Ethereum and Bitcoin face historic supply squeeze – THESE 2 metrics reveal what’s next

ambcryptoPublished on 2026-07-08Last updated on 2026-07-08

Abstract

Bitcoin and Ethereum are experiencing a historic supply squeeze, as both cryptocurrencies see their exchange balances hit multi-year lows. This persistent withdrawal trend signals a shift toward long-term holding and self-custody models like ETFs, reducing the liquid supply available for trading. For Bitcoin, long-term holders are actively accumulating, with their net position change turning positive and supply held approaching 15 million BTC. This behavior creates scarcity, which could amplify price discovery if demand recovers. However, the analysis concludes that while reduced exchange supply supports accumulation, a sustained Bitcoin uptrend will ultimately require stronger buying demand to absorb available liquidity and maintain momentum.

Despite months of market volatility, Ethereum and Bitcoin holders continue showing little interest in returning coins to exchanges. This does represent much more than decreased investor trading enthusiasm.

Persistent withdrawals continued reducing the amount of liquid supply available on the market.

As of press time, the total number of Bitcoins stored on exchanges was at an all-time low for any time period since 2017. At the same time, the total number of Ethereum [ETH] stored on exchanges was also at an all-time low for any time period since 2015.

Source: Santiment

Simultaneously, ongoing negative Netflows indicate that institutional and longer-term holders prefer to store their coins using self-custody models such as ETFs or corporate treasuries rather than storing them on exchanges.

Therefore, this migration will remove additional coins from potential sales. Yet in turn, it will provide even less selling pressure in the short term to further increase the conviction behind buying. While lower exchange balances may result in lower prices for investors, they do create scarcity.

If demand continues recovering, limited liquid supply could amplify price discovery and support a more structurally driven market cycle.

Long-term holders reinforce Bitcoin’s supply floor

Behind the continued decline in exchange balances, Bitcoin [BTC] Long-Term Holders are steadily absorbing the circulating supply. That behavior reflects growing conviction rather than defensive positioning, as experienced investors continue accumulating during market weakness.

Long-Term Holder Net Position Change has returned to positive territory, confirming a shift from distribution toward renewed accumulation.

Meanwhile, HODL Waves and rising illiquid supply show older coins remaining dormant despite recent volatility.

That behavior further reduced Bitcoin’s availability for active trading. On top of that, the Accumulation Trend Score indicated continued buying across smaller and medium-sized wallets.

Supply held by Long-Term Holders approached 15 million BTC.

By contrast, Short-Term Holder supply declined to roughly 16.75 million BTC. The shift suggested Bitcoin continued moving from shorter-term participants into stronger conviction holders.

Source: Glassnode

Even so, tightening supply alone may not sustain Bitcoin’s recovery.

A lasting uptrend would still require stronger buying demand to absorb available liquidity. Without that support, Bitcoin could struggle to maintain momentum despite increasingly scarce exchange balances.


Final Summary

  • Bitcoin [BTC] and Ethereum [ETH] exchange supply continues tightening, reinforcing long-term accumulation.
  • Bitcoin needs stronger demand to sustain its recovery amid shrinking supply.

Trending Cryptos

Related Questions

QWhat does the historically low supply of Bitcoin and Ethereum on exchanges indicate about current market behavior?

AIt indicates that holders are showing little interest in selling or trading on exchanges, preferring long-term accumulation and self-custody methods like ETFs, which reduces liquid supply and selling pressure on the market.

QAccording to the article, what role are Bitcoin Long-Term Holders playing in the current market?

ALong-Term Holders are steadily absorbing the circulating supply, shifting from distribution to accumulation. Their behavior, reflected in positive Net Position Change and HODL Waves, reduces Bitcoin's availability for active trading and reinforces a supply floor.

QWhy might lower exchange balances for Bitcoin and Ethereum lead to higher prices, according to the article's analysis?

ALower exchange balances create scarcity by removing coins from potential sales. If demand recovers, this limited liquid supply could amplify price discovery and support a structurally driven market cycle with less selling pressure.

QWhat is one key challenge or condition needed for Bitcoin to sustain its recovery, despite the tightening supply?

ABitcoin needs stronger buying demand to absorb the available liquidity. A lasting uptrend requires this demand support; without it, Bitcoin could struggle to maintain momentum even with scarce exchange balances.

QWhat two major metrics or data points does the article highlight to show the supply squeeze for Bitcoin and Ethereum?

AThe two key metrics are: 1) The total number of Bitcoins on exchanges is at an all-time low since 2017. 2) The total amount of Ethereum on exchanges is at an all-time low since 2015.

Related Reads

The Danger of Old Bookmarks: How an Expired Tornado Cash Domain Cost a User 1,000 ETH

A user lost over 1,010 ETH (worth millions) due to a phishing attack via an expired official domain of the Tornado Cash protocol. As reported on August 20, 2026, the domain `tornado.cash` was not renewed by the original developers amid U.S. OFAC sanctions and was subsequently registered by malicious actors. They deployed a fake frontend mimicking the legitimate Tornado Cash interface. Through this site, the attackers gained access to the user's deposit notes—the data required to withdraw funds from the protocol's pools—and drained the ETH within 12 hours. On-chain data shows the stolen funds (e.g., wallet 0xd8B356...) were withdrawn from Tornado Cash pools. However, on-chain analyst Specter cast doubt on the victim's story. He suggested the individual might be involved in illicit activity, noting that a large sum of BTC was received from a coin-mixing service (Whirlpool) and converted to ETH before being sent to the fake Tornado Cash site. The victim's explanation of urgently moving funds due to a compromised hardware wallet was questioned, as the fund trail indicated deliberate obfuscation. Specter speculated this might be a conflict between malicious actors rather than a simple phishing case. The incident highlights the danger of expired domains for major protocols, where old bookmarks can lead to compromised sites. WHOIS records show the domain was registered in March 2025. Broader analysis notes that in 2025, over $1.8 billion was lost to scams and exploits, largely through social engineering like phishing via familiar but hijacked links. This case underscores the persistent risk when a domain's legal status changes but user trust and search engine reputation remain.

cryptonews.ru41m ago

The Danger of Old Bookmarks: How an Expired Tornado Cash Domain Cost a User 1,000 ETH

cryptonews.ru41m ago

You'll Be Surprised How Much WeChat's Architecture Differs from Telegram's

An article compares the core architectural philosophies of WeChat and Telegram, highlighting fundamental differences in data storage, monetization, and developer ecosystems. **Data Storage:** Telegram offers unlimited, synchronized cloud storage for seamless access across all devices. In contrast, WeChat stores chat history locally on each device, requiring a manual migration process for transfer and tethering desktop sessions to an active smartphone. **Features & Ecosystem:** Telegram's open Bot API allows for easy, free bot creation, while WeChat's massive ecosystem of over 4.8 million "mini-programs" operates within a closed, curated, and more regulated platform. Commenting also differs: Telegram uses integrated discussion threads for channels, whereas WeChat relies on pre-moderated comments for official accounts and separate chats for interaction. **File Sharing & Payments:** Telegram supports large file transfers (up to 4GB for Premium), while WeChat limits most files to 200MB. A key divergence is in payments: WeChat Pay is deeply integrated into daily life and commerce in China, whereas Telegram lacks a comparable built-in fiat payment system, focusing instead on third-party bots and crypto. **Analysis:** The comparison reveals two distinct models: WeChat is a tightly integrated, closed ecosystem deeply embedded in the real economy, while Telegram prioritizes open protocols, flexible data handling, and low barriers for developers. An added perspective notes that WeChat's fusion of messaging and payments in a single interface without end-to-end encryption for chats potentially broadens the attack surface, raising security questions as more functions converge.

cryptonews.ru6h ago

You'll Be Surprised How Much WeChat's Architecture Differs from Telegram's

cryptonews.ru6h ago

Trading

Spot

Hot Articles

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of ETH (ETH) are presented below.

活动图片