This buddy's input is super valuable—he's reminding us not to focus solely on on-chain/technical divergences while ignoring the leverage structure of derivatives. Historically, bottom zones (especially panic bottoms after sharp drops) have indeed been accompanied by sustained, significant negative funding rates. And precisely because of the overcrowding of shorts, any catalyst can easily trigger a short squeeze rebound. Currently, however, funding rates are persistently slightly positive. If we want a clean upward move, it’s indeed necessary to digest these long-side leverages; otherwise, they might get eroded by funding rates during the rebound or trigger a chain of take-profits. That said, I personally don’t think we need to view positive funding rates as an 'insurmountable challenge.' First, the current funding rates aren’t high enough to be considered 'overheated.' Longs are paying shorts $200k/hour on a 7-day average—roughly similar to levels seen in August-October 2023, which is moderately bullish. Second, a bottom doesn’t necessarily require negative funding rates to form. Negative funding rates are more characteristic of 'panic bottoms/short squeeze bottoms.' For structural bottoms, spot buying can also drive prices up first, with funding rates normalizing gradually during the process. For example, during the bottoming phase of 2022, apart from the black swan event in November, almost all other periods had positive funding rates. So, positive funding rates can be seen as resistance that requires time or volatility to digest. But they’re not a decisive obstacle—especially at the current, non-extreme levels. We shouldn’t be overly bearish just because of funding rates.