A Turning Point Approaches: The "Net Long vs. Net Short" Structure Presents a Historically Rare State

marsbit2026-03-09 tarihinde yayınlandı2026-03-09 tarihinde güncellendi

Özet

The cryptocurrency market is exhibiting a historically rare structure in perpetual futures, with directional long positions nearly equal to directional short positions, signaling a potential major shift (变盘). Analysis using Ethena's transparency dashboard reveals that Ethena's deployed capital, which acts as a proxy for excess long demand in the market, has plummeted to $790 million—just 71% of its 2025 low and 12.9% of its October 2025 peak. This sharp decline, occurring amid relatively stable prices since Bitcoin's crash to $60,000, suggests a significant reduction in speculative long leverage and a rise in directional shorting or hedging demand, particularly from VCs and projects hedging illiquid assets. While this balanced state could theoretically persist, it is extremely uncommon in other asset markets, indicating that a volatility surge and market turn may be imminent.

This article is from: Kyle Soska

Compiled by | Odaily Planet Daily (@OdailyChina); Translator | Azuma (@azuma_eth)

Editor's Note: The market has been oscillating at low levels. Will the future direction be up or down? Ramiel Capital Chief Investment Officer Kyle Soska analyzes the long-short structure of the perpetual futures market in his latest article and attempts to provide an answer by examining changes in market risk appetite.

The highlight of Kyle's analysis method is that by incorporating data disclosures from Ethena, he excludes basis positions and hedging positions, which have some noise impact on the price direction, and focuses only on net long and net short positions, which more directly determine the market's direction. His final conclusion is that the current market's net long vs. net short structure is in a historically rare state. While it's possible this could become the new normal, observing other asset markets reveals that such a trend is generally extremely difficult to sustain long-term. In other words, a turning point may be imminent.

Below is the original content by Kyle Soska, compiled by Odaily Planet Daily.

The cryptocurrency market has been in a risk-off state for several consecutive months. I have been sifting through various forms of market data, hoping to find signs of a potential market turnaround. This article will delve into the market structure of perpetual futures and, combined with data from the Ethena transparency dashboard, explore changes in market risk appetite.

Ethena's currently deployed capital has fallen to its lowest level in years, only 71% of the low point in 2025. This is not a criticism of Ethena, but rather a reflection of the current market state. Directional shorts have nearly equaled directional longs — an extremely rare structure in the crypto market that has historically been difficult to sustain long-term.

The cryptocurrency market has long been characterized by extremely high asset volatility and the widespread use of high leverage by traders. Since the BitMEX era, perpetual futures have become the highest volume product, with trading volumes typically 5 to 20 times that of the spot market. As the core hub providing leverage to retail investors in the market, observing the perpetual futures market can provide a good reflection of the overall risk appetite of the crypto market.

Ethena provides us with a unique window into the crypto derivatives market. As shown in the figure below, Ethena's strategy essentially executes a carry trade in cryptocurrency, and its logic is very simple — when a trader goes long on a crypto asset, Ethena acts as the counterparty and goes short. Simultaneously, Ethena buys an equivalent amount of the asset in the spot market to hedge its short position.

In a sense, Ethena provides "Leverage-as-a-Service":

  • Traders want exposure to rising crypto assets but lack sufficient capital;
  • Ethena has capital but has a lower risk appetite;
  • Therefore, traders borrow capital from Ethena through perpetual futures, and their cost is the "basis" + "perpetual funding rate".

According to the structure of perpetual futures, every long position is matched by a short position; they are always 1:1. Each open interest represents a cash flow agreement between two parties. The exchange's role is to match these contracts, ensuring that every contract always has a sufficiently funded long and short holder. The matrix below shows the four possible outcomes when an exchange matches contracts.

Every trade has a buyer and a seller. When the buyer and seller of a contract are both long or both short, the exchange only needs to transfer the contract ownership between the two parties. This transfer does not create or destroy any contracts. When the buyer is long and the seller is short, a new contract must be created: the buyer gets a long position, the seller gets a short position, thereby increasing the open interest by 1. Conversely, if the seller is long and the buyer is short, the exchange can unbind both parties from a specific contract and delete that contract, thereby reducing the open interest by 1.

So who holds these contracts in a typical market? Essentially, there are four types of contract holders:

  • Directional longs want exposure to price increases. They are risk-seeking participants, and their risk demand depends on the strength of market risk appetite.
  • Directional shorts comprise two types of participants: those who want exposure to asset price declines, and those who want to hedge their holdings in a more tax-efficient manner. For example, VCs and company employees who receive compensation in tokens often want to hedge future unlockable tokens to lock in the current price. For many altcoins, market liquidity is often too thin to support effective direct hedging, or the relevant market may not even exist. In such cases, companies like Cumberland, Wintermute, FalconX, Flowdesk, Amber, etc., can construct a dynamically managed synthetic position: by shorting a number of highly liquid and correlated assets (like Bitcoin and Ethereum) to hedge an exposure to a less liquid asset (e.g., Monad). This category also includes projects like Neutrl, which use this hedging structure as a yield strategy.
  • Basis traders are opportunistic shorts. They are not concerned with price direction but voluntarily match the excess demand from directional longs when market imbalances occur. In most market environments, long demand tends to exceed short demand, and their role is to fill this gap. Their scale is typically highly elastic and can expand or shrink rapidly.
  • Perp-Perp arbitrageurs hold both long and short positions in perpetual futures simultaneously. Their role is to connect prices between different perpetual futures markets and eliminate any slight price differences after deducting transaction fees. Their long and short positions are perfectly matched at any given moment.

According to the structure of perpetual futures, every contract must be 1:1 long-short matched, so we know that "Directional longs + Arbitrage longs = Directional shorts + Basis shorts + Arbitrage shorts"; furthermore, due to the arbitrage structure, we also know that "Arbitrage longs = Arbitrage shorts"; canceling this relationship out from the first equation gives us "Directional longs = Directional shorts + Basis shorts".

Ethena provides us with a proxy metric for all basis shorts, thereby helping us observe the structural comparison between directional longs and directional shorts.

The chart below shows the balance sheet disclosed by Ethena, which divides assets into cash and deployed capital, for the time range from December 27, 2024, to March 7, 2026.

In 2025, following the launch of the TRUMP token in January, the market quickly entered a risk-off state, continuing to decline during the initial tariff discussions and the "Liberation Day" event in April. During this period, Ethena's deployed capital plummeted from over $5 billion to about $1.1 billion, a drop of more than 75%.

Remember, Ethena's deployed capital can be seen as a proxy for excess long demand in the market. Although Ethena is not the only institution executing this trade, its scale is very large (at times accounting for about 25% of the total size on Binance and Bybit). As long as Ethena has excess cash, it would theoretically expand its positions to fill the unmet long demand in the market. This means that while overall long demand may not have fallen by 75%, the excess long demand not absorbed by directional shorts did indeed decrease by that much.

The chart below shows the change in deployed capital in Ethena's balance sheet relative to its total size, the 2025 low, and the 2025 high.

Looking at the current market, Ethena's deployed capital across all markets (BTC, ETH, SOL, BNB, XRP, HYPE) is $790 million. This figure is only 71% of the 2025 low and 12.9% of the pre-October 10th high. This number is not a criticism of Ethena but a reflection of the overall market state — net long demand in the current market is at a historically low level.

It is worth noting that during the market crash when Bitcoin fell to $60,000, Ethena still deployed over $2 billion in capital. Yet, just one month later, after February 8, 2026, deployed capital plummeted by 60%.

The chart below zooms in on Ethena's deployed capital and Bitcoin's price movement since January of this year.

Since BTC fell to $60,000, Ethena's basis positions have shrunk from over $2 billion to less than $800 million. This change is quite intriguing because the overall market price has been relatively stable during this period. There are three possible explanations for this situation:

  • Basis trades from the February crash are gradually being closed. These trades were profitable but unsustainable (the basis became more negative, but the funding rate was also negative);
  • Directional short and hedging demand has increased, squeezing out opportunistic basis traders;
  • Insufficient demand for leveraged long exposure.

In my opinion, the reality is mainly a combination of the first two possibilities, with the third having a smaller impact. As shown in the figure above, during the period when Ethena was gradually closing positions, the open interest for Bitcoin and other major assets remained generally stable. At the same time, funding rates were negative for a considerable period, and coins like SOL had cumulative negative funding rates on multiple exchanges. This indicates that market demand for directional shorting or hedging exposure is rising.

If I had to guess, I think many small and medium-sized crypto companies and VCs are going through a crisis. Think of those small-cap projects (like Eigen, Grass, Monad, etc.). There could be hundreds of such tokens, and each project corresponds to multiple VCs, a project team, a company treasury, and a large number of employees. VCs need to limit losses and lock in profits to meet fund investment requirements, and project companies need to protect their operational capital reserves and employee size. This creates a situation where all participants must squeeze as much yield as possible from limited resources, and the solution is often a "crowded trade," namely actively managed structured products that short a basket of correlated assets.

We can see some signs of these structured products in some of ETH's short-term spikes, as these rallies often trigger short covering and drive synchronous increases in many small and mid-cap crypto assets. Another piece of evidence is the noticeable crowding out of opportunistic basis trading (e.g., Ethena) from the market.

Whatever the reason, we can be sure that for almost the first time in crypto market history, directional longs and directional shorts have nearly reached complete parity.

Theoretically, there is no reason why this state cannot become the new normal, or that this structure must change. But if we look at markets in other asset classes, we find that such a trend is very rare to sustain long-term.

İlgili Sorular

QWhat is the current state of the net long vs. net short structure in the perpetual futures market according to the article?

AThe net long vs. net short structure is in a historically rare state where directional shorts have almost reached parity with directional longs, a situation that is extremely rare and difficult to sustain long-term in the crypto market.

QHow does Ethena's deployed capital serve as an indicator for the market's risk appetite?

AEthena's deployed capital acts as a proxy for the market's excess long demand that is not absorbed by directional shorts. Its current sharp decline to multi-year lows reflects a significant drop in the market's overall risk-on appetite and net long demand.

QWhat are the four types of contract holders in the perpetual futures market as described in the article?

AThe four types are: 1. Directional longs (speculating on price increases), 2. Directional shorts (speculating on price decreases or hedging existing holdings), 3. Basis traders (opportunistic shorts filling excess long demand), and 4. Perp-Perp arbitrageurs (holding matched long and short positions to profit from price differences between markets).

QWhat major event does the article suggest might be causing an increase in directional short or hedging demand?

AThe article suggests that many small and mid-sized crypto companies and VCs might be facing a crisis, leading them to engage in a 'crowded trade' of actively managing structured products to short a basket of correlated assets to limit losses, lock in profits, and protect treasury and payroll funds.

QWhat does the article conclude about the likelihood of the current market structure persisting?

AThe article concludes that while theoretically this balanced structure could become a new normal, observing other asset classes shows that such a trend is extremely rare to maintain for a long time, implying that a significant market move (a turning point) is likely coming soon.

İlgili Okumalar

Will the Next Crypto Bull Run Start with On-Chain Trading of SpaceX?

This article presents a scenario-based forecast for the crypto industry from 2026 to 2029, arguing that the next major cycle will be driven not by technological narratives but by legal access to real-world assets. The author predicts that by mid-2026, pre-IPO perpetual contracts for top private companies like SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic on platforms like Hyperliquid will become the primary gateway for accessing quality assets, as most crypto-native tokens fail to capture real value. The much-hyped AI x Crypto intersection largely fails except for prediction markets, which thrive on betting on AI model supremacy. By 2027, public blockchain foundations are forced to choose between catering to retail speculation or building compliant infrastructure for institutions, with many opting for the latter. Growth in stablecoins and tokenized private credit/equity hits a "triple ceiling" due to regulatory and political uncertainty rather than market demand. The pivotal shift is forecast for 2028. A major liquidation event in pre-IPO perpetuals exposes the structural flaw of synthetic markets lacking a real underlying asset anchor. In response, regulatory changes finally allow the public solicitation of private securities resales to verified accredited investors. This creates a legitimate secondary market for real company equity, which then becomes the core asset class of the new bull market, relegating synthetic perps to a niche role. By 2029, the industry becomes "boring" but foundational. Tokens without claims on real cash flows or assets cease trading. Stablecoin growth is steady but politically capped. Crypto infrastructure fades from view as it gets absorbed into traditional finance backends. The article's central thesis is that the key bottleneck for crypto's next phase is legal and regulatory channels for real asset ownership, not technology.

marsbit40 dk önce

Will the Next Crypto Bull Run Start with On-Chain Trading of SpaceX?

marsbit40 dk önce

The Value Distribution of Stablecoins

**Summary: The Value Distribution of Stablecoins** The article argues that stablecoins are evolving from mere trading tools into broader channels for dollar access. It divides the stablecoin ecosystem into four layers to analyze how value is distributed: 1. **Issuance Layer:** Mints stablecoins, holds reserve assets, and captures the spread between reserve yield and user costs (e.g., Tether, Circle). This layer currently earns the largest profit margin. 2. **Infrastructure Layer:** Connects stablecoins to the traditional financial system, handling fiat on/off-ramps, banking integration, compliance (KYC/AML), and asset management (e.g., Bridge, BVNK). This is the "unglamorous" but critical work, building the essential bridges between crypto and real-world finance. 3. **Acquiring/Distribution Layer:** Integrates stablecoins into merchant systems, manages payment flows, and provides enterprise financial software (e.g., Stripe, Coinbase). They act as the access point for businesses. 4. **Application Layer:** The end-users and businesses that ultimately use stablecoins for payments, settlements, or as a store of value. They benefit from convenience but have little pricing power. The core thesis is that while the issuance layer currently dominates profits, the often-overlooked **infrastructure layer holds significant long-term potential**. The real challenge and barrier to mass adoption is not the on-chain transfer of stablecoins (which is simple), but the complex "last mile" integration into existing business workflows, banking systems, and regulatory frameworks across different countries. Companies in this layer are currently in a "land grab" phase, investing heavily to build networks, secure bank partnerships, and establish compliance pathways. While their position is currently pressured by the profitable issuers above and distribution platforms below, the article suggests that if stablecoins become a default financial rail for businesses, the infrastructure providers who have done the hard work of integration will ultimately gain strong pricing power and become entrenched, essential players.

marsbit7 saat önce

The Value Distribution of Stablecoins

marsbit7 saat önce

The Value Distribution of Stablecoins

The Value Distribution of Stablecoins The article argues that stablecoins are evolving from a mere trading tool into a broad "dollar channel." It analyzes the industry's value chain through four layers: 1. **Issuance Layer (e.g., Tether, Circle):** The top layer that mints stablecoins, holds reserve assets, and captures the thickest interest rate spread. 2. **Infrastructure Layer (e.g., Bridge, BVNK):** Connects stablecoins to the traditional financial system, handling critical but complex "dirty work" like fiat on/off-ramps, banking integration, compliance (KYC/AML), and cross-border settlement. 3. **Acquiring/Distribution Layer (e.g., Stripe, Coinbase):** Embeds stablecoins into merchant systems, manages payment flows, and integrates with enterprise software. 4. **Application Layer:** End-users and businesses that ultimately use stablecoins for payments, settlement, or storing value. The author posits that while the issuance layer currently captures the most profit, the most overlooked and potentially critical layer is infrastructure. The core challenge for stablecoin adoption isn't the on-chain transfer (which is simple), but bridging the gap between blockchain and the real-world financial system. This involves solving practical problems for businesses: fiat conversion, reconciliation, tax handling, and user onboarding. Infrastructure companies are currently in a difficult "land-grab" phase—building networks, securing banking relationships, and achieving compliance country-by-country. They face pressure from both the profitable issuance layer above and distribution platforms below. However, the author suggests this layer is building a crucial moat. Once stablecoins become a default business rail, the infrastructure players who have done the hard work of integration may gain significant, durable value and pricing power.

链捕手7 saat önce

The Value Distribution of Stablecoins

链捕手7 saat önce

İşlemler

Spot
Futures
活动图片