ENA was hailed as an efficient income tool during the bull market, and its performance was deeply affected by the banker's operating strategy. The banker's deep background and efficient operating mechanism gave ENA huge profit potential. Although there are voices in the market comparing ENA to LUNA, you are personally cautious about this and believe that ENA is unlikely to copy LUNA's failure trajectory.
ENA's staking income is one of its significant advantages. Many pledgers will adopt a strategy of hedging short selling in the contract market to ensure that they can obtain stable income no matter how the market price fluctuates. This strategy is also quite common in the VC currency field.
In detail, assuming that the current trading price of ENA is 1 US dollar, the pledger will pledge 10,000 ENA. If the annual interest rate of staking exceeds 30%, then after one year, the pledger is expected to receive more than 3,000 ENA as income. However, in the face of future price uncertainty, for example, the price of ENA plummets to $0.1 when the pledge period expires, the pledger can hedge the risk to a certain extent by shorting the same amount of ENA (i.e. 10,000 pieces) in the contract market. The main source of income is still the high annualized interest rate brought by pledging.
The core advantage of this strategy is that no matter how the ENA market price fluctuates, pledgers are guaranteed to receive at least 30% annualized returns. However, the strategy also comes with potential risks: if the price of ENA rises rapidly in the short term, short-selling operations may face insufficient margin, requiring stakers to add a large amount of funds to maintain their positions, which poses a significant challenge to this strategy.
