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

Odaily星球日报2026-03-09 tarihinde yayınlandı2026-03-09 tarihinde güncellendi

Özet

Kyle Soska analyzes the perpetual futures market structure using Ethena's transparency dashboard to gauge crypto market risk sentiment. Ethena's deployed capital has fallen to a multi-year low, just 71% of its 2025 minimum, indicating a sharp decline in excess long demand. Historically, directional longs significantly outnumber directional shorts, but the current market shows an almost 1:1 balance—a rare and typically unsustainable structure. This equilibrium is likely driven by increased directional shorting and hedging demand from VCs, projects, and crypto firms locking in prices or managing exposures, rather than a lack of leveraged long interest. While this balance could become the new normal, similar structures in other asset classes rarely persist long-term, suggesting a potential market turning point may be near.

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 for a sustained period. Will the future direction be up or down? Ramiel Capital Chief Investment Officer Kyle Soska, in his latest article, analyzes the long-short structure of the perpetual futures market and attempts to provide an answer by examining changes in market risk appetite.

The highlight of Kyle's analytical method lies in incorporating data disclosures from Ethena, which excludes basis positions and hedging positions that have some noise impact on the price direction, focusing only on net long and net short positions that more directly determine the market's direction. His final point 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 almost reached parity with directional longs — an extremely rare structure in the crypto market and one 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 traders in the market, observing the perpetual futures market can provide a good reflection of the overall risk appetite of the crypto market.

And 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 will buy 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 via 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 the long position, the seller gets the 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 actually 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 wish to hedge their held assets 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 relevant markets may not even exist. In such cases, companies like Cumberland, Wintermute, FalconX, Flowdesk, Amber, etc., can construct a dynamically managed synthetic position: by shorting several 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 usually highly elastic and can expand or shrink rapidly.
  • Perp-Perp arbitrageurs simultaneously hold both long and short positions in perpetual futures. Their role is to connect prices between different perpetual futures markets and eliminate any slight price differences after deducting trading fees. Their longs and shorts 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 yields "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 period 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.

Observing the current market, Ethena's deployed capital across all markets (BTC, ETH, SOL, BNB, XRP, HYPE) is $790 million. This value 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 closing. These trades were profitable but unsustainable (the basis became more negative, but the funding rate was also negative);
  • Directional short and hedging demand 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 possibility having a smaller impact. As shown in the figure above, during the period when Ethena was gradually closing its positions, the open interest of 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" — actively managed structured products that short a basket of correlated assets.

We can see some signs of these structured products in some short-term spikes in ETH, 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 ascertain that for almost the first time in crypto market history, directional longs and directional shorts have reached almost complete parity.

Theoretically, there is no reason why this state cannot become the new normal, or that this structure necessarily needs to 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 difficult to sustain long-term in crypto markets.

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 historically low level of net long demand and a significant risk-off sentiment in the market.

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 does the sharp decrease in Ethena's deployed capital since February 8th, 2026, suggest about the market dynamics?

AThe 60% decrease in deployed capital, while prices remained relatively stable, suggests a combination of profitable but unsustainable basis trades from the February crash being unwound and a significant increase in directional shorting or hedging demand, which has crowded out opportunistic basis traders.

QWhy does the author believe a major market shift (变盘) is imminent?

AThe author believes a shift is imminent because the current equilibrium, where directional longs and shorts are nearly equal, is a historically rare and unstable structure in crypto markets. Observing other asset classes shows that such a trend is extremely difficult to maintain for a long period, implying a reversion or a breakout is likely.

İlgili Okumalar

This Strategy Earned Hefei One Trillion Yuan

This article analyzes the "Hefei Model" that enabled a municipal state-owned investment to generate paper profits exceeding one trillion yuan through the 2026 IPO of ChangXin Memory Technologies (CXMT). It argues against framing this success as a "lucky gamble," instead presenting it as the result of a deliberate institutional system designed to enable long-term industrial investment. The system comprises three core components. First, a **quantified risk-tolerance mechanism**, including a 40% loss allowance for venture funds and a clear "duty-fulfilled exemption" list, decouples project failure from personal career risk for decision-makers, allowing them to focus on industrial potential rather than personal liability. Second, **strategic investment in critical supply chain gaps**: Hefei doesn't just invest in "good" projects, but targets "missing" links essential for its key industries (appliances, displays, cars). The investment in CXMT aimed to fill the critical DRAM memory chip gap, subsequently attracting over 450 upstream and downstream firms and creating a full semiconductor cluster. Third, **institutional authorization for counter-cyclical investment**: Protected by the risk-tolerance framework, Hefei supported CXMT with increased investment during the 2023 global memory industry downturn, enabling it to scale production and capitalize on the 2025 AI-driven demand surge. The article concludes that the true lesson is not the specific investment but building the institutional infrastructure—quantified risk tolerance, deep industry chain analysis, and counter-cyclical mandates—that makes such long-term, strategic bets possible. It notes the final challenge is perfecting the exit mechanism to complete the investment cycle and transform paper gains into sustainable fiscal returns and reinvestment capacity.

marsbit9 dk önce

This Strategy Earned Hefei One Trillion Yuan

marsbit9 dk önce

Silicon Valley VC's On-the-Ground Observations of Chinese Entrepreneurship: A Harsher Capital Environment Breeding Fiercer Companies

A Silicon Valley VC's on-the-ground observations of China's startup ecosystem reveal a harsher capital environment forging more aggressive and execution-driven companies. Unlike Silicon Valley's patient capital focused on long-term growth, China's venture landscape is characterized by intense pressure for exits. Startups often face "equity in name, debt in reality" terms with strict timelines and personal founder liability, pushing IPO as the nearly mandatory exit path due to a virtually non-existent M&A market. This high-stakes system, while potentially fostering short-termism, cultivates extreme cost discipline, rapid execution, and formidable commercialization skills—traits evident as these companies expand overseas. The funding ecosystem comprises three main pools: local RMB funds (often government-backed with economic development mandates), domestic USD funds (more founder-friendly, like Sequoia China), and dwindling direct foreign capital. Financial Advisors (FAs) play a crucial intermediary role, packaging deals and navigating China's opaque, relationship-based business networks where platforms like LinkedIn haven't taken root. Underpinning it all is significant state influence through industrial policy, directing capital and incentives toward strategic sectors like semiconductors and AI. The result is a distinct, parallel innovation model—less forgiving than Silicon Valley's, but capable of concentrating resources, accelerating iteration, and producing fiercely competitive companies in targeted industries.

marsbit15 dk önce

Silicon Valley VC's On-the-Ground Observations of Chinese Entrepreneurship: A Harsher Capital Environment Breeding Fiercer Companies

marsbit15 dk önce

SharpLink's Helm: Buying Only, Never Selling, Making ETH Generate Profits Through the Cold Winter

SharpLink co-CEO Joseph Chalom shares his bullish outlook on Ethereum during the recent "Injective Summit 2026." Despite prevailing negative market sentiment, Chalom argues that fundamentals and data tell a different story: Ethereum dominates with over 50% of stablecoin transaction volume, nearly 60% of tokenized real-world assets (RWA), and remains the uncontested leader in DeFi. He attributes the communication gap and lack of confidence partly to the Ethereum Foundation's restructuring. In response, SharpLink, alongside ConsenSys and Bitmain, is funding three key spin-off teams from the Foundation: ETH Labs (for institutional-scale scalability), Ethereum Institutional (for business development and marketing), and EthSystems (for next-gen privacy and compliance solutions). Chalom emphasizes these are critical for accelerating institutional adoption. Regarding SharpLink's strategy, Chalom details a conservative, yield-focused approach. The firm holds 886,725 ETH, acquired with zero leverage or debt. They generate revenue by staking ETH and strategically deploying capital into DeFi protocols via a dedicated fund, aiming for returns above the native staking yield. This contrasts with some Bitcoin-focused firms that have become net sellers. On the broader institutional adoption of tokenization, Chalom sees current progress as just the beginning. He breaks it down into layers: stablecoins as the currency/value layer, tokenized assets as the exposure layer, and DeFi as the execution layer. He predicts regulatory clarity, like the potential Clarity Act, will be a major catalyst. A key future inflection point will be when fiduciary managers prefer tokenized, 24/7 tradable digital assets over traditional "analog" versions due to their programmability and instant settlement. In conclusion, Chalom positions SharpLink not just as an ETH accumulator and yield generator, but as an active "ecosystem steward," funding essential development and marketing initiatives to support Ethereum's long-term growth, which he believes is directly aligned with shareholder interests.

Odaily星球日报15 dk önce

SharpLink's Helm: Buying Only, Never Selling, Making ETH Generate Profits Through the Cold Winter

Odaily星球日报15 dk önce

Ten European Banks Launch Blockchain Initiative RL1

On July 28, 2026, ten European financial institutions launched the Regulated Layer One (RL1) initiative. This open, neutral, and compliance-focused blockchain network is specialized for institutional digital asset operations. The founding members include ABN AMRO, Cecabank, Chartered Investment, Crédit Mutuel Alliance Fédérale, DekaBank, DZ BANK, LBBW, Natixis CIB, SC Ventures, and Seturion, formed as a European cooperative society (SCE) and led by Henning Voelkel, former head of SWIAT. The network is open to new participants, with NatWest currently in discussions to join. RL1 is built on the SWIAT blockchain, which will remain its software and services provider. The underlying SWIAT network, operational for three years, has processed 50 transactions totaling €700 million. The initiative is described as a collective European effort to create a foundation for a shared, openly and trustworthily managed distributed ledger. Its primary goal is to overcome fragmentation in the regulated financial sector by establishing a neutral, participant-owned, pan-European DLT infrastructure for tokenized assets, digital money, and next-generation financial services. The move responds to growing EU demand for scalable real-world asset (RWA) infrastructure, evidenced by projects like Pontes and Appia. This launch aligns with broader sector growth expectations, including Standard Chartered's forecast for DeFi and RWA market capitalization to reach $2 trillion.

cryptonews.ru21 dk önce

Ten European Banks Launch Blockchain Initiative RL1

cryptonews.ru21 dk önce

İşlemler

Spot
活动图片