Original title: The Hidden Mechanics Behind Ethereum's Rally: Understanding Market Structure and Systemic Risk Original source: A1 Research
Original translation: Tim, PANews
Ethereum's price fluctuations seem simple: retail enthusiasm surges, prices soar, and market optimism continues to brew. But beneath the surface lies a structurally complex market mechanism. The funding rate market, neutral strategy institutions' hedging operations, and recursive leverage demand intertwine, exposing deep systemic vulnerabilities in the current crypto market.
We are witnessing a rare phenomenon: leverage has essentially become liquidity itself. The massive long positions taken by retail investors are fundamentally reshaping the way neutral capital allocation risks are perceived, giving rise to new types of market vulnerabilities that most market participants have yet to fully recognize.
1. Retail herding behavior: When market actions are highly synchronized
Retail demand is concentrated in Ethereum perpetual contracts, as these leveraged products are easy to access. Traders rush into leveraged long positions at a pace far exceeding actual spot demand. The number of people betting on ETH's rise far exceeds the number of people actually purchasing Ethereum spot.
These positions require counterparties to take on. However, as buying demand becomes exceptionally aggressive, the short positions are increasingly absorbed by institutional players executing delta-neutral strategies. These are not directional bearish traders, but funding rate harvesters who intervene not to bet against ETH, but to arbitrage structural imbalances.
In fact, this practice is not shorting in the traditional sense. These traders short perpetual contracts while holding equal amounts of spot or futures long positions. As a result, they do not bear ETH price risk but profit from the funding rate premiums paid by retail longs to maintain their leveraged positions.
With the evolution of Ethereum ETF structures, such arbitrage trading may soon be enhanced through the overlay of passive income layers (staking returns embedded in the ETF packaging structure), further strengthening the appeal of delta-neutral strategies.
This is indeed a brilliant trade, provided you can tolerate its complexity.
Delta-neutral hedging strategies: A legitimate response mechanism for 'printing money'
Traders short ETH perpetual contracts to accommodate retail long demand while hedging with long spot positions, thus transforming the structural imbalance caused by sustained funding rate demand into profit.
In a bull market, when funding rates turn positive, longs need to pay fees to shorts. Institutions using neutral strategies earn profits by providing liquidity while hedging risks, forming profitable arbitrage operations that attract continuous inflow of institutional capital.
However, this creates a dangerous illusion: the market appears to be deep enough and stable, but this 'liquidity' depends on favorable funding conditions.
The moment the incentive mechanism disappears, the structure it supports will collapse. The apparent market depth will instantly turn to void, and with the collapse of the market framework, prices may fluctuate violently.
This dynamic is not limited to crypto-native platforms. Even at institution-dominated venues like the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, much of the short liquidity is not directional betting. Professional traders short CME futures because their investment strategies prohibit them from opening spot exposure.
Options market makers perform delta hedging through futures to improve margin efficiency. Institutions are responsible for hedging institutional client order flows. These are all structural necessary trades, not reflections of bearish expectations. Open interest may increase, but this rarely conveys market consensus.
Asymmetric risk structure: Why it is actually unfair
Retail long positions face the risk of being liquidated directly when prices fluctuate unfavorably, while delta-neutral short sellers usually have stronger capital and are managed by professional teams.
They collateralize the ETH they hold as collateral, allowing them to short perpetual contracts in a fully hedged, capital-efficient mechanism. This structure can safely withstand moderate leverage without triggering liquidations.
There are structural differences between the two. Institutional short sellers have durable resilience and a well-developed risk management system to withstand volatility; whereas leveraged retail long positions have weak resilience and lack risk control tools, with an almost zero tolerance for operational errors.
When the market situation changes, longs quickly crumble, while shorts remain solid. This imbalance can trigger what seems like a sudden yet structurally inevitable liquidation waterfall.
Recursive feedback loop: When market behavior becomes self-interfering
The demand for long positions in Ethereum perpetual contracts persists and needs to be countered by delta-neutral strategy traders for short hedging, which keeps the funding rate premium in existence. Various protocols and yield products compete to chase these premiums, driving more capital back into this cyclical system.
An eternally turning money-making machine does not exist in reality.
This will continuously create upward pressure, but it entirely depends on one prerequisite: the longs must be willing to bear the cost of leverage.
The funding rate mechanism has an upper limit. In most exchanges (like Binance), the funding rate cap for perpetual contracts every 8 hours is 0.01%, equivalent to an annualized return of about 10.5%. When this cap is reached, even if long demand continues to grow, the shorts pursuing profits will no longer be incentivized to open positions.
Risk accumulation reaches a critical point: arbitrage returns are fixed, but structural risks continue to grow. When this critical point is reached, the market is likely to quickly liquidate.
Why did ETH drop more severely than BTC? The battle of dual ecosystem narratives.
Bitcoin is benefiting from non-leveraged buying from corporate financial strategies, while the BTC derivatives market has stronger liquidity. Ethereum perpetual contracts are deeply integrated into yield strategies and the DeFi protocol ecosystem, with ETH collateral continuously flowing into structured products like Ethena and Pendle, providing yield returns for users participating in funding rate arbitrage.
Bitcoin is often considered to be driven by natural spot demand from ETFs and corporations. However, a large portion of ETF fund flows is actually the result of mechanical hedging: traditional financial basis traders buy ETF shares while shorting CME futures contracts to lock in fixed price spreads between spot and futures for arbitrage.
This is similar to the nature of delta-neutral basis trading of ETH, only executed through regulated packaged structures, financed at a cost of 4-5% in USD. In this view, ETH's leveraged operations become yield infrastructure, while BTC's leverage forms structured arbitrage. Neither are directional trades, both aim to generate returns.
The cycle dependency problem: When the music stops
Here is a question that might keep you awake at night: This dynamic mechanism has an inherent cyclical nature. The profitability of delta-neutral strategies relies on sustained positive funding rates, which requires the long-term continuation of retail demand and a bullish market environment.
Funding rate premiums do not exist permanently; they are very fragile. When premiums shrink, liquidation waves begin. If retail enthusiasm wanes and funding rates turn negative, it means that shorts will pay to longs rather than receive premiums.
When large-scale capital floods in, this dynamic mechanism creates multiple vulnerabilities. First, as more capital flows into delta-neutral strategies, the basis will continuously compress. Financing rates decrease, and the returns of arbitrage trading likewise diminish.
If demand reverses or liquidity dries up, perpetual contracts may enter a discount state, meaning contract prices fall below spot prices. This phenomenon hinders the entry of new delta-neutral positions and may force existing institutions to liquidate. Meanwhile, leveraged longs lack margin buffer space; even a mild market correction could trigger a chain of liquidations.
When neutral traders withdraw liquidity, forced liquidations of longs surge like a waterfall, creating a liquidity vacuum where there are no real directional buyers left, only structural sellers. The originally stable arbitrage ecosystem rapidly flips, evolving into a chaotic liquidation wave.
Misreading market signals: The illusion of balance
Market participants often mistake the flow of hedging funds for bearish sentiment. In reality, high short positions in ETH often reflect profitable basis trading rather than directional expectations.
In many cases, what appears to be a robust derivatives market depth is actually supported by liquidity provided through temporary rentals by neutral trading desks, with these traders harvesting funding premiums for profit.
While the inflow of funds into spot ETFs can generate a certain degree of natural demand, the vast majority of trading in the perpetual contract market is essentially structurally artificial manipulation.
The liquidity of Ethereum is not rooted in belief in its future; it exists as long as the funding environment is profitable. Once profits dissipate, liquidity will vanish as well.
Conclusion
The market can remain active for a long time under structural liquidity support, creating a false sense of security. However, when conditions reverse, and longs cannot maintain their financing obligations, a crash can happen in an instant. One side gets completely crushed, while the other withdraws calmly.
For market participants, recognizing these patterns signifies both opportunities and risks. Institutions can profit by understanding funding conditions, while retail investors should discern between artificial depth and real depth.
The driving force behind the Ethereum derivatives market is not a consensus on decentralized computing, but rather the structural harvesting of funding rate premiums. As long as the funding rate maintains positive returns, the entire system can operate smoothly. However, when circumstances reverse, people will eventually realize that the seemingly balanced appearance is merely a carefully disguised leverage game.
Original link
