合约算法镰刀：Alpaca 下架前逼空收割之因与合约悖论之果

Core Viewpoint - The Alpaca Finance ($ALPACA) perpetual contract incident exemplifies the "short squeeze" phenomenon, revealing the true nature of perpetual contracts under extreme market pressure [1][2][26]. Group 1: Market Reaction and Mechanism - Traditional market logic suggests that delisting from an exchange is a strong bearish signal, leading to price declines due to reduced liquidity. However, in the Alpaca case, a significant negative catalyst resulted in an explosive price surge of thousands of percentage points, driven by the unique mechanisms of its perpetual contract market [2][6]. - The "perpetual contract paradox" indicates that a negative catalyst can trigger an extreme positive price reaction, with the perpetual contract itself serving as both the stage and the weapon for this financial game [2][3]. Group 2: Timeline of Events - On April 24, 2025, Binance announced the delisting of ALPACA, leading to initial panic and a price drop to approximately $0.029. This set the stage for a short-selling frenzy [5]. - Following the announcement, the short open interest (OI) for ALPACA perpetual contracts surged, creating a crowded short position that became a perfect "short trap" [7]. - By April 30, 2025, ALPACA's price peaked at approximately $1.47, marking a dramatic increase of over 2,160% from its low of around $0.065 [15][17]. Group 3: Psychological and Structural Factors - The delisting announcement created a "zero-sum" consensus among traders, leading to a widespread belief that the asset's value would plummet to zero, which in turn fueled aggressive short-selling [6][10]. - The market's structure, characterized by low liquidity and a small market cap of about $5 million, allowed manipulators to create significant price volatility with relatively little capital [9][24]. Group 4: Funding Rate Mechanism - The funding rate mechanism of perpetual contracts became a tool for punishing short positions. Binance's adjustment of the funding rate settlement frequency to hourly and increasing the rate cap to ±4% significantly impacted short traders, leading to unsustainable holding costs [12][13][20]. - As the funding rate turned negative, short traders faced exorbitant costs, compelling them to close their positions, which further fueled the price increase [13][20]. Group 5: Conclusion and Market Implications - The Alpaca incident serves as a cautionary tale about the vulnerabilities of low liquidity assets in the perpetual contract market, where structural imbalances can lead to outcomes contrary to fundamental value [22][24]. - The event has sparked a new speculative narrative around "delisting coins," where traders seek to replicate the short squeeze phenomenon seen with ALPACA by targeting low market cap assets [23][26].