Reasons to trust
Strict editing policy focusing on accuracy, relevance and fairness
Created by industry experts and meticulously reviewed
The highest standard for reporting and publishing
Strict editing policy focusing on accuracy, relevance and fairness
Morbi Pretium leo et nisl aliquam Mollis. Quisque Arcu Lorem, Ultricies Quis Pellentesque Nec, ullamcorper eu odio.
Bitcoin is above the $100,000 threshold, but the driving force behind this historical integration phase appears to be more complicated than the surface-level narrative of institutional “FOMO” and ETF euphoria. Silent rotation is currently underway, according to several major analysts. This suggests that long-term holders are offloading their positions while corporate finance ministry and agency buyers quietly absorb the flood.
OG Bitcoin Zilla is “discarded” on Wall Street
Charles Edwards, founder of Capriole Investments, made a calm breakdown via X on June 29th, challenging the general belief that stagnation in Bitcoin prices is abnormal amid the surge in demand. “I wonder why BTC is stuck at $100,000 for $10 despite the institutional FOMO,” he writes. “In spite of what X News might suggest, that’s because Bitcoin OGS (long-term holders) have been dumped on Wall ST and have been putting down positions since the ETF launch in January 2024.”
Edwards is known for blending on-chain metrics and macro frameworks, and pointed out the visible dynamic shifts currently being captured in blockchain data. While the old coins are being redistributed, new classes of holders (mainly financially entities) are actively stepping in. “We’ve clearly entered the trends of (finance companies) that have fallen into the heat today (finance companies) as there are many copycats entering the market,” he said.
What makes this transition particularly noteworthy is the data behind it. Edwards highlighted that BTC holders over six months have skyrocketed over the past two months in relation to more strategic and non-specific accumulation. “The amount of BTC obtained in the last two months by this cohort is the past 1. We have fully consumed all BTC unloaded by LTHS over five years,” he said. “can’t believe it.”
Related readings
The aggressive accumulation of this cohort has historically preceded bullish squeezes. “Every time you get an aggressive spike in the 6m+ holder, the price is usually squeezed after these periods. Short-term bullishness,” Edwards said. However, he tempered optimism by warning that wider on-chain data still indicates vulnerability. “If the 6m+ holder (finance company) can continue making ruthless purchases, that should be achievable,” he points out, indicating that the flywheel has momentum but is still unimmunized with full-body pressure.
Adding another layer to this developing narrative, Mauricio di Bartolomeo was co-founder and LEDN’s CSO provided an alternative theory. He suggested that the two flows (Sales and Treasury Purchase Entities) were in fact “the same trade.” He writes: “We sell long-term holders (Are) to buy ETFS/BTC Treasury Cos. Di Bartolomeo notes that shifts are encompassing generations and that many early adopters may be more comfortable with traditional financial detention than self-search wallets.
Related readings
However, Edwards pushed back that explanation, arguing that if ETF migration promotes reclassification of long-term holders, it would be apparent in multiple aging cohorts. “I don’t think so, because if that was the case, we’d seen similar uptrends in the 6M+++++ cohort,” he replied. “Some of them are definitely moving to stocks, but it’s very typical of this stage in the half-cycle and you can see LTH selling for profit.”
Why Bitcoin ETFs are not effective at 1:1 prices
The obvious dissonance between rising demand and stagnant prices prompted commentary from on-chain analyst TXMC. “People in Bitcoin are terribly underestimating that supply doesn’t actually price an hourly rate,” he writes. He described Bitcoin’s fragmented market structure as a web of siloed exchanges that are loosely synchronized through intersecting market production. “Each location has its own liquidity and depth, which is very different. A large market order can have a big impact depending on which exchanges are placed and which time is there.”
TXMC claimed that ETFs and facility desks accumulate a large amount of Bitcoin, but much of this activity is routed through OTC desks that bypass orders entirely. “These actions do not affect prices in the same way,” he said. “Desks only go into the book to source their own liquidity and fill the differences.”
This explanation may help to adjust why billions of dollars of ETF inflows could not push BTC significantly higher. As long as the ETF boom may be promoting redistribution rather than full net demand, Edwards’ paper is in line with this. TXMC added:
Despite the growing bullishness in the composition of the cohort, the actual tests are ahead. It remains to be seen whether the corporate Treasury and ETF managers will be able to absorb the remaining exit waves of Bitcoin’s earliest owners. But if Edwards is right, the spinning could already have passed that important stage.
“There’s still a long way to go with the flywheel,” concluded Edwards. And when history is a guide, these moments of integration within the redistribution tend to precede volatility rather than follow it.
At the time of pressing, BTC was traded for $108,044.
Featured images created with dall.e, charts on tradingview.com
