I think it's better to separate the two: price moves change expectations mostly through leverage and sentiment. A breakout can force shorts to cover and pull in momentum money, which makes people feel the trend has 'confirmed' something. But that's often just positioning, not fundamentals. I'd watch funding and open interest first to see whether the move is crowded, then check if real implementation (ETF flows, corporate adoption, L2 activity) actually follows. If only funding reacts, I treat it as a short-term signal. Not investment advice.

Personally I lean toward implementation changes being the more durable thing to watch, but funding response tells you the timing risk. Around a big round-number breakout, the market tends to re-rate expectations quickly, and funding can get overheated, meaning any disappointment gets amplified. So my framework is: use funding as a risk gauge, use implementation as the thesis. If funding is extreme but implementation is quiet, I'd be cautious about chasing. This is just my personal view.

Both matter, but they answer different questions. Funding response answers 'who is positioned and how fragile is the tape', while implementation answers 'is there real demand behind it'. Since I can't see live data, I won't guess current funding levels; I'd check exchange funding rates and open interest myself. A healthy pattern is price up with moderate funding and steady implementation progress. A warning pattern is price up mostly on leverage with little real follow-through. Not financial advice, just how I'd read it.