[Featured Research]Data: A Volatility Slumber

GlassnodePublicado em 2023-01-16Última atualização em 2023-01-16

Resumo

The digital asset market has opened the new year...by staying asleep. Realized volatility for the two major assets has fallen to extreme lows. Such periods have historically preceded explosive market moves, with past examples both cutting asset valuations in half, and triggering new bull markets.

The digital asset market has opened the new year...by staying asleep. Since our final newsletter edition on 12-December (WoC 50, 2022), the markets are almost exactly where we left them.

With that as context, and from the whole Glassnode team, we hope you had a refreshing, and low voilatility break, and welcome you back to the 2023 series of The Week, On-chain.

In a rarely seen feat, Bitcoin managed to trade within a price range of just $557 for over three weeks, with the highest price ($16.9k) just 3.4% above the range low of $16.4k. The end of year period is typically a quiet one for all markets, and in this instance, the digital asset space was no exception.

In this first edition of the year, we will cover the following topics:

1.Extremely low realized volatility, which historically precedes explosive market moves (in both directions), with latest examples of Nov 2018, and Apr-2019.

2.Softness in on-chain activity for BTC and ETH, coincident with low overall market volatility, and setting up weak a baseline for the new year.

Drawdowns in the Realized Cap indicating 2022 is comfortably one of the deepest bear markets to date with respect to capital losses.

Bitcoin markets are infamous for their volatility, however in spite of this, the holiday break was exceptionally quiet. Realized volatility over the last month for BTC declined to multi-year lows of 24.6%, of which there are very few instances with similar levels (marked in 🟦). However, all prior examples preceded much higher volatility environments on the road ahead, with most trading higher, and just one (Nov 2018) trading dramatically lower.

1.Early bull market in 2012-13 where BTC prices were between $5 and $14.

2.Late bear market in 2015 and at several stages through the bull run 2016.

3.Nov-2018 immediately preceding a -50% drawdown in 1-month.

4.Apr-2019 prior to a rally from $4.2k to a peak of $14k in July-2019.

5.Jul-2020 in the lead up to what became the 2020-21 bull run to $64k.

There are even fewer historically quiet periods for ETH, which has seen monthly realized volatility collapse to 39.8%. All primary instances of similarly low market volatility also preceded extreme volatility, with Nov-2018 (-58% sell-off) and Jul-2020 (2020-21 bull) being the primary examples.

A Weak Bitcoin Baseline

Shifting our focus into the on-chain activity space, we can see that a short-term burst of Bitcoin new addresses occurred followed the FTX fiasco, but has since cooled off noticeably. The monthly average 🔴 of New Addresses is returning towards the yearly average baseline 🔵, indicating that network usage is yet to establish a convincing and sustained recovery.

The momentum of on-chain activity metrics is a powerful tool to monitor a recovery in network fundamentals, with the 2019-20 period being a key example from the past.

Despite this short burst of address activity, the total USD value processed by the Bitcoin network has been in free-fall. Daily transfer volume has collapsed from the ~$40B heights in Q3-2022, to just $5.8B/day today.

This returns daily settlement volumes to pre-bull 2020 levels, and largely indicates an expulsion of institutional sized capital flowing across the network.

We can see this in the relative breakdown of transfer volume, where the dominance of $10M+ sized transactions has been a primary contributor to this decline. Large size transfers have fallen from 42.8% dominance prior to the FTX collapse, to just 19.0% today.

This suggests a significant lull in institutional sized capital flows, and perhaps a serious shaking of confidence occurring amongst this cohort. It may also reflect, in part, and sadly, an expulsion of the questionable capital flows associated with the FTX/Alameda entities.

Demand for Bitcoin blockspace continues to remain weak, with negligible upwards pressure on the Bitcoin fee market. The 4-yr Z-Score of miner revenues is yet to make any noteworthy progress back towards positive territory, and remains -0.67 standard deviations below the mean.

This quiet on-chain activity can also be seen in the compressing USD denominated exchange flows for both BTC and ETH. The chart below presents Inflows (+ve) and Outflows (-ve) for Bitcoin 🟠 and Ether 🔵 related to exchange entities we monitor.

Bitcoin inflow volumes are currently between $350M and $400M/day, which are a far cry from the multi-billion dollar levels seen throughout in 2021-22. Also of note is the expanded scale of ETH exchange flows, which have grown from just 30% dominance up to May-2021, to 42% today. Note ETH dominance here considers the total USD exchange flows (in and out), and calculated as ETH / (BTC+ETH).

Ethereum Remains Quiet

The Bitcoin network is not alone in experiencing this extremely light on-chain utilization, with the average gas price paid on the Ethereum chain remaining near cycle lows. The mean gas price since September has ranged between 16 and 23 Gwei, levels last seen during in the June-July 2021 consolidation, and in May 2020 shortly after the COVID market panic.

Breaking down gas consumption by sector, we can see that several domains are declining in their relative gas consumption dominance: MEV bots, Bridges, DeFi protocols, and ERC-20 tokens. Between Sept-2020 and Sept-2021, these four sectors represented a combined 45.5% of gas consumption, with DeFi protocols commanding the majority of this.

Today however, these four sectors represent for less than half of their peak dominance, and account for 22.6% of network gas consumption.

The sector which has seen a recent influx of activity and attention are NFTs, which dominated gas consumption throughout 2022, and have recently increased from 13% to 22% dominance.

By and large, the leading NFT markets and projects have maintained a primary foothold on the Ethereum main-chain, and as yet, there has not been a notable migration of existing NFTs towards bridges and other chains. This is potentially a result of several high profile bridge hacks throughout 2022, as well as lower gas fees on main-chain at present.

A Realized Drawdown

The Realized Cap remains one of the most important metrics in on-chain analysis, providing an elegant tool to monitor capital inflows and outflows from digital assets. The underlying assumption being that when coins transact, their value is pricestamped, and thus avoids valuing long lost coins (like Satoshi's) at the spot price, as it is via Market Cap.

Whilst not perfect, the Realized Cap is arguably one of the better tools available to measure true capital inflows, to compare valuations between assets. It acts to both filter out lost coins, partially account for volume churn (where the same coins constantly transact), and better reflects the true invested value by the market.

With this as context, the Bitcoin Realized Cap has declined by -18.8% since the ATH, representing a net capital outflow of -$88.4B from the network. This makes for the second largest relative decline in history, and the largest in terms of USD realized losses. This resets the Realized cap to May 2021 levels, expelling all invested value throughout the second peak of H2-2021.

The Ethereum Realized Cap has drawndown by an even larger relative scale, declining by -29.2% since the ATH set in Jan-2022. Ether investors have locked in a total of -$67.1B in net realized losses over the course of 2022.

This also puts the prevailing bear market as the worst in history on a USD denominated realized loss basis, but not yet on a relative scale, eclipsed by the 2018-19 bear market at a 35.8% drawdown.

Live Advanced Chart

Finally, we close with a new interpretation of market dominance, aimed at addressing some of the aforementioned shortcomings associated with Market Cap dominance. The principle issue with the widely used 'Bitcoin dominance' metric is that the market cap of relatively illiquid tokens are prone to manipulation (such as FTT and others supported by the FTX entity). As such, entities with large and often illiquid stakes can support inflated valuations on paper, but which diverge significantly from underlying market realities.

The model below presents the simplest implementation of Realized Cap Dominance, which is a counterpart to the the more traditional Market Cap Dominance. It is designed to track the relative structural capital inflow/outflows across the two major and most liquid digital assets, BTC and ETH.

This tool, and principle can be applied to any basket of coins and tokens to track structural changes in dominance, better reflecting real capital flows, and discounting illiquid supply (such as un-vested token allocations, protocol treasuries, or lost supply).

Summary and Conclusions

The 2022-23 holiday period has been historically quiet, and it is rare for such conditions to stick around for long. Past occasions where BTC and ETH volatility was this low have preceded extremely volatile market environments, with past examples trading both higher and lower.

On-chain activity for the two majors remains extremely weak, despite a short-term bump following FTX. Using both on-chain activity, and realized cap drawdowns, it is safe to say that the excesses of H2-2021 has been largely expelled from the system. This process has been painful for investors, however has brought market valuations closer to their underlying fundamentals.

Thank you for returning as a reader of The Week On-chain, and we look forward to documenting all that 2023 holds in store for us.

Leituras Relacionadas

The Full Story Behind Encryption Unicorn Blockstream's Deep Entanglement in Serious Fraud Allegations

This article details allegations of serious fraud surrounding the crypto company Blockstream, founded by Bitcoin pioneer Adam Back. Investigation account NatInfoSec accuses Blockstream of raising billions through its Blockstream Mining Note (BMN) products, which offer high fixed yields of up to 20% from purported mining revenue. The core allegations are: 1) Blockstream's public mining hash rate (15 EH/s) appears insufficient to cover the massive payout obligations from sold BMN notes, raising questions about the true source of investor payouts. 2) Key executive Christopher William Cook, central to the mining operations, has a prior federal conviction for mail fraud, a fact not disclosed to investors. Cook's background and lavish lifestyle are highlighted as red flags. 3) The structure allows payouts from any source of BTC, not necessarily mining revenue, which critics argue gives it Ponzi-like characteristics. The controversy also touches on Bitcoin Standard Treasury Company (BSTR), a related entity planning a SPAC上市. Critics question whether BMN's liabilities and Cook's record should be disclosed in BSTR's filings. BitMEX Research offered a tempered analysis, confirming Cook's criminal record is likely true and the high yields concerning, but found other claims like insufficient抵押证据 less substantiated. Community debate centers on the need for verifiable proof of Blockstream's mining output and revenue. The article concludes that while fraud is not proven, BMN presents significant, unresolved questions regarding its actual scale, the source of its high fixed returns, the verifiability of its mining operations and payouts, and the full disclosure of associated risks and personnel backgrounds. Blockstream has not yet issued a formal response.

链捕手Há 29m

The Full Story Behind Encryption Unicorn Blockstream's Deep Entanglement in Serious Fraud Allegations

链捕手Há 29m

a16z: In the AI Era, Company Competition for Talent Starts with Job Title Naming

The article discusses how companies in the AI era are competing for talent through strategic "title arbitrage," or the renaming of key roles to reflect and attract new, high-value capabilities. It uses Palantir's creation of the "Forward-Deployed Engineer" (FDE) as a prime example. This title reframed client-facing technical work from a peripheral "implementation" role into a core, high-status engineering function. The move was strategic, allowing Palantir to attract talent that blended technical skill with business acumen and to dominate the market's perception of this capability. The piece argues that job titles are an organizational language that signals the value and authority of certain work. Effective new titles, like "Data Scientist" or "Site Reliability Engineer," emerge when a role's strategic importance genuinely outgrows its old name. Conversely, mere title inflation without substantive change is ineffective. For AI companies, particularly in B2B, this is a crucial strategy. AI transformation creates new high-leverage roles (e.g., "Legal Engineer," "GTM Engineer") that combine domain expertise with technical automation. By naming these roles, a company can help clients internally legitimize these change-makers. This, in turn, builds market mindshare, associating the company with the new capability. In conclusion, as AI blurs the lines between product and service, the ability to accurately name and organize the critical, client-adjacent work that defines product learning will be a key competitive advantage. The first to define this new organizational language plants a flag in the market's mind.

marsbitHá 1h

a16z: In the AI Era, Company Competition for Talent Starts with Job Title Naming

marsbitHá 1h

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片