A fixed crypto sleeve holds ETH through a 10.52% range while carry sits at 0.0464% per eight hours
Should the allocator rebalance the sleeve's ETH weight after a 3.52% down week that underperformed BTC by 0.77 points, or leave the split untouched?
The market facts are real; the decision maker is illustrative.
The week and the position
In the week of 15 March 2021, ETH fell 3.52% to 1,782.98 within a 10.52% range, closing in the middle third of that range and 12.12% below its 52-week high. Perpetual funding averaged 0.0464% per eight hours and was never negative, peaking at 0.1026%. Volume was 0.62 times its prior 12-week average, and ETH lost 0.77 percentage points to BTC with a 0.84 hourly correlation. An illustrative allocator holds a small fixed sleeve, with 3 of the prior 4 weeks up, including a 26.60% fall.
Judgment
The sleeve's size is the policy, and a single 3.52% week does not change it. Within the sleeve, keep the ETH weight as it is rather than trimming: the loss was ordinary against a 29th-percentile return over 161 weeks, the range stayed inside a 10.52% band, and the 0.77-point shortfall to BTC is small against a 0.84 hourly correlation that makes the split a tuning choice, not a directional bet. Accept the week's loss and the positive funding a long holder pays, which averaged 0.0464% per eight hours.
What would change it
If ETH closes below the week's low of 1,711.68 on volume at or above the prior 12-week average, trim the ETH weight within the sleeve. If funding stays at or above its 0.1026% eight-hour peak for several consecutive periods, the carry cost alone justifies reducing it.
What sets this case apart
This is a rebalancing question inside a fixed sleeve, where the sleeve's policy protects against overreacting to one middling week.