A Return to HODLing

insights.glassnodePublicado em 2024-08-12Última atualização em 2024-09-03

Executive Summary

  • After several months of relatively heavy distribution pressures, the behavior of Bitcoin holders appears to be rotating back towards HODLing and accumulation.
  • Activity in spot markets shows that there has been a net bias towards sell-side pressure of late, and this has not yet completely subsided.
  • Compared to ATH breaks in past cycles, there is currently a relatively large percentage of network wealth held by the Long-Term Holder cohort.
  • Overall, on-chain conditions speak to an undertone of high conviction amongst the Bitcoin holder-base.
💡
View all charts in this edition in The Week On-chain Dashboard.

Coinbase + Glassnode
Live Webinar

Q3 Guide to Crypto Markets

Register Here

A Return to HODLing

As the market begins to slowly recover from the sell-off last week, there is a discernible level of uncertainty, and indecision amongst digital asset investors. Nevertheless, when analyzing the onchain response of investors to these choppy market conditions, a trend of a preference for HODLing is beginning to emerge.

Since the Bitcoin price ATH was established in March, the market faced an extensive period of supply distribution, with participation by wallets of all sizes. Over the last few weeks, this trend is showing early signs of reversing, particularly for the largest wallet sizes which are often associated with ETFs. These large wallets appear to be returning to a regime of accumulation.

Live in Glassnode Engine Room

The Accumulation Trend Score (ATS) metric assesses a weighted balance change across the market. This metric also suggests there is a shift back towards accumulation dominant behavior.

The aforementioned shift towards accumulation has contributed to the ATS recording its highest possible value of 1.0, suggesting significant accumulation throughout the last month.

Live Chart

This observation is echoed across Long-Term Holders (LTH), who heavily divested during the run up to the ATH. This cohort have now returned to a preference for HODLing, with a total volume of +374k BTC migrating into LTH status over the last 3-months.

From this, we can infer that the propensity for investors to hold onto their coins is now a larger force relative to their spending pressures.

Live Chart

We can also assess the 7-day change in LTH supply as a tool to assess rates of change in their aggregate balance.

We can see substantial LTH distribution, typical of macro topping formations, into the March ATH. Fewer than 1.7% of trading days have ever recording a larger distribution pressure. More recently, this metric has returned to positive territory, indicating that the LTH cohort are expressing a preference for holding onto their coins.

Live Workbench

Despite the aggressive distribution from April to July, the spot price has continued to trade above the Active Investor Cost Basis, which represents the average acquisition price of active coins in the market.

The Active Investor’s Cost-Basis can be considered as a key threshold delineating bullish and bearish investor sentiment. Since the market managed to find support near this level speaks to a degree of underlying strength, suggesting investors are generally still anticipating positive market momentum in the short-to-medium-term.

Live Workbench

Evaluating Bias in Spot Markets

With the market within a technical downtrend, we can employ the CVD metric to estimate the present net balance between market buying and selling pressure in spot markets.

This metric can in turn be used to assess mid-term market momentum, as well as any headwinds or tailwinds for price. Since the formation of a new ATH, we note there has been a consistent regime of net sell-side pressure.

Live Chart

Positive CVD values suggest a net buy-side pressure, where as negative values infer a net sell-side pressure.

When we analyze the yearly median value of Spot CVD, we can see that the median value has fluctuated between -$22m and -$50m over the last 2 years, suggesting the presence of a net-sell side bias.

Live Workbench

If we consider this long-standing median as a baseline for CVD equilibrium, we can produce an adjusted variant of the metric, accounting and correcting for this implicit sell-side bias.

When comparing the Adjusted Spot CVD (30d SMA) against the Monthly Percentage Price Change, an intriguing confluence can be found.

Under this framework, the recent failure to break above the $70k zone can be partially explained by weakness in spot demand (negative adj-CVD). Alternatively, a potential recovery of demand in the spot market can be confirmed when the Adj-CVD metric returns to positive values.

Live Workbench

Cycle Navigation

Choppy sideways price action in recent months has motivated a notable slow-down in the distribution pressure by LTHs. This has led to the percentage of network wealth held by this cohort to firstly stabilize, and then recommence growing.

Despite the substantial sell-side pressure by LTHs into the market ATH, wealth held by longer-term investors remains historically elevated when compared to previous all time high breakouts.

This indicates that there is a potential for further divestment pressure by LTHs should the BTC price appreciate in the future. It also suggests that even though prices have traded sideways, to downwards of late, these investors are increasingly unwilling to part ways with their coins at lower prices.

Both of these observations speak to a more patient and resilient holder-base, despite choppy market conditions.

Live Chart

Finally, we can bolster this assessment using the LTH Sell-Side Risk Ratio. This tool gauges the absolute sum of realised profit and loss locked in by investors, relative to the size of the asset (the Realized Cap). We can consider this metric under the following framework:

  • High values indicate that investors are spending coins at a large profit or loss relative to their cost basis. This condition indicates that the market likely needs to re-find equilibrium, and usually follows a high volatility price move.
  • Low values indicate that the majority of coins are being spent relatively close to their break even cost basis, suggesting a degree of equilibrium has been reached. This condition often signifies an exhaustion of ‘profit and loss’ within the current price range, and usually describes a low volatility environment.

The LTH Sell-Side Risk ratio remains at a lower level compared to prior ATH breaks. This implies that the magnitude of profit taken by the LTH cohort is comparatively small relative to previous market cycles. This also infers that this cohort is waiting for higher prices before ramping up their distribution pressure.

Live Workbench

Summary and Conclusions

Despite challenging and choppy market conditions, Long-Term Bitcoin Holders remain remarkably steadfast in their conviction, with evidence they are ramping up accumulation behaviour.

An elevated percentage of Bitcoin network wealth is held by this investor cohort relative to previous cycle ATH breaks, which suggests there is a degree of investor patience on display, and waiting for higher prices. Additionally, the lack of panic selling amongst this cohort in lieu of the largest price contraction of the cycle highlights a resilience of their aggregate conviction.


Disclaimer: This report does not provide any investment advice. All data is provided for information and educational purposes only. No investment decision shall be based on the information provided here and you are solely responsible for your own investment decisions.

Exchange balances presented are derived from Glassnode’s comprehensive database of address labels, which are amassed through both officially published exchange information and proprietary clustering algorithms. While we strive to ensure the utmost accuracy in representing exchange balances, it is important to note that these figures might not always encapsulate the entirety of an exchange’s reserves, particularly when exchanges refrain from disclosing their official addresses. We urge users to exercise caution and discretion when utilizing these metrics. Glassnode shall not be held responsible for any discrepancies or potential inaccuracies. Please read our Transparency Notice when using exchange data.



Leituras Relacionadas

Trillion-Dollar Pension Fund Entry? Franklin Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment ETF Comes with a Built-in Selling Pressure Ceiling

Franklin Templeton has filed to launch two ETFs that embed a "default configuration" logic into Bitcoin investment, aiming to tap into massive pension fund flows. These "Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment Index ETFs" will initially hold 95% equities and 5% Bitcoin, automatically reinvesting stock dividends to buy Bitcoin. However, a quarterly rebalancing rule forces selling of Bitcoin if its allocation exceeds 5%, capping its maximum holding at 20%. While the product cleverly circumvents advisor reluctance and compliance hurdles by labeling itself as a U.S. equity product, its actual Bitcoin buying power is minimal. Given low dividend yields (e.g., ~1% for broad market indices), annual Bitcoin purchases from a fund the size of Franklin's existing Bitcoin ETF would be a mere $3.6 million—negligible against Bitcoin's daily trading volume. Crucially, during bull markets, the fund becomes a programmed, passive *seller* of Bitcoin, potentially creating sustained sell pressure if many similar funds emerge. The strategy leverages investor inertia and automatic enrollment, similar to the success of target-date funds in 401(k) plans. It also uses an offshore Cayman subsidiary for holding Bitcoin and raises a tax complication where investors must pay taxes on dividends they never receive as cash. Although recent U.S. regulatory changes allow crypto in retirement plans, widespread adoption as a default option faces legal hurdles. The core premise remains: the system doesn't need to convince anyone to buy Bitcoin actively; it simply relies on people doing nothing.

marsbitHá 11m

Trillion-Dollar Pension Fund Entry? Franklin Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment ETF Comes with a Built-in Selling Pressure Ceiling

marsbitHá 11m

Bitcoin Hits 20-Month Low as Largest Bull Suffers $15 Billion Paper Loss

Bitcoin Hits 20-Month Low as Major Bull Loses $15 Billion On June 25th, Bitcoin fell below $60,000, hitting a low of $58,030—its lowest level since October 2024. The sell-off triggered over $1 billion in leveraged liquidations in 24 hours, with longs accounting for $788 million. This marks a more than 53% decline from the October 2025 all-time high of $126,198. A critical factor in the downturn is the weakening position of MicroStrategy, the largest corporate Bitcoin holder. With 847,363 BTC at an average cost of $75,651, the company now faces over $14.6 billion in unrealized losses. Its core financing flywheel—raising capital to buy Bitcoin—is stalling. Its variable-rate preferred shares (STRC), a key fundraising tool, have fallen 25% below their $100 target. This raises doubts about its ability to continue providing steady institutional demand for Bitcoin. Simultaneously, U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs are experiencing significant outflows, with a single-day net outflow of $469 million on June 24th. This represents the most severe sustained capital flight since their launch. The macroeconomic backdrop remains restrictive, with persistent inflation delaying expected Fed rate cuts. Analysts note a shift in capital allocation, with institutional funds moving away from crypto towards AI infrastructure stocks. Immediate pressure comes from approximately $10 billion worth of Bitcoin options expiring on June 26th, which could increase market volatility. The combined effect of these factors—eroding core demand pillars, macro headwinds, and capital rotation—has decisively broken the $60,000 support level.

Foresight NewsHá 17m

Bitcoin Hits 20-Month Low as Largest Bull Suffers $15 Billion Paper Loss

Foresight NewsHá 17m

STRC Falls Below $80, Can Conservative Investors Still Buy the Dip?

The article analyzes whether the STRC (a perpetual preferred stock issued by MicroStrategy) presents a buying opportunity after its price fell below its $100 par value to around $80, offering a seemingly high yield of 13-15%. The core argument is that STRC's discount reflects market skepticism about the sustainability of MicroStrategy's capital structure model, not just temporary panic. This model relies on issuing securities (like STRC) to raise funds to buy more Bitcoin, a "flywheel" that works in a bull market. The recent small sale of BTC to fund dividends, while minor, broke the psychological "never sell" anchor and signaled potential strain. Key risks identified are not a traditional Ponzi collapse but a potential breakdown in the financing narrative: 1) If Bitcoin enters a deep bear market, crushing MicroStrategy's stock premium (mNAV), its ability to raise cheap capital weakens. 2) If STRC remains deeply discounted, it signifies permanently higher funding costs. 3) The high cash dividend yield represents a significant ongoing expense. 4) If selling BTC to pay dividends becomes routine, the bullish narrative reverses. The conclusion is that STRC is not a risk-free high-yield asset. It is a high-coupon bet on whether MicroStrategy's BTC treasury financing model can withstand a bear market. Buying it is a wager that the market will continue to believe in and fund this structure at acceptable costs. The current price asks if this cycle's "casualty" might be a BTC treasury company's融资 model itself.

marsbitHá 33m

STRC Falls Below $80, Can Conservative Investors Still Buy the Dip?

marsbitHá 33m

Why Do Crypto Projects Keep Changing Their Names?

**Why Do Crypto Projects Keep Changing Names?** In the crypto world, changing a project's name is common—over 16% of projects have done so, including major ones like Polygon (formerly Matic Network). This contrasts sharply with traditional businesses, which fiercely protect brand equity. The core reason is that in crypto, brand loyalty is often weak. Users are frequently investors, airdrop hunters, or yield seekers, not traditional consumers. A name associated with price crashes, hacks, or failed narratives becomes a liability, not an asset. Renaming can be a strategic reset to shed this baggage. Name changes serve as a potent marketing tool. They can signal a genuine pivot in strategy or scope (e.g., EthSign dropping "Eth" as it expanded). However, they are often used to "narrative surf," rebranding to align with hot trends like AI, RWA, or the metaverse (e.g., Elrond → MultiversX). Critically, renaming is also a PR tactic to distance a project from past failures like security breaches (e.g., Anyswap → Multichain). The most significant risk emerges when a name change is coupled with a token migration or swap. This process can allow projects to reset exchange price charts, erase visible historical downtrends, and create an illusion of a fresh start. It often facilitates liquidity resets, where low float can be exploited for pumps. More alarmingly, migrations sometimes mask overhauls to tokenomics, introducing substantial new token supply through "ecosystem funds" or "node rewards," effectively diluting existing holders. The fundamental issue isn't renaming itself, which can be valid for strategic evolution. The problem is when it functions as an escape from history—a way to avoid accountability for past mistakes, failed promises, and poor performance. When a project announces a rebrand, the critical questions are: What tangible new capability or strategy does it represent? Has the tokenomics changed? And what part of its past is it most trying to make users forget?

marsbitHá 39m

Why Do Crypto Projects Keep Changing Their Names?

marsbitHá 39m

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片