In a liquidity-tight market, capital will always face a choice—whether to all-in on one asset or to diversify. This is not simply a matter of balance, but a contest of cost-effectiveness.

The current advantages of SOL are obvious—strong upward trend and high consensus support. However, the problem is also clear—its position is no longer low, and the risk of retracement is increasing. In plain terms, it is more like a trend continuation asset, but the room for relay is limited.

AVAX's price movements are indeed volatile, but this volatility is often driven by emotions and lacks structural stability support. Once sentiment reverses, the decline can be quite deep.

NEAR is a different story. Its position is low enough, and it has resilience against drops. The key point is that it has not yet shown a clear breakout signal. It may sound like a disadvantage, but in the current environment where BTC has not yet established a major trend, this actually means an opportunity for rotation. From a cost-effectiveness perspective, NEAR is not only less risky than SOL but also more stable than AVAX—provided it can break out with relative strength. Once this condition is met, the space for rotation and catch-up could be quite significant.