#美股存储板块跌幅扩大 The Nature of the U.S. Tech Pullback Is Shifting: From Valuation Repricing to Credit-Chain Repricing
Many people are still viewing U.S. stocks through the old “AI pullback = buying opportunity” playbook. But if you only watch the Nasdaq and the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index, you may miss the most important change:
July was “AI valuation/positioning repricing”; October is a triple hit from “the AI credit chain + high interest rates + geopolitics/oil prices.” The latter is closer to a “credit-side preview” of the bursting of the 2000 internet bubble, but we’re not yet in a full-blown bear market.
I. July pullback: Expensive, crowded, but no blowup!
Trigger: Google/Meta/Tesla raised CAPEX forecasts, FCF turned negative, and the market asked, “When will AI spending pay off?”
QQQ fell from a June high of ~$748.65 to a July 29 low of $661.14, a peak-to-trough decline of 11.7%; QQQ fell 6.5% for the full month of July, and SOXX fell 21%.
The 10-year Treasury yield was at 4.6–4.75%; the VIX spiked to 20.66 on a weekly basis (+24%), but the broad VIX did not stay above 22. VXN reached 26, but there was no panic spike.
The S&P edged down, while equal-weight stocks rose; money rotated within equities (tech → Dow/healthcare/consumer). Bonds didn’t rally, and yields rose → this wasn’t a flight to safety, but “semiconductors are too crowded, trim them first.”
Outcome: The 200-day moving average at $645 held, and stocks recovered after August. This was a correction that could be bought.
II. October pullback: From “valuation” to “who can’t repay their loans?”
The logic behind this tech pullback since October is more like:
Borrow at a 15% cost to build compute capacity → rental income can’t cover interest → credit cracks appear first → semiconductor order expectations get cut → quite a few sell-side firms are using the 2000 internet bubble as a reference (the Nasdaq crashed, while long-bond yields fell from 6.5% to the mid-4% range).
Market action: It’s not a broad selloff; “highly leveraged growth + AI infrastructure” are being singled out for punishment. From 10/14–10/16, the Dow rose 0.67% for the week, XLV/energy were strong, the SPX fell ~1.95% for the week, and the Nasdaq fell 4.48% for the week (its worst since June); the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index (SOX) fell for 8 straight days (the longest streak since 2008);
Among individual stocks: CRWV fell 25% for the week, CDS breached 1000bp, and its 5-year default probability was priced at 60%+.
The 10-year Treasury yield fell from 5.3% to 5.07–5.19%, but this was a safe-haven decline as stocks fell and money fled into Treasuries, not a central-bank rescue; the VIX broke above 22, Brent crude topped 110, and tensions in the Middle East and Russia-Ukraine escalated.
Investor sentiment: the CNN Fear & Greed Index fell to 18, but it’s not yet at the extreme “2–4” levels seen in 2018/2020—meaning the market is shifting from “uncomfortably expensive” to “a little worried about credit,” but this is not a COVID-style liquidity collapse.
III. How have similar “credit-side + tech selloff” pullbacks played out historically?
The 2000 internet bubble burst: The Nasdaq was cut in half, then cut in half again from its peak, while the S&P lagged; valuations were hit first, then earnings, then credit, and bonds ultimately entered a bull market. The difference today: major tech issuers aren’t pure concepts; their cash flows/cloud revenues are real. So this isn’t a repeat of 2000, but “the 2000 credit playbook + the 2022 interest-rate playbook.”
The 2022 rate-driven growth selloff: The 10-year Treasury yield surged from 1.5% to 4.3%, QQQ fell 35% from its peak, and SPY fell 25%; the core issue was the “discount rate,” not credit defaults. The 10-year Treasury yield is now above 5%; megacaps are hurting, but banks/consumer/healthcare haven’t collapsed.
2018 Q4 deleveraging: The VIX spiked to 35, QQQ fell about 20% for the quarter, and stocks made a V-shaped recovery after the Fed turned dovish; the Fed isn’t as hawkish now, but inflation + oil prices mean it can’t turn dovish freely.
March 2020 liquidity black hole: The VIX hit 80, and stocks, bonds, and gold all fell together, with the Fed providing a backstop; there’s no COVID-style liquidity freeze now, and CRWV is an individual credit event, not a market-wide counterparty crisis.
Historical rules of thumb
“VIX above 20 + 10-year Treasury yield rising + tech leading declines” → usually the middle of a pullback, not the bottom.
“VIX plateauing at high levels + 10-year Treasury yield starting to fall + semiconductors no longer making new lows” → only then is it a signal to add to QQQ.
Until credit events (CDS widening, high-yield bond spreads widening) stabilize, every QQQ rebound is prone to being sold.
Historical timing reference: the July pullback took 3–5 weeks to recover; with an October-style “credit + rates + geopolitics” combination, a bottom usually isn’t in until the VIX returns to 16–18, CRWV bonds stop falling, and SOXX posts a high-volume candle without making a new low. This often takes 3–8 weeks; if credit spreads widen to Oracle/major tech bonds, it can drag on for a quarter.
IV. The counterintuitive point during earnings season: stock prices are falling, but earnings haven’t collapsed. In the first week of the new 26Q3 earnings season, about 9% of large S&P 500 companies had reported earnings. Stock prices are falling, but earnings haven’t collapsed—the declines reflect “discount rates + credit expectations,” not “current results.”
Companies that have reported: earnings up 29% year over year, revenue up 12.6%;
26Q1 earnings up 28.6%, 26Q2 up 50.4% → the strongest earnings cycle since 2021Q2;
Market pricing for full-year 2026: earnings up 32.8%, revenue up 12.7%;
Q3/Q4 earnings expectations: +29% / +28.6%;
The S&P’s forward P/E is 19.0: below the 10-year average of 19.1 and the 5-year average of 19.8.
This isn’t an “earnings collapse”; the market is getting ahead of three fears:
① AI CAPEX returns in 2027 will fall short of expectations;
② 10-year Treasury yields at 5%+ will discount long-duration assets;
③ AI credit-chain players like CoreWeave will blow up first.
So this is neither 2000 (earnings fraud/disappearance) nor 2022 (earnings downgrades + interest-rate battering). It’s “earnings are very strong, but valuation logic is being repriced for credit risk.”
V. Why is the week of October 19–23 a turning point?
This isn’t an ordinary earnings week. It’s a week to “use real-economy cash flows to rescue tech valuations.”
1) Wednesday’s two pillars: META + TSLA
What to watch for in META:
Will CAPEX be revised higher again, how are advertising/AI monetization progressing, and what is happening with free cash flow?
If it says “we’re continuing to invest more in AI, but ROI is clear” → it eases July-style spending concerns;
If it says “returns are slower than expected” → QQQ could sell off again.
What to watch for in TSLA:
It’s not just a car company; it’s a high-beta proxy for “AI / robotics / energy storage.”
Deliveries, gross margin, FSD, and what it says about Optimus matter more than sales volume.
A weak TSLA → high-beta tech sentiment could collapse again.
2) Industrial / defense / payments: proof that “the non-AI parts of the economy are holding up”
GE, RTX, NOC, LMT, MMM, UNP, CAT names (URI), AXP, COF:
Industrial orders = the temperature of the real economy;
Credit cards (AXP/COF) = consumer resilience and delinquencies;
Defense (RTX/NOC/LMT) = a geopolitical premium, but with budget constraints.
If they hold up, investors will be more willing to stay in SPY / XLI / XLV rather than go back to catch the falling knife in QQQ.
3) Macro anchors
Tuesday: housing starts / existing-home sales → has housing frozen under 5%+ rates?
Thursday: initial jobless claims + leading indicators → are there cracks in employment?
Friday: manufacturing / services PMI → soft landing or a second downturn in manufacturing?
These data will determine whether the 10-year Treasury yield holds 5.0% or surges to 5.3%–5.5%, and will directly determine the discount rates for SPY / QQQ.#WCTCS9

‍#GateBTCAndETHFuturesVolumeRanksTop3
Gate BTC and ETH Futures Trading Volume: Can the Momentum Continue? In my view, the momentum Gate is seeing in the derivatives market could persist; however, sustainable growth depends on whether this increased trading activity is driven by lasting demand rather than mere short-term speculation. The reported figures are encouraging: with BTC and ETH in an uptrend, Gate ranks among the top three exchanges globally for futures trading volume in both assets, with BTC futures volume reaching approximately $7.18 billion over a 24-hour period. Nevertheless, high futures trading volume alone does not confirm a sustained upward trend. While it indicates active trading, investors must distinguish between genuine market expansion and activity driven primarily by leveraged positioning and rapid-fire trading. What will determine whether Gate’s momentum continues? 1. Sustained price appreciation for BTC and ETH If spot prices continue to rise alongside healthy futures activity, the rally may attract further investor interest. If volume increases while prices stagnate, the movement could be fueled by short-term speculation. 2. Open interest confirms participation Rising prices accompanied by an increase in open interest may suggest that new positions are entering the market. Conversely, a decline in open interest could signal the closing of positions or a reduction in leverage. 3. Sustainable funding rates Extremely positive funding rates may indicate an overcrowded long-biased market, increasing the risk of a "long squeeze" should prices reverse. Moderate funding rates, occurring alongside rising prices, would serve as a healthier signal. Three possible scenarios Scenario | Observations | Implications for Gate Continuation of the uptrend | BTC/ETH prices rise; open interest increases steadily | Futures activity may remain strong Consolidation | Prices move sideways; volume decreases | Trading activity may normalize Sharp reversal | Prices fall; leverage decreases | Liquidations and volatility may increase Key takeaway Gate’s position among the top three platforms for BTC and ETH futures is a meaningful indicator of trading activity and market participation. While a BTC volume of approximately $7.18 billion is significant, a 24-hour volume figure alone cannot determine whether this momentum is sustainable. A useful distinction: a recent report from October 16 noted that BTC futures volume on Gate stood at approximately $7.47 billion, with ETH futures volume at $6.58 billion—all while total futures volume across the broader market was in decline. This suggests that Gate has maintained a strong relative position even as overall market activity has slowed. My view: Cautiously positive, but not definitively bullish. The strongest confirmation would be sustained increases in BTC and ETH prices, stable or rising open interest, and funding rates that do not indicate excessive leverage. These indicators are useful for assessing market conditions; they are not a guarantee of future returns or trading volume. Yes, I would start by looking at BTC futures, then examine ETH to assess whether the momentum is spreading across the broader market. The most useful metrics to analyze are: * Open interest: Is new capital entering the market, or are investors closing out their positions? * Funding rates: Are long positions becoming overcrowded? * Long/short ratio: Is the positioning becoming one-sided? * Liquidations: Is the upward movement driven by short squeezes or by sustained buying? * Price and volume: Does the trading activity confirm the price trend? My priority is to determine whether the $7.18 billion in 24-hour BTC futures trading volume reported by Gate reflects sustainable participation or merely a temporary spike in leveraged trading. BTC and ETH Futures: October 18, 2026 The key question is whether both assets are attracting new positions, or if the recent rally is primarily driven by leveraged traders. While current market data offers a basis for initial comparison, it should be noted that data sources may have different update schedules and should not be considered perfectly synchronized. 1. Current derivatives market data Bitcoin (BTC) Gate USDT perpetual futures Price $81,403 Funding rate +0.006% Open interest: approx. $4.10 billion · 24-hour volume: approx. $1.01 billion Ethereum (ETH) Gate USDT perpetual futures Price $2,413 Funding rate +0.007% Open interest: approx. $1.96 billion · 24-hour volume: approx. $1.84 billion Gate Futures market data. These figures represent a snapshot in time and do not guarantee execution prices. Initial assessment: Both funding rates are positive, which—in the context of perpetual futures contracts—means that holders of long positions are making payments to holders of short positions. Notably, despite ETH having a lower market price, its trading volume exceeds that of BTC. While this situation points to an active trading environment, it does not reveal which asset carries a stronger expectation regarding its future direction. 2. Open Interest and Positioning Broader market data adds significant detail to the initial figures. Indicator BTC ETH Open Interest Trend Global BTC futures open interest decreased by 1.14% over 24 hours Funding Positive; the Gate BTC rate is approximately +0.0059% based on recent data Positive (per Gate data) Positioning Signal Potential deleveraging Potential reduction in positions Assessment Neutral to cautious Neutral to cautious Note: The open interest data for ETH covers only a specific exchange rather than the entire market; therefore, a direct comparison between the two datasets is not possible. A decline in open interest alongside rising prices may suggest that short-position holders are closing their positions, rather than new buyers entering the market aggressively. This distinction is crucial when evaluating the sustainability of a price rally. 3. Liquidations: Is leverage driving this movement? According to recent broad market data, approximately $25.91 million in liquidations occurred over a 24-hour period; of this, $17.87 million consisted of long-position liquidations, while $8.04 million involved short-position liquidations. This imbalance indicates that, during the observed period, leveraged long positions suffered greater losses than short positions. However, this does not prove that BTC or ETH has reached a market bottom. For confirmation of a stronger bullish trend, I would look for the following: * Prices stabilizing or rising following the liquidation of long positions. * Open interest beginning to recover in tandem with price. * Funding rates remaining moderate rather than experiencing a sudden spike. * Spot market buying supporting the price action, rather than futures market activity doing all the heavy lifting. 4. What should be monitored next? Bullish confirmation BTC and ETH prices rise, open interest expands gradually, and funding rates remain moderate. Sideways market Prices stabilize, while open interest and trading volume remain low. Bearish warning Prices fall and open interest rises as new short positions are opened, or crowded long positions trigger another wave of liquidations. BTC: Given the scale of the futures market, a recovery in open interest and sustained spot demand are particularly important. The recent decline in total open interest does not yet confirm a broad increase in leveraged participation. ETH: In the snapshot provided, ETH’s futures turnover on Gate is higher than that of BTC; however, higher turnover alone does not prove stronger bullish conviction. ETH requires the same confirmation across price, open interest, and funding rates. Gate (General): Current figures indicate active derivatives trading, yet evidence of sustainable bullish momentum remains insufficient. The next decisive signal will be whether BTC and ETH prices rise in conjunction with renewed growth in open interest, rather than merely experiencing a short-lived surge in volume