7.9w already, why don't I want to chase after the empty space? The open positions of both parties in the contract market are always 1:1 symmetrical. Without considering transaction costs such as fees, funding fees, and slippage, the profit and loss are close to zero sum, meaning that the money earned by long positions is the money lost by short positions. So, in order to open a short position, it is necessary to close the same position with a short position or open multiple positions as a counterparty position. If it is a match between "new short opening vs. old short closing", OI (Open Interest) remains unchanged; If it is a match of "new short opening vs new long opening", OI will increase; As of yesterday, OI has once again returned to its recent high (47.2w BTC), indicating that new positions have been re accumulated in this round of market trends, and the market is building leverage (including directional bets and hedging funds). Due to perpetual contracts being "never deliverable", without any mechanism, perpetual prices can deviate infinitely from spot prices. In order to anchor the contract price to the spot price, there is the concept of "funding rate". Although long and short positions are symmetrical, the active direction of buying and selling is asymmetrical. When everyone is eager to short and the perpetual price falls below the spot price (resulting in a negative premium), then the bears have to pay the bulls. In other words, short sellers need to pay in order to find their opponent's position. So, the payment rate you see does not mean there are more bears, but rather that the short sellers are more proactive. During yesterday's peak period, the average hourly capital fee paid by bears to bulls reached $60.40000; Although less than the peak of 4/17 ($79w), it still far exceeds the 7-day average ($19.7w). This is a huge cost pressure! Short sellers burn money every hour to maintain their positions, and the longer the time, the less cost-effective it is. Once the price rebounds, these bears will either actively close their positions (buy orders) or be forcefully liquidated (forced buy orders). Both situations result in a short squeeze, which becomes fuel. Of course, it does not necessarily mean that a 'negative rate' will result in a short selling market. Just saying that the higher the OI, the more severe the negative premium, and the easier it is to trigger. For example, in the days of 3/9 and 4/13, the 7-day average of long premiums began to turn negative, and there were subsequent rebounds: 3/9 was 6.6w to 7.5w; 4/13 was 7w to 7.9w currently. When BTC rebounded to $97000 in January this year, such a situation did not occur, and it quickly retreated after reaching resistance levels. But this time the situation is different, which may make the short-term market more complex. As I tweeted on April 18th, 'Since childhood, our teachers have told us not to go to crowded places as it may be dangerous.'; It's not 'certain', it's' possible '. That is to say, I don't think this is a particularly comfortable odds and logical opening point. Of course, if you say 'short at 7.8w on 4/17, close at 7.4w and then reverse to open long'; Then all I can say is' awesome! 'I admit that I don't have the ability to make this money.