Is Shiba Inu Dead Or Is There Still Hope To Flip Dogecoin?

bitcoinistОпубліковано о 2025-04-21Востаннє оновлено о 2025-04-21

Анотація

Back in 2021, at the height of the meme coin bull run, Shiba Inu ran over 7,000,000% to outperform the...

Trusted Editorial content, reviewed by leading industry experts and seasoned editors. Ad Disclosure

Back in 2021, at the height of the meme coin bull run, Shiba Inu ran over 7,000,000% to outperform the more established Dogecoin. This performance was achieved with the expectation that Shiba Inu was the “Dogecoin killer” and that the meme coin would eventually flip DOGE to become the leading meme coin.

However, with the passage of time, both Dogecoin and Shiba Inu have declined, with their prices falling over 80% from their all-time highs. Above all, Shiba Inu has failed to actually topple Dogecoin, with the SHIB market cap remaining well below that of DOGE. But as the market inches toward what is expected to be another bull market, the question now is, is it still possible for Shiba Inu to overtake Dogecoin as the number 1 meme coin?

Dogecoin Gets ETF Filings While Shiba Inu Gets Snubbed

Crypto exchange-traded product (ETF) approvals by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have been the major driver behind this bull run. Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs have already gotten the green light, so attention has shifted to other altcoins. XRP, Solana, Litecoin, and Dogecoin have been the favorites, while the likes of Shiba Inu have been nowhere to be found, despite constant push from the SHIB community.

For example, there have been four filings for Dogecoin ETFs from Bitwise, Grayscale, Osprey Fund, and 21Shares. The decision for the first of these applications, which is the Grayscale Dogecoin ETF, is expected to happen on May 21, which is only a month from now.

Meanwhile, there have been no official filings for a Shiba Inu ETF, despite the SHIB team giving reasons why it should be. Lucie, the Shiba Inu marketing lead, explained in an X (formerly Twitter) post that SHIB is a good candidate for an ETF being listed on over 110 exchanges and 212 trading pairs. “It’s basically everywhere: easy to access, easy to trade,” Lucie argued.

DOGE Open interest Above $1.5 Billion While SHIB Wanes

Another major metric where Dogecoin continues to outperform Shiba Inu is in terms of interest. While open interest has waned across the board, DOGE’s open interest remains significantly higher than that of SHIB.

CoinGlass’ data shows that the Dogecoin open interest is still sitting at about $1.5 billion, while the Shiba Inu open interest is still at $131 million.

Dogecoin open interest
Source: Coinglass
Shiba Inu open interest
Source: Coinglass

This suggests that crypto traders are more interested in DOGE compared to SHIB, and with meme coins being driven by interest, it suggests that DOGE would continue to be ahead of SHIB.

Shiba Inu price chart from Tradingview.com (Dogecoin)
SHIB price recovers with the rest of the market | Source: SHIBUSDT on Tradingview.com
Chart from Tradingview.com
Editorial Process for bitcoinist is centered on delivering thoroughly researched, accurate, and unbiased content. We uphold strict sourcing standards, and each page undergoes diligent review by our team of top technology experts and seasoned editors. This process ensures the integrity, relevance, and value of our content for our readers.

Scott Matherson is a leading crypto writer at Bitcoinist, who possesses a sharp analytical mind and a deep understanding of the digital currency landscape. Scott has earned a reputation for delivering thought-provoking and well-researched articles that resonate with both newcomers and seasoned crypto enthusiasts. Outside of his writing, Scott is passionate about promoting crypto literacy and often works to educate the public on the potential of blockchain.

Пов'язані матеріали

Collateral Dollars: How Does a 'Second-Layer Dollar' Above Stablecoins Form?

Collateral Dollars: How Does a "Second Layer of Dollars" Form on Top of Stablecoins? Most assume stablecoins replicate Eurodollar functions, expanding the offshore dollar system. However, stablecoins primarily replace specific functions like operational dollar balances for settlement. They do not inherently create new dollar credit; they substitute existing claims. The key question is: what happens when financial intermediaries use stablecoins as collateral to create a new layer of dollar-denominated claims? This "collateral dollar" channel operates through secured lending, not direct money creation. A money-like event only occurs when a liability issued against the controlled stablecoin is funded, rolled over, or accepted at near-par value by another balance sheet. The discount (haircut) prices the gap between "effective control over the token" and "reliable convertibility to bank dollars." Elasticity stems not from the stablecoin itself but from the liability issued against it and the willingness of third-party balance sheets to treat that liability as a near-par asset. Compared to the traditional Eurodollar system—where elasticity originates from bank deposit creation—the stablecoin collateral chain is structurally different. Eurodollar deposits are credit-expansive from inception. Stablecoins are initially substitutive; elasticity emerges later if an intermediary's liability against them gains monetary acceptance. Stablecoins disrupt specific tiers of the offshore dollar system, mainly replacing operational settlement balances. They do not replace the need for full dollar balance-sheet capacity (credit lines, hedging, maturity transformation). For systemic impact, the second-layer liability must pass three tests: transferability, funding capacity, and monetary acceptance (being fundable or held at par by others). Pressure transmission also differs. In the Eurodollar system, stress moves up a hierarchy of claims. In a stablecoin collateral chain, the second-layer liability can lose its money-like status well before the underlying stablecoin faces a run, often triggered by haircut increases and margin calls that create a dynamic spiral of falling token prices and rising discounts. In conclusion, the "collateral dollar" is not the stablecoin itself. It is the second-layer liability issued against a controlled token balance that is willing to be funded and maintained at near-par value. Its existence depends on that liability surviving the leap from "token liquidity" to "bank dollar liquidity."

marsbit2 хв тому

Collateral Dollars: How Does a 'Second-Layer Dollar' Above Stablecoins Form?

marsbit2 хв тому

Collateral Dollars: How the 'Second-Layer Dollar' Above Stablecoins Takes Shape?

"Collateralized Dollars: How a 'Second Layer of Dollars' Forms on Top of Stablecoins" Most assume stablecoins replicate Eurodollars and expand the offshore dollar system, but this is not accurate. Stablecoins primarily replace certain functions within the existing system, especially operational dollar balances for daily settlement. The critical question is what happens when financial intermediaries create a new layer of dollar claims *on top of* stablecoins. This article explains how this new collateralized funding channel works. Stablecoins introduce tokenized private dollar claims. Even if issuers and reserves are within the US legal perimeter, their circulation and use as collateral can become economically "offshore." Enforceable control over collateral opens a secured credit channel but does not itself create a monetary claim. A true monetary event occurs only when another balance sheet funds, rolls over, or accepts a liability issued against the controlled token at near-par value. The discount prices the gap between "effective control over the token" and "reliable convertibility into bank dollars." Elasticity comes from the balance sheet issuing the liability against the token and from third-party willingness to treat that liability as a near-par asset. Collateralized Dollars are not the stablecoins themselves; they are the second-layer liability that another balance sheet is willing to issue, fund, and maintain at near-par against a controlled token balance. The Eurodollar system is a hierarchy of claims, with elasticity originating in expandable bank liabilities. In contrast, the stablecoin collateral chain starts with a tokenized asset. It gains systemic significance only when an intermediary's liability against that token is treated as money-like by other balance sheets. Key determining factors include: who has effective control, the legal/operational path to bank dollars, and whether the resulting claim can still be financed near-par under stress. Pressure in this new channel manifests differently. The upper-layer (intermediary) claim fails first, losing its money-like status, potentially while the underlying stablecoin remains solvent. Increased haircuts and forced sales can create a destructive feedback loop, widening the very gap the discount measures. In conclusion, the Eurodollar analogy has limits. Reserve quality supports the underlying token's solvency, but the leverage, credit, and liabilities built atop it face a separate test. Collateral eligibility is not monetary acceptance. Only when a claim built on stablecoins survives the leap from "token liquidity" to "bank dollar liquidity" do Collateralized Dollars truly exist.

链捕手9 хв тому

Collateral Dollars: How the 'Second-Layer Dollar' Above Stablecoins Takes Shape?

链捕手9 хв тому

Don't Be Misled by the $1.25 Billion Cap: MicroStrategy's Three-Pronged Bitcoin Sale Pools Hide Massive Selling Pressure

Don't Be Misled by the $1.25B Cap: Strategy's Three-Tier Bitcoin Sales Plan Hides Massive Potential Selling Pressure Strategy recently sold 3,588 BTC (~$216M) to fund a dividend and replenish its dollar reserve, while claiming its $1.25B "reserve build" capacity remains fully available. This highlights a key nuance: the widely cited $1.25B limit applies only to sales for "Building" the reserve. Strategy's broader capital framework, however, allows Bitcoin sales for three primary purposes, each with different scales: 1. **Building the Reserve:** Selling BTC to raise up to $1.25B for the reserve. 2. **Covering Priority Share Expenses:** Selling BTC to pay dividends/interest or to replenish the reserve after such payments are made from it (no specified limit). 3. **Share Repurchase Funding:** Selling BTC to fund up to $1B each in convertible note and common stock repurchases (totaling $2B potential). Combined, just the capped "Build" and "Repurchase" channels could facilitate over $3B in Bitcoin sales, excluding the uncapped "Cover Expenses" channel. The accounting distinction between "Building" (adding cash before a payout) and "Replenishing" (adding cash after a payout) is operationally blurry but allows sales like the recent $216M transaction without touching the $1.25B "Build" quota. This gives Strategy significant flexibility. The move signifies a strategic shift: Strategy is transforming from a simple Bitcoin accumulator into an active capital manager, akin to a hedge fund. Bitcoin is now a financial lever to balance pressures between common stock, convertible notes, dollar reserves, and Bitcoin holdings. This creates inherent tensions—actions benefiting one part of the capital structure may harm another. Investors must understand that the potential Bitcoin sales are far greater than the surface-level $1.25B figure. Strategy has become a complex financial entity where every term in its disclosures matters. Betting on it now is a wager on its active capital management skill to navigate these internal contradictions without a systemic failure.

Foresight News15 хв тому

Don't Be Misled by the $1.25 Billion Cap: MicroStrategy's Three-Pronged Bitcoin Sale Pools Hide Massive Selling Pressure

Foresight News15 хв тому

When the Largest BTC Buyer Becomes a Seller, Who's Buying After MicroStrategy Sells 3,588 Bitcoin?

MicroStrategy, once the largest corporate buyer of Bitcoin, sold 3,588 BTC for approximately $216 million to fund its preferred stock dividends, marking a significant shift from buyer to seller. This move occurred after its market-to-NAV premium vanished, breaking its "print stock to buy Bitcoin" financial model. A roundtable discussion featuring Austin Campbell, Ram Ahluwalia, and Chris Perkins analyzed the implications. They noted that MicroStrategy's dominance has become a narrative bottleneck for the broader crypto market, with some speculating that Bitcoin's price might only surge significantly after the company's influence wanes. The conversation expanded to examine the capital structure conflict between traditional equity and crypto tokens, arguing that most current tokens will fail as they don't fit neatly into existing debt/equity frameworks. A "stablecoin war" was identified as a major trend, with entities like Tether, Robinhood, and the OUSD alliance competing. Tether's decision to abandon the European MiCA market highlights strategic divergences. The panelists argued that bank-issued stablecoins could revolutionize global finance by allowing US banks to capture net interest margins from international transactions, potentially making JPMorgan the first trillion-dollar bank. They concluded that while capital is currently being siphoned by AI/semiconductors, markets will eventually refocus on fundamentals and cash flow, which could benefit cryptocurrencies with real utility.

marsbit22 хв тому

When the Largest BTC Buyer Becomes a Seller, Who's Buying After MicroStrategy Sells 3,588 Bitcoin?

marsbit22 хв тому

Bitcoin’s path to $80K may hinge on THIS hidden trend

Bitcoin's potential path toward $80,000 is influenced by conflicting market signals. Data shows the Coinbase Bitcoin Premium Index has recorded its longest-ever streak of consecutive negative premiums, indicating muted institutional demand or net selling from U.S. institutions. While such a trend often signals short-term weakness, it doesn't necessarily forecast a long-term bear market. Additionally, a bearish crossover occurred in Bitcoin's Net Unrealized Profit/Loss (NUPL), with its short-term average falling below the longer-term average, suggesting declining investor profitability and waning market momentum. Historically, major bear market bottoms saw the 100-day NUPL drop below zero, but this cycle it remains positive, implying either an unprecedented bottom or a further decline is needed. Currently trading around $63,148, Bitcoin has seen weekly gains but remains below its May peak. Technical indicators present a mixed picture: the MACD shows bullish momentum, while the RSI signals bearish pressure. A positive development is the return of inflows to Bitcoin ETFs after eight weeks of outflows. Analysts hold divergent views; some highlight a key liquidity zone between $48,000-$50,000 where a market bottom could form, while others maintain a more optimistic long-term outlook. Ultimately, while some bullish signs exist, a strong push from institutional investors appears crucial for Bitcoin to challenge the $80,000 level.

ambcrypto1 год тому

Bitcoin’s path to $80K may hinge on THIS hidden trend

ambcrypto1 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
活动图片