Has Bitcoin Become 'Stable'? Its 2025 Volatility Actually Lower Than Nvidia's

marsbitPublished on 2026-01-05Last updated on 2026-01-05

Abstract

Bitcoin's daily volatility dropped to a record low of 2.24% in 2025, marking its least volatile year on record. Despite significant price swings—including a 36% drawdown in October—the asset's volatility has steadily declined each cycle, now even lower than NVIDIA's. This shift reflects deeper structural maturity: institutional participation via ETFs, corporate treasury adoption, and regulated custodians have increased market depth and stability. Large capital flows now cause smaller price impacts, reducing the cascading liquidations seen in earlier cycles. While absolute dollar volatility remains high, the market absorbs shocks more efficiently, repositioning Bitcoin as a macro asset rather than a speculative instrument. Lower volatility enables broader institutional adoption through retirement funds and investment portfolios, reinforcing a cycle of growing demand and stability.

Bitcoin concluded 2025 with a realized daily volatility of 2.24%, marking the lowest annual figure on record for the asset.

K33 Research's volatility chart, which dates back to 2012—when Bitcoin's daily volatility was 7.58%—shows that volatility has steadily decreased each cycle: 3.34% in 2022, 2.80% in 2024, and dropping to 2.24% in 2025.

However, market perception diverges from the data. In October 2025, Bitcoin's price fell from $126,000 to $80,500, a nerve-wracking process; on October 10th, a wave of liquidations triggered by tariff policies wiped out $19 billion in leveraged long positions in a single day.

The paradox lies here: by traditional standards, Bitcoin's volatility has indeed decreased, but compared to previous cycles, it is attracting larger inflows of capital, and the absolute magnitude of price swings is also greater.

Low volatility does not mean "the market has gone quiet"; rather, it indicates the market is now mature enough to handle institutional-scale capital flows without reverting to the "chain-reaction" feedback loops seen in earlier cycles.

Today, ETFs, corporate treasuries, and regulated custodians act as "ballast" for market liquidity, while long-term holders are steadily reallocating assets into this infrastructure.

The end result: Bitcoin's daily returns are more stable, yet market cap fluctuations still amount to hundreds of billions of dollars—swings that would have triggered an 80% crash back in 2018 or 2021.

Volatility Continues to Decline

K33's annual volatility data documents this transition.

In 2013, Bitcoin's average daily return was 7.58%, reflecting the thin order books and speculative fervor of the market at that time. By 2017, this figure had dropped to 4.81%; in 2020, it was 3.98%; during the pandemic bull market of 2021, it saw a slight rebound to 4.13%. In 2022, the successive collapses of Luna, Three Arrows Capital, and the FTX exchange pushed volatility up to 3.34%.

Since then, volatility has continued its downward trend: 2.94% in 2023, 2.80% in 2024, and 2.24% in 2025.

A logarithmic price chart further confirms this trend. From 2022 to 2025, Bitcoin did not experience extreme "pump-and-dump" rallies but instead climbed steadily within an upward channel.

There were pullbacks—the price dropped below $50,000 in August 2024 and to $80,500 in October 2025—but none resulted in a "parabolic surge followed by a systemic crash."

Analysis points out that the approximately 36% decline in October 2025 still falls within the normal range of historical Bitcoin drawdowns. The difference is that previous 36% corrections often occurred at the tail end of high volatility periods around 7%, whereas this one appeared during a low volatility period of 2.2%.

This creates a "perception gap": a 36% drop over six weeks still feels剧烈 intuitively; but compared to early cycles (when intraday 10% swings were the norm), the price action in 2025 was relatively calm.

Asset management firm Bitwise points out that Bitcoin's realized volatility is now lower than Nvidia's, a shift that redefines Bitcoin's positioning from a "pure speculative tool" to a "high-beta macro asset."

Market Cap Expansion, Institutional Entry, and Asset Reallocation

K33's core view is that the decline in realized volatility is not due to reduced capital inflows, but because it now takes much larger capital movements to move the price.

The firm's chart of "three-month changes in Bitcoin's market cap" shows that even during this low-volatility cycle, fluctuations in market cap still amount to hundreds of billions of dollars.

During the October-November 2025 pullback, Bitcoin's market cap evaporated approximately $570 billion, nearly identical to the $568 billion drawdown in July 2021.

The magnitude of the swings hasn't changed; what has changed is the "depth" of the market absorbing these swings.

Three structural factors have driven the decline in volatility:

First, the "accumulation" effect of ETFs and institutions. K33 statistics show that ETFs net purchased approximately 160,000 Bitcoin in 2025 (though lower than the 630,000+ in 2024, the scale remains considerable). ETFs and corporate treasuries combined added about 650,000 Bitcoin, accounting for over 3% of the circulating supply. This capital entered the market through "programmatic rebalancing," not driven by retail FOMO sentiment.

K33 specifically notes that even as Bitcoin's price fell about 30%, ETF holdings only decreased by single-digit percentages, with no panic redemptions or forced liquidations.

Second, corporate treasuries and structured issuance. By the end of 2025, corporate treasuries cumulatively held approximately 473,000 Bitcoin (the pace of accumulation slowed in the second half of the year). New demand came more from preferred stock and convertible bond issuance rather than direct cash purchases—because finance teams execute capital structure strategies quarterly, unlike traders chasing short-term market trends.

Third, the reallocation of assets from early holders to a broader base. K33's "asset holding period analysis" shows that since early 2023, Bitcoin dormant for over two years began steadily "activating"; over the past two years, about 1.6 million long-held Bitcoin entered circulation.

2024 and 2025 were the two years with the largest activation of "dormant assets." The report mentions that in July 2025, Galaxy Digital sold 80,000 Bitcoin, and Fidelity sold 20,400 Bitcoin.

These sales恰好 coincided with the "structural demand" from ETFs, corporate treasuries, and regulated custodians—who build their holdings gradually over months.

This reallocation is crucial: early holders accumulated Bitcoin at prices between $100 and $10,000, with assets often in a few concentrated wallets; when they sell, the assets flow to ETF shareholders, corporate balance sheets, and high-net-worth clients buying small amounts through diversified portfolios.

The end result: lower concentration of Bitcoin ownership, thicker order books, and weakened "chain-reaction feedback loops." In early cycles, a sale of 10,000 Bitcoin into a illiquid market could cause a 5% to 10% price crash, triggering stops and liquidations; but in 2025, such a sale attracts buy-side interest from multiple institutional channels, potentially even pushing the price up 2% to 3%. Feedback loops weaken, and daily volatility decreases accordingly.

Portfolio Construction, Leverage Shocks, and the End of "Parabolic Cycles"

The decline in realized volatility changes the calculus for institutions regarding "Bitcoin allocation size."

Modern Portfolio Theory suggests that asset allocation weights should be based on "risk contribution" rather than "return potential." The same 4% allocation to Bitcoin: if daily volatility is 7%, its contribution to portfolio risk is far higher than when volatility is 2.2%.

This mathematical fact forces asset allocators to choose: either increase the allocation to Bitcoin, or utilize options and structured products (assuming the underlying asset's volatility is more stable).

K33's cross-asset performance table shows Bitcoin ranked near the bottom in terms of asset returns in 2025—despite outperforming for multiple years in previous cycles, it lagged behind gold and stocks in 2025.

This "underperformance," combined with low volatility, shifts Bitcoin's定位 from a "speculative satellite asset" to a "core macro asset"—with risk similar to stocks, but return drivers uncorrelated with other assets.

The options market also reflects this shift: recent Bitcoin option implied volatility has declined alongside realized volatility, lowering hedging costs and making synthetic structured products more attractive.

Previously, compliance departments often restricted financial advisors from allocating to Bitcoin due to "excessive volatility"; now, advisors have quantitative grounds: in 2025, Bitcoin's volatility was lower than Nvidia's, lower than many tech stocks, and comparable to high-beta stock sectors.

This opens new investment channels for Bitcoin: inclusion in 401(k) retirement plans, allocations by Registered Investment Advisors (RIAs), and insurance company portfolios with strict volatility limits.

K33's forward-looking data predicts that as these channels open, 2026 ETF net inflows will exceed those of 2025, creating a "self-reinforcing cycle": more institutional inflows → lower volatility → unlocking more institutional mandates → more inflows.

But the market's "calm" is conditional. K33's derivatives analysis shows that throughout 2025, Bitcoin perpetual swap open interest steadily rose in a "low vol, strong uptrend" environment, culminating in the October 10th liquidation event—which wiped out $19 billion in leveraged longs in a single day.

This sell-off was related to President Trump's tariff announcement and broad "risk-off sentiment," but the core mechanism was still a derivatives issue: excessive leveraged longs, thin weekend liquidity, cascading margin calls.

Even with an annual realized volatility of 2.2%, "extreme volatility days triggered by leverage unwinds" can still be hidden. The difference is: such events are now resolved within hours, not weeks; and because现货 demand from ETFs and corporate treasuries provides a "price floor," the market can recover quickly.

The structural backdrop for 2026 supports the view that "volatility will remain low or decline further": K33 expects selling from early holders to decrease as the two-year-old Bitcoin supply stabilizes; additionally, there are positive regulatory signals—the U.S. CLARITY Act, full implementation of Europe's MiCA, and Morgan Stanley and Bank of America opening 401(k) and wealth management channels.

K33's "Golden Opportunity" data predicts Bitcoin will outperform stock indices and gold in 2026—because the impact of regulatory breakthroughs and new capital will outweigh selling pressure from existing holders.

Whether this prediction materializes remains uncertain, but the mechanisms driving it—deepening liquidity, improved institutional infrastructure, regulatory clarity—do provide support for low volatility.

Ultimately, the Bitcoin market is moving away from the "speculative frontier"属性 of 2013 or 2017, closer to a "highly liquid, institutionally-anchored macro asset."

This does not mean Bitcoin becomes "boring" (e.g., low returns or lack of narrative), but rather that the "rules of the game have changed": price paths are smoother, the options market and ETF flows matter more than retail sentiment, and the core market changes are reflected in structure, leverage levels, and the composition of buyers and sellers.

In 2025, despite undergoing its largest-ever regulatory and structural changes, Bitcoin became an "institutionalized,平稳 asset" from a volatility perspective.

The value in understanding this transition is this: low realized volatility is not a signal of an "asset losing its vitality," but a sign that "the market is mature enough to handle institutional-scale capital without crashing."

The cycle hasn't ended; it's just that the "cost" of moving the market has become higher.

Related Questions

QWhat was Bitcoin's daily volatility rate in 2025, and how does it compare historically?

ABitcoin's daily volatility rate in 2025 was 2.24%, which is the lowest annual figure in its recorded history. This represents a steady decline from previous cycles, such as 7.58% in 2012, 3.34% in 2022, and 2.80% in 2024.

QWhat are the three main structural factors identified by K33 Research that contributed to the decline in Bitcoin's volatility?

AThe three main structural factors are: 1) The accumulation effect of ETFs and institutions, which provided programmatic, non-FOMO-driven buying. 2) Corporate treasury purchases and structured issuances, which are based on long-term capital strategies rather than short-term trading. 3) The redistribution of assets from early holders to a broader base of investors, including ETF shareholders and corporations, which increases market depth and reduces concentration.

QHow did the market's reaction to a large sell-off in 2025 differ from earlier cycles, according to the article?

AIn earlier cycles, a sell-off of 10,000 BTC in a thin market could cause a price crash of 5-10%, triggering stop-losses and liquidations. In 2025, the same sell-off was absorbed by multiple institutional buyers, potentially even causing a price increase of 2-3%, demonstrating a weakened feedback loop and greater market depth.

QWhat significant event occurred on October 10, 2025, and what was its impact?

AOn October 10, 2025, a liquidation cascade, triggered by tariff policy concerns and broader risk-off sentiment, wiped out $19 billion in leveraged long positions in a single day. This event highlighted that extreme volatility days from leverage unwinding can still occur even in a low overall volatility environment.

QHow does the article suggest Bitcoin's role in investment portfolios is changing due to its lower volatility?

ALower volatility is shifting Bitcoin's role from a 'speculative satellite asset' to a 'core macro asset.' This change allows it to be considered for inclusion in 401(k) retirement plans, portfolios of Registered Investment Advisors (RIAs), and insurance company portfolios that have strict volatility limits, as its risk profile becomes more comparable to stocks.

Related Reads

Silicon Valley 'Startup Guru' Steve Hoffman: Web3 + AI Could Be a Trap

Silicon Valley investor and "Godfather of Startups" Steve Hoffman warns that combining Web3 with AI is likely a trap, not a promising venture. In an interview, Hoffman argues that while AI is a foundational technology touching all industries, Web3 adds complexity, friction, and regulatory risk without solving mainstream consumer or business needs. He advises founders to focus on deep, specialized applications where startups can out-iterate giants, rather than on generic features easily replicated by large tech companies. Hoffman observes that Silicon Valley will lead foundational AI research, while China excels at rapid, large-scale application and commercialization, particularly in robotics. He stresses that AI-driven autonomous agents capable of collaborative, multi-step tasks are 2-4 years away, which will cause significant job displacement. The solution is not to slow AI but to redesign business models around human-AI collaboration and reform social systems like education and retraining. For startups, Hoffman recommends focusing on vertical, expertise-heavy domains to build defensibility. He sees major opportunities in AI fraud detection and cybersecurity. Key founder mindsets include systemic thinking over feature-focus, relentless customer centricity, building adaptive teams, and deeply understanding AI's capabilities and limits. Hoffman is also leading a non-profit initiative to establish university centers aimed at training future leaders in responsible, human-value-aligned AI innovation.

marsbit1h ago

Silicon Valley 'Startup Guru' Steve Hoffman: Web3 + AI Could Be a Trap

marsbit1h ago

Token Inefficient, Economy Tokenless

The article "Tokens Aren't Economical, Economics Aren't Tokenized" analyzes a pivotal shift in the AI industry from a technology-driven narrative to one dominated by capital efficiency. It highlights two concurrent trends: a severe capital shortage due to the exorbitant and recurring costs of compute (e.g., OpenAI's high burn rate) and a wave of corporate spin-offs where major tech companies are separating their AI units (like Kuaishou's Kling and Baidu's Kunlunxin). The core argument is that AI's "anti-internet" business model, where user growth increases costs rather than profits, has created a disconnect between high valuations and actual cash flow. Spin-offs address this by allowing AI assets to be valued independently. Within a parent company, they are seen as cost centers, but as standalone entities, they are priced based on their growth potential and scarcity in the primary market, leading to massive valuation premiums (e.g., Kling's estimated value tripling post-spin-off). The industry is at an inflection point, moving from "model worship" to "value realization." The competition is evolving from a pure compute (GPU) race to a broader focus on systemic efficiency and full-stack engineering (involving CPUs and orchestration) to achieve viable commercialization. The year 2026 is framed as a critical moment where the industry must definitively answer how to economically translate AI capability into tangible business value, reshaping the sector's future power structure.

marsbit1h ago

Token Inefficient, Economy Tokenless

marsbit1h ago

Crossing the 'Memory Wall': The Wafer-Level Revolution and Computing Power Routes in the AI Inference Era

In 2026, a historic shift occurred in AI as major cloud providers' inference spending surpassed training spending for the first time, signaling a move from "building large models" to "using large models." This shifts the core challenge from computing power to the "memory wall"—the bottleneck of data movement (model weights, activations, KV Cache) between external DRAM and processors, where energy and latency from data transfer far exceed computation itself. Companies like Nvidia face GPU idle time due to bandwidth limits. In contrast, Cerebras Systems adopts a radical "wafer-scale" approach with its Wafer-Scale Engine (WSE). Instead of cutting a silicon wafer into many chips, Cerebras uses almost the entire wafer as one massive chip (WSE-3). This design provides 44GB of on-chip SRAM, delivering memory bandwidth thousands of times higher than traditional HBM (e.g., 21 PB/s vs. Nvidia B200). For LLM inference, weights are streamed layer-by-layer from external MemoryX storage to the chip, avoiding HBM bottlenecks. This results in token generation speeds 1.5–5 times faster than Nvidia's B200 in some models and significant advantages in first-token latency and long-context tasks. Additionally, Cerebras's architecture offers much lower interconnect power consumption (0.15 pJ/bit vs. GPU's ~10 pJ/bit). However, Cerebras faces challenges: SRAM scaling has slowed with advanced nodes, limiting future capacity gains; the chip requires specialized liquid cooling and custom software stacks; and its external I/O bandwidth (150 GB/s) is low compared to NVLink, hindering multi-system scaling for very large models. Competition is intensifying. Major players are pursuing three paths: 1) Developing proprietary inference ASICs (e.g., Google TPU, Microsoft Maia), 2) Leveraging advanced packaging (e.g., TSMC's SoW) to democratize wafer-scale-like integration, potentially eroding Cerebras's process advantage within a few years, and 3) Exploring optical interconnects for ultimate bandwidth. Commercially, Cerebras is transitioning from a hardware vendor to a service provider, facing the immense challenge of building high-power, specialized data centers to meet large contracts (e.g., 250MW/year from 2026–2028). In conclusion, the AI inference era presents a fundamental architectural trade-off. Cerebras opts for extreme physical optimization for low-latency, single-task performance, while Nvidia prioritizes versatility and massive cluster throughput. The path forward remains uncertain, with technology and business models still evolving in the race toward advanced AI.

marsbit1h ago

Crossing the 'Memory Wall': The Wafer-Level Revolution and Computing Power Routes in the AI Inference Era

marsbit1h ago

Has Bitcoin's 'Rebound Ended', Officially Entering the Late Bear Market Phase?

**Title: Has Bitcoin's Rebound Ended, Entering the Late Bear Market Phase?** **Summary:** Bitcoin's price has declined by 13% this week, signaling a potential return to late-stage bear market conditions. The price fell to around $67k, positioned between the Realized Price and Realized Cap Weighted Average. For the first time since early 2022, the Short-Term Holder cost basis has dropped below this key average, confirming a hallmark of late-cycle bear markets. Profitability metrics have collapsed sharply. The 7-day average of the Realized Profit/Loss ratio plummeted from a local high of 3.16 to 0.29, mirroring the February panic sell-off. Critically, the 90-day average never breached the threshold of 2, indicating the recent rally to $82k was a bear market bounce, not a structural shift. Realized losses surged to $1.35 billion daily, with $770 million coming from Long-Term Holders selling at a loss. This accelerating redistribution of supply from weak to strong hands is a necessary but ongoing process for a market bottom. The rally stalled almost precisely at the aggregate cost basis (~$83k) of US spot Bitcoin ETF investors, turning that level into strong resistance and leaving the average ETF holder underwater again. Spot market flows have turned decisively negative, showing sellers are dominating order books despite the price drop. While a significant futures long liquidation event cleared over $400 million in leverage, providing a potential reset, sustained spot demand is yet to materialize. Options markets continue to price in higher future volatility (Implied Volatility) than recent price action (Realized Volatility) has shown, with a persistent skew towards put options, indicating ongoing demand for downside protection. In conclusion, multiple metrics point to a fragile market structure. Resistance at the ETF cost basis, accelerating realized losses, dominant spot selling, and cautious options pricing all suggest the bear market trend persists. A sustainable recovery likely requires a resurgence of spot demand, ETF holders returning to profit, and a clear reduction in selling pressure.

marsbit1h ago

Has Bitcoin's 'Rebound Ended', Officially Entering the Late Bear Market Phase?

marsbit1h ago

TechFlow Intelligence Agency: Anthropic Calls for Global Pause in AI Development While Preparing for Trillion-Dollar IPO; SpaceX IPO Roadshow Heats Up, But S&P 500 Rejects Fast-Track Inclusion

In today's TechFlow Intelligence Briefing, several major tech stories highlight a growing theme of trust and credibility gaps across AI, crypto, and finance. AI company Anthropic has publicly called for a global pause in AI development, citing risks from Claude's "recursive self-improvement." Ironically, this coincides with reports the company is preparing for a massive IPO targeting a near $1 trillion valuation. This perceived hypocrisy, coupled with widespread user complaints about Claude's declining performance, is sparking debate over whether the safety warning is genuine or a competitive tactic. Meanwhile, in a substantive security move, Anthropic open-sourced a framework for AI-powered vulnerability discovery. In the crypto market, Bitcoin's price drop below $61,000 triggered over $1.16 billion in liquidations, flipping the market into a state where more BTC is held at a loss than at a profit, a historical bearish signal. On the corporate front, SpaceX's highly anticipated IPO is generating immense Wall Street excitement, with Goldman Sachs projecting 100x revenue growth by 2030. However, the S&P 500 has refused to fast-track the company's inclusion post-IPO, potentially limiting immediate institutional demand. Separately, ByteDance's AI app Doubao lost over 6 million monthly active users after introducing a subscription model, highlighting the challenges of AI monetization. Other notable developments include Nvidia certifying HBM4 memory from Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron; Cloudflare's acquisition of front-end tooling company VoidZero; and its CEO warning that bot traffic now exceeds human traffic online. The underlying narrative connects these events: a trust crisis. From AI firms' contradictory actions and crypto volatility to the clash between SpaceX's hyped narrative and institutional rules, a pattern is emerging where stated intentions and actual practices are increasingly misaligned.

marsbit1h ago

TechFlow Intelligence Agency: Anthropic Calls for Global Pause in AI Development While Preparing for Trillion-Dollar IPO; SpaceX IPO Roadshow Heats Up, But S&P 500 Rejects Fast-Track Inclusion

marsbit1h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures

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 S (S) are presented below.

活动图片

Top Questions

Hot Categoriesright-arrow

Hot Tagsright-arrow