Connect with us

Uncategorized

Bitcoin futures open interest jumps by $1B: Manipulation or hedge?

Bitcoin spiking above $27,200 amid a big jump in open interest has some analysts asking whether BTC’s price is being manipulated.

Published

on

Bitcoin spiking above $27,200 amid a big jump in open interest has some analysts asking whether BTC’s price is being manipulated.

Bitcoin’s (BTC) open interest on derivatives exchanges experienced a sudden surge of $1 billion on Sept. 18, prompting investors to question whether whales were accumulating in anticipation of the unsealing of Binance’s court filings.

However, a closer look at derivatives metrics suggests a more nuanced picture, as the funding rate did not exhibit clear signs of excessive buying demand.

The decision to unseal these documents was granted to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, which had accused Binance of non-cooperation despite previously agreeing to a consent order related to unregistered securities operations and other allegations.

BTC futures aggregate open interest, USD (green, left). Source: CoinGlass

The open interest spiked to $12.1 billion, while Bitcoin’s price concurrently increased by 3.4%, reaching its highest point in over two weeks at $27,430.

However, investors soon realized that, aside from a comment by the Binance.US auditor regarding the challenges of ensuring full collateralization, there was little concrete information revealed in the unsealed documents.

Later in the day, Federal Judge Zia Faruqui rejected the SEC’s request to inspect Binance.US’ technical infrastructure and share additional information. Nevertheless, the judge stipulated that Binance.US must furnish more details about its custody solution, casting doubt on whether Binance International ultimately controls these assets.

By the end of Sept. 18, Bitcoin’s open interest had receded to $11.3 billion as its price dropped by 2.4% to $26,770. This decline indicated that the entities behind the open interest surge were no longer inclined to maintain their positions.

These whales were likely disappointed with the court’s outcomes, or the price action may not have unfolded as expected. In any case, 80% of the open interest increase disappeared in less than 24 hours.

Futures’ buyers and sellers are matched at all times

It can be assumed that most of the demand for leverage was driven by bullish sentiment, as Bitcoin’s price climbed alongside the increase in open interest and subsequently plummeted as 80% of the contracts were closed. However, attributing cause and effect solely to Binance’s court rulings seems unwarranted for several reasons.

Firstly, no one anticipated that the unsealed documents would favor Binance or its CEO, Changpeng “CZ” Zhao, given that it was the SEC that had originally requested their release. Additionally, the Bitcoin futures contract funding rate, which gauges imbalances between long and short positions, remained largely stable throughout this period.

BTC futures average 8-hour funding rate. Source: CoinGlass

If there had indeed been an unforeseen demand surge of $1 billion in open interest, primarily driven by desperate buyers, it’s reasonable to assume that the funding rate would have spiked above 0.01%. However, quite the opposite unfolded on Sept. 19, as Bitcoin’s open interest expanded to $11.7 billion, while the funding rate plunged to zero.

With Bitcoin’s price rallying above $27,200 during this second phase of open interest growth, it becomes increasingly evident that, regardless of the underlying motives, the price pressure tends to be upward. While the exact rationale may remain elusive, certain trading patterns could shed light on this movement.

Market makers’ hedge could explain OI spike

One plausible explanation could be the involvement of market makers in executing buy orders on behalf of substantial clients. This would account for the initial enthusiasm in both the spot market and BTC futures, propelling the price higher. After the initial surge, the market maker becomes fully hedged, eliminating the need for further buying and leading to a price correction.

During the second phase of the trade, there is no impact on Bitcoin’s price, as the market maker must offload the BTC futures contracts and purchase spot Bitcoin. This results in a reduction in open interest and may disappoint some participants who were anticipating additional buying fervor.

Rather than hastily labeling every “Bart” formation as manipulation, it is advisable to delve into the operations of arbitrage desks and carefully analyze the BTC futures funding rate before jumping to conclusions. Thus, when there is no excessive demand for leveraged long positions, an increase in open interest does not necessarily signify a buying spree, as was the case on Sept. 18.

Collect this article as an NFT to preserve this moment in history and show your support for independent journalism in the crypto space.

This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Vitalik Buterin voices concerns over DAOs approving ETH staking pool operators

The Ethereum co-founder proposes a solution that could lower the likelihood of any individual liquid staking provider growing to a point where it poses…

Published

on

The Ethereum co-founder proposes a solution that could lower the likelihood of any individual liquid staking provider growing to a point where it poses a systemic risk.

Vitalik Buterin, the co-founder of Ethereum, has expressed worries regarding decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) exerting a monopoly over the selection of node operators in liquidity staking pools.

In a September 30 blog post, Buterin issues a warning that as staking pools adopt the DAO approach for governance over node operators—who are ultimately responsible for the pool's funds—it can expose them to potential risks from malicious actors.

“With the DAO approach, if a single such staking token dominates, that leads to a single, potentially attackable governance gadget controlling a very large portion of all Ethereum validators.”

Buterin highlights the liquid staking provider Lido (LDO) as an example with a DAO that validates node operators. However, he emphasizes that relying on just one layer of protection may prove insufficient:

“To the credit of protocols like Lido, they have implemented safeguards against this, but one layer of defense may not be enough,” he noted.

ETH staked by category chart. Source: Vitalik Buterin

Meanwhile, he explains that Rocket Pool offers the opportunity for anyone to become a node operator by placing an 8 Ether (ETH) deposit, which, at the time of this publication, is equivalent to approximately $13,406.

However, he notes this comes with its risks. "The Rocket Pool approach allows attackers to 51% attack the network, and force users to pay most of the costs," he stated.

On the other hand, Buterin highlights that having a mechanism to ascertain who can act as the underlying node operators is an inevitable necessity:

"It can't be unrestricted, because then attackers would join and amplify their attacks with users' funds."

Related: Ethereum is about to get crushed by liquid staking tokens

Buterin further outlines that a possible approach to address this issue involves encouraging ecosystem participants to utilize a variety of liquid staking providers. 

He clarifies this would decrease the likelihood of any one provider becoming excessively large and posing a systemic risk.

“In the longer term, however, this is an unstable equilibrium, and there is peril in relying too much on moralistic pressure to solve problems," he stated.

Magazine: Are DAOs overhyped and unworkable? Lessons from the front lines

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

DOJ readies witnesses in Bankman-Fried trial, spotlight on FTX assets

This initiative also encompasses their comprehension of Sam Bankman-Fried’s remarks and conduct, particularly regarding FTX’s asset management.

Published

on

This initiative also encompasses their comprehension of Sam Bankman-Fried's remarks and conduct, particularly regarding FTX's asset management.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has affirmed its plan to summon former FTX clients, investors, and staff as witnesses in the upcoming trial involving Sam Bankman-Fried, the former FTX executive. This will shed light on how these individuals viewed their interactions with Bankman-Fried and his company. 

The DOJ submitted a letter motion in limine on Sept. 30, to enable them to get the interpretation of the witnesses on FTX’s treatment of customer assets, which will hold significant importance.

Importantly, these testimonies are intended to provide valuable perspectives on the interactions between the accused and these witnesses. This initiative also encompasses their comprehension of Bankman-Fried's remarks and conduct, particularly regarding FTX's asset management. The DOJ intends to emphasize the experiences of both retail and institutional clients who entrusted substantial assets to FTX with the belief that the platform would safeguard them securely.

Court filing in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Source: CourtListener

Furthermore, a distinctive situation has emerged concerning one of the DOJ's witnesses, referred to as "FTX Customer-1," who resides in Ukraine. Given the ongoing conflict, there are difficulties associated with traveling to the United States to provide testimony. Consequently, the DOJ has suggested using video conferencing as a viable alternative. However, Bankman-Fried's defense has not yet approved this proposal.

Nonetheless, the legal team representing Bankman-Fried, led by lawyer Mark Cohen, has voiced concerns about the jury questions put forth by the DOJ. According to Bankman-Fried’s defense, these interrogations insinuate guilt on Bankman-Fried's part, potentially undermining the principle of "innocent until proven guilty."

Additionally, the defense contends that these inquiries may not effectively uncover the jurors' inherent biases, especially if related to their personal encounters with cryptocurrencies. Moreover, certain questions could inadvertently guide the jury's perspective instead of eliciting authentic insights, possibly compromising the trial's impartiality.

Related: Sam Bankman-Fried’s lawyer challenges US gov’t proposed jury questions

With the jury selection scheduled to start on Oct. 3, closely followed by the trial, the spotlight is firmly on this high-stakes legal confrontation. This case underscores not only its immediate consequences but also underscores the vital importance of transparent communication and unbiased questioning in upholding the principles of justice.

Magazine: Deposit risk: What do crypto exchanges really do with your money?

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Vitalik Buterin voices concerns over DAOs approving stake pool operators

The Ethereum co-founder proposes a solution that could lower the likelihood of any individual liquid staking provider growing to a point where it poses…

Published

on

The Ethereum co-founder proposes a solution that could lower the likelihood of any individual liquid staking provider growing to a point where it poses a systemic risk.

Vitalik Buterin, co-founder of Ethereum, has expressed worries regarding decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) exerting a monopoly over the selection of node operators in liquidity staking pools.

In a September 30 blog post, Buterin issues a warning that as staking pools adopt the DAO approach for governance over node operators—who are ultimately responsible for the pool's funds—it can expose them to potential risks from malicious actors.

“With the DAO approach, if a single such staking token dominates, that leads to a single, potentially attackable governance gadget controlling a very large portion of all Ethereum validators.”

Buterin highlights staking protocol Lido (LDO) as an example with a DAO that whitelists node operators. However, he emphasizes that relying on just one layer of protection may prove insufficient.

“To the credit of protocols like Lido, they have implemented safeguards against this, but one layer of defense may not be enough,” he noted.

ETH staked by category chart. Source: Vitalik Buterin

Meanwhile, he explains that Rocket Pool offers the opportunity for anyone to become a node operator by placing an 8 Ether (ETH) deposit, which, at the time of this publication, is equivalent to approximately $13,406.

However, he notes this comes with its own risks. "The Rocket Pool approach allows attackers to 51% attack the network, and force users to pay most of the costs," he stated.

Related: Ethereum is about to get crushed by liquid staking tokens

Buterin highlights that a possible approach to address this issue involves encouraging ecosystem participants to utilize a variety of liquid staking providers. 

He clarifies this would decrease the likelihood of any one provider becoming excessively large and posing a systemic risk.

“In the longer term, however, this is an unstable equilibrium, and there is peril in relying too much on moralistic pressure to solve problems.”

Magazine: Are DAOs overhyped and unworkable? Lessons from the front lines

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending