涨项目,可以关注我进社区了解,目前都是免费的

İlgili Okumalar

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.

marsbit16 dk önce

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

marsbit16 dk önce

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 News23 dk önce

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

Foresight News23 dk önce

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.

marsbit38 dk önce

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

marsbit38 dk önce

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?

marsbit45 dk önce

Why Do Crypto Projects Keep Changing Their Names?

marsbit45 dk önce

İşlemler

Spot
Futures
活动图片