Small-Cap Tokens Hit Four-Year Low, Is the 'Altcoin Bull Run' Completely Hopeless?

marsbitPublicado em 2025-12-16Última atualização em 2025-12-16

Resumo

Small-cap cryptocurrency tokens have plummeted to multi-year lows, with indices tracking altcoins significantly underperforming both major cryptocurrencies and traditional equities. In 2024–2025, while the S&P 500 and Nasdaq 100 delivered strong double-digit returns with limited drawdowns, altcoin indices like the CoinDesk 80 and MarketVector Small-Cap Index fell sharply—by nearly 40% and to November 2020 lows, respectively. These altcoin indices showed high correlation (0.9) with large-cap crypto assets like Bitcoin and Ethereum but delivered deeply negative returns, higher volatility, and worse risk-adjusted performance (negative Sharpe ratios). Liquidity is increasingly concentrated in high-value, institutionally supported assets such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, SOL, and XRP, indicating a structural shift away from speculative small-cap tokens. The data suggests that altcoins offered no diversification benefits and instead magnified losses during a period of broader market growth.

Author: Gino Matos

Compiled by: Luffy, Foresight News

Since January 2024, the performance comparison between cryptocurrencies and stocks indicates that the so-called new "altcoin trading" is essentially just a substitute for stock trading.

In 2024, the S&P 500 index had a return of approximately 25%, and in 2025 it reached 17.5%, with a cumulative two-year increase of about 47%. During the same period, the Nasdaq 100 index rose by 25.9% and 18.1% respectively, with a cumulative increase of nearly 49%.

The CoinDesk 80 Index, which tracks 80 assets outside the top 20 cryptocurrencies by market capitalization, plummeted 46.4% in the first quarter of 2025 alone, and by mid-July, its year-to-date decline was about 38%.

By the end of 2025, the MarketVector Digital Assets 100 Small-Cap Index fell to its lowest level since November 2020, wiping out over $1 trillion in total cryptocurrency market capitalization.

This divergence in performance is by no means a statistical error. Not only did the overall altcoin portfolio have a negative return, but its volatility was comparable to or even higher than that of stocks; in contrast, major U.S. stock indices achieved double-digit growth with controllable drawdowns.

For Bitcoin investors, the core question is: Can allocating to small-cap tokens deliver risk-adjusted returns? Or is such an allocation merely taking on exposure to a negative Sharpe ratio while maintaining similar correlations to stocks? (Note: The Sharpe ratio is a core metric for measuring the risk-adjusted return of an investment portfolio. Its calculation formula is: Annualized portfolio return - Annualized risk-free rate / Annualized volatility of the portfolio.)

Choosing a Reliable Altcoin Index

For analysis, CryptoSlate tracked three altcoin indices.

The first is the CoinDesk 80 Index, launched in January 2025. This index covers 80 assets outside the CoinDesk 20 Index, providing a portfolio of diversified assets beyond Bitcoin, Ethereum, and other major tokens.

The second is the MarketVector Digital Assets 100 Small-Cap Index. This index selects the 50 smallest tokens by market cap from a basket of 100 assets, serving as a barometer for the market's "junk assets."

The third is a small-cap index launched by Kaiko. This is a research product, not a tradable benchmark, offering a clear sell-side quantitative perspective for analyzing the small-cap asset group.

These three depict the market landscape from different dimensions: the overall altcoin portfolio, high-beta small-cap tokens, and a quantitative research perspective. Yet, the conclusions they point to are highly consistent.

In contrast, the benchmark performance of the stock market shows a completely opposite trend.

In 2024, major U.S. indices achieved gains of around 25%, and in 2025, they also saw double-digit increases, with relatively limited drawdowns during the period. During this time, the maximum intra-year drawdown of the S&P 500 index was only in the mid-to-high single digits, while the Nasdaq 100 index maintained a strong upward trend throughout.

Both major indices achieved compounded annual growth without significant givebacks of gains.

The trend of the overall altcoin indices, however, is vastly different. Reports from CoinDesk Indices show that the CoinDesk 80 Index plummeted 46.4% in the first quarter alone, while the large-cap tracking CoinDesk 20 Index fell 23.2% during the same period.

By mid-July 2025, the CoinDesk 80 Index was down 38% year-to-date, whereas the CoinDesk 5 Index, which tracks Bitcoin, Ethereum, and three other major tokens, achieved a gain of 12% to 13% during the same period.

Andrew Baehr of CoinDesk Indices, in an interview with ETF.com, described this phenomenon as "identical correlation, vastly different profit and loss performance."

The correlation between the CoinDesk 5 Index and the CoinDesk 80 Index is as high as 0.9, meaning their price movements are completely aligned in direction, but the former achieved a slight double-digit growth while the latter plunged nearly 40%.

It turns out that the diversification benefits of holding small-cap altcoins are minimal, while the performance cost is extremely heavy.

The performance of the small-cap asset sector is even worse. According to Bloomberg, by November 2025, the MarketVector Digital Assets 100 Small-Cap Index had fallen to its lowest level since November 2020.

Over the past five years, the return of this small-cap index has been approximately -8%, while the corresponding large-cap index has surged about 380%. Institutional funds clearly favor large-cap assets and avoid tail risks.

Looking at the performance of altcoins in 2024, the Kaiko small-cap index fell over 30% for the year, and mid-cap tokens also struggled to keep up with Bitcoin's gains.

Market winners were highly concentrated in a few top tokens, such as SOL and Ripple. Although the share of altcoin trading volume once rebounded to the 2021 high in 2024, 64% of the trading volume was concentrated in the top ten altcoins.

Liquidity in the cryptocurrency market has not disappeared but has shifted towards higher-value assets.

Sharpe Ratio and Drawdown Magnitude

If compared from the perspective of risk-adjusted returns, the gap widens further. The CoinDesk 80 Index and various small-cap altcoin indices not only have returns deep in negative territory but also have volatility comparable to or even higher than stocks.

The CoinDesk 80 Index plummeted 46.4% in a single quarter; the MarketVector small-cap index fell to pandemic-era lows in November after another round of declines.

The overall altcoin index experienced multiple index-level halving drawdowns: the Kaiko small-cap index fell over 30% in 2024, the CoinDesk 80 Index crashed 46% in Q1 2025, and the small-cap index fell again to 2020 lows by the end of 2025.

In contrast, the S&P 500 and Nasdaq 100 indices achieved cumulative returns of 25% and 17% over two years, with maximum drawdowns only in the mid-to-high single digits. The U.S. stock market had fluctuations, but they were overall controllable; the volatility of cryptocurrency indices, however, was highly destructive.

Even if the high volatility of altcoins is considered a structural feature, their unit risk return from 2024 to 2025 was still far lower than that of holding major U.S. stock indices.

From 2024 to 2025, the overall altcoin index had a negative Sharpe ratio; meanwhile, the S&P and Nasdaq indices had strong Sharpe ratios even without volatility adjustment. After volatility adjustment, the gap between them further widened.

Bitcoin Investors and Cryptocurrency Liquidity

The first insight from the above data is the trend of liquidity concentration and migration towards high-value assets. Reports from Bloomberg and Whalebook on the MarketVector small-cap index both pointed out that since early 2024, small-cap altcoins have consistently underperformed, and institutional funds have instead flowed into Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs.

Combined with Kaiko's observations, although the share of altcoin trading volume rebounded to 2021 levels, funds were concentrated in the top ten altcoins. The market trend is already clear: liquidity has not completely left the cryptocurrency market but has shifted towards higher-value assets.

The previous altcoin bull market was essentially just a basis trade strategy, not a structural outperformance of assets. In December 2024, the CryptoRank Altcoin Bull Index once soared to 88 points, then plummeted to 16 points in April 2025, completely giving back all gains.

The 2024 altcoin bull market ultimately turned into a typical bubble burst; by mid-2025, the overall altcoin portfolio had almost given back all its gains, while the S&P and Nasdaq indices continued to compound growth.

For wealth advisors and asset allocators considering diversification beyond Bitcoin and Ethereum, the data from CoinDesk provides a clear case reference.

As of mid-July 2025, the large-cap tracking CoinDesk 5 Index achieved a slight double-digit growth year-to-date, while the diversified altcoin index CoinDesk 80 plummeted nearly 40%, yet their correlation was as high as 0.9.

Investors allocating to small-cap altcoins did not obtain substantial diversification benefits but instead suffered far higher return losses and drawdown risks compared to Bitcoin, Ethereum, and U.S. stocks, while still being exposed to the same macro drivers.

Current capital views most altcoins as tactical trading targets, not strategic allocation assets. From 2024 to 2025, Bitcoin and Ethereum spot ETFs had significantly better risk-adjusted returns, and U.S. stocks also performed brilliantly.

Liquidity in the altcoin market is increasingly concentrating towards a few "institutional-grade coins," such as SOL, Ripple, and other tokens with independent positive factors or clear regulatory prospects. Asset diversity at the index level is being squeezed by the market.

In 2025, the S&P 500 and Nasdaq 100 indices rose about 17%, while the CoinDesk 80 cryptocurrency index fell 40%, and small-cap cryptocurrencies fell 30%

What Does This Mean for Liquidity in the Next Market Cycle?

The market performance from 2024 to 2025 tested whether altcoins could achieve diversification value or outperform in an environment of rising macro risk appetite. During this period, U.S. stocks achieved double-digit growth for two consecutive years with controllable drawdowns.

Bitcoin and Ethereum gained institutional recognition through spot ETFs and benefited from a moderating regulatory environment.

In contrast, the overall altcoin index not only had negative returns and larger drawdowns but also maintained high correlations with major crypto tokens and stocks, yet failed to provide corresponding compensation for the additional risks investors undertook.

Institutional capital always chases performance. The five-year return of the MarketVector small-cap index is -8%, while the corresponding large-cap index surged 380%. This gap reflects the migration of capital towards assets with clear regulation, sufficient derivatives market liquidity, and well-developed custody infrastructure.

The CoinDesk 80 Index's 46% plunge in the first quarter and its 38% year-to-date decline by mid-July indicate that the trend of capital migration towards high-value assets is not reversing but accelerating.

For Bitcoin and Ethereum investors evaluating whether to allocate to small-cap crypto tokens, the data from 2024 to 2025 provides a clear answer: the absolute returns of the overall altcoin portfolio underperformed U.S. stocks, and the risk-adjusted returns were inferior to Bitcoin and Ethereum; despite a correlation as high as 0.9 with major crypto tokens, it provided no diversification value.

Perguntas relacionadas

QWhat was the performance difference between the S&P 500 and the CoinDesk 80 Index in 2025?

AIn 2025, the S&P 500 index rose by approximately 17.5%, while the CoinDesk 80 Index plummeted by 40%.

QAccording to the article, what is the main reason for the poor performance of small-cap altcoins?

AThe main reason is that institutional capital is migrating towards high-value assets like Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs, which are seen as having clearer regulatory prospects and better infrastructure, leaving small-cap altcoins with negative returns and high volatility.

QWhat was the correlation between the CoinDesk 5 Index and the CoinDesk 80 Index, and what does this imply?

AThe correlation between the CoinDesk 5 Index and the CoinDesk 80 Index was as high as 0.9. This implies that their price directions moved almost identically, yet the performance was drastically different, with the former achieving double-digit gains while the latter fell nearly 40%, offering no meaningful diversification benefit.

QTo what level did the MarketVector Digital Assets 100 Small-Cap Index fall by the end of 2025?

ABy the end of 2025, the MarketVector Digital Assets 100 Small-Cap Index fell to its lowest level since November 2020.

QWhat does the article conclude about allocating to small-cap tokens for Bitcoin investors?

AThe article concludes that allocating to small-cap tokens did not provide a risk-adjusted return benefit. Instead, it resulted in significantly worse returns and higher drawdown risks compared to holding Bitcoin, Ethereum, or U.S. stocks, while still being exposed to the same macroeconomic factors.

Leituras Relacionadas

TRON Nile Testnet Deploys Quantum-Resistant Signature Cryptography

TRON's Nile testnet has deployed an upgrade implementing quantum-resistant signature cryptography, a proactive step to secure its ledger against potential future decryption threats from quantum computing. This development, confirmed via official sources like nileex.io and github.com, represents a notable Layer 1 security enhancement. The report emphasizes its relevance within the current market focus on stablecoins. Crucially, the upgrade is currently active only on the testnet, not the TRON mainnet. While providing a verified data point for the market to weigh, the article cautions that this single development should be considered alongside broader market factors and does not guarantee any specific price action. It stands as a snapshot of ongoing protocol development.

bitcoinistHá 28m

TRON Nile Testnet Deploys Quantum-Resistant Signature Cryptography

bitcoinistHá 28m

BIS Report Compliance Observations: The True Risks of Stablecoins Go Beyond 'De-pegging'

The BIS report, "Anchoring trust in money: innovation beyond stablecoins," highlights that the primary risks of stablecoins extend beyond potential de-pegging. It argues that the core challenge is whether stablecoins can be integrated into a financial system that is identifiable, monitorable, accountable, and regulatable. While acknowledging efficiency gains like faster payments and programmability, BIS emphasizes that money requires an institutional framework—including legal certainty, liquidity support, and financial integrity controls—which many stablecoins currently lack. The report details compliance risks, noting that while blockchain transactions are transparent, address visibility does not equate to identity or purpose clarity. This creates a systemic risk as pseudonymity, non-custodial wallets, and cross-chain bridges can undermine AML/CFT controls. Furthermore, these risks can spill over into the traditional financial system through on- and off-ramps. The future direction, per BIS, is not to prohibit innovation but to embed regulatory rules—such as identity verification and transaction screening—directly into the technological infrastructure of tokenized finance. The key takeaway for compliance is that any new financial instrument must clearly address questions of customer identification, transaction monitoring, accountability, and cross-border rule consistency to be viable as a mainstream payment tool.

marsbitHá 57m

BIS Report Compliance Observations: The True Risks of Stablecoins Go Beyond 'De-pegging'

marsbitHá 57m

When US Giants Collectively "Defect" to Chinese AI Models

When Silicon Valley Giants Turn to Chinese AI Models to Cut Costs A surprising trend is emerging: major U.S. tech companies are significantly reducing AI costs by switching to Chinese models. Coinbase, the largest U.S. cryptocurrency exchange, reportedly halved its AI spending after migrating to China's GLM-5.2 and Kimi 2.7 models, despite increasing usage. They achieved this through a sophisticated three-part strategy: implementing an automatic routing system to select the most cost-effective model per task, boosting cache hit rates from 5% to 60% to reuse computations, and employing "context engineering" to provide AI with more precise, less cluttered information. They are not alone. AI startup Lindy switched from Claude to DeepSeek, saving millions, while Snowflake's tests found GLM-5.2 solved 66% of coding tasks compared to Claude Opus's 67%—but at a fraction of the cost (output pricing is 5-7 times lower). While the top Western models may offer slightly better stability, the massive price differential is leading many businesses to reconsider their value proposition. This shift signals a deeper change in the AI industry, moving beyond pure performance benchmarks to a fierce cost competition. As pressure mounts, even OpenAI and Anthropic have begun slashing prices. For users, this means more choices, lower costs, and a crucial lesson: using multiple models based on task complexity, optimizing with caching, and keeping contexts lean are now key to leveraging AI efficiently and affordably.

marsbitHá 1h

When US Giants Collectively "Defect" to Chinese AI Models

marsbitHá 1h

BIS Report Compliance Watch: The Real Risks of Stablecoins Are Not Just 'De-pegging'

BIS Report Compliance Observations: The real risks of stablecoins go beyond "depegging" The BIS report "Anchoring trust in money: innovation beyond stablecoins" argues that while stablecoins and tokenization offer efficiency gains, their primary risk lies in fitting into an identifiable, monitorable, accountable, and regulatable financial system. Money's trust stems not just from technology but from institutional arrangements: a common unit of account, guaranteed redemption at par, liquidity support, regulatory frameworks, and financial integrity requirements. Stablecoins, operating on permissionless blockchains with pseudo-anonymity and non-custodial wallets, create systemic compliance gaps: unclear customer identity, incomplete fund origins, unexplained transaction purposes, fragmented cross-chain paths, and ambiguous liability. On-chain transparency does not equal compliance transparency. Public addresses don't reveal identity or intent. While blockchain analytics aid law enforcement, they cannot replace routine, large-scale AML/CFT controls. Effective compliance requires a closed-loop process encompassing customer onboarding, transaction monitoring, investigation, reporting, and audit. Stablecoin risks are not confined to the blockchain; they re-enter the traditional financial system via on/off-ramps, exchanges, and payment institutions. This forces banks to monitor client accounts for activity linked to virtual assets. The future direction is not to prohibit innovation but to embed rules into the technology. Tokenized finance should integrate with the existing two-tier monetary system, embedding compliance—like customer identification, pre-transaction screening, and auditable data trails—directly into the transaction flow. For compliance professionals, the key takeaway is that any new financial instrument must answer core questions: Who identifies the customer? Who monitors transactions? Who handles exceptions? Who is liable? Compliance is not the antithesis of innovation but the essential infrastructure for its sustainable growth.

链捕手Há 1h

BIS Report Compliance Watch: The Real Risks of Stablecoins Are Not Just 'De-pegging'

链捕手Há 1h

When American Giants 'Defect' to Chinese AI Models

Summary: The trend of major U.S. technology firms adopting more cost-effective Chinese AI models is gaining momentum. A prime example is Coinbase, the largest U.S. cryptocurrency exchange, which reportedly halved its AI expenditure by switching to Chinese models GLM-5.2 and Kimi 2.7, while its usage volume increased. This was achieved through a sophisticated cost-saving system featuring intelligent model routing (selecting the most suitable model per task), dramatically improving cache hit rates from 5% to 60%, and implementing "Context Engineering" to streamline prompts. This shift is not isolated. Other companies like the AI startup Lindy and data cloud firm Snowflake are making similar moves, drawn by the significant price disparity. For instance, GLM-5.2 costs $1.40/$4.40 per million tokens (input/output), compared to $5/$25 for Claude Opus 4.7. While top Western models may offer slightly higher stability or speed in complex tasks, the performance gap is narrowing, making the price difference harder to justify for many enterprise use cases. The implications are significant for both businesses and individual users. It highlights the importance of a multi-model strategy based on task requirements, the value of caching and reusing outputs, and the effectiveness of providing concise context. Ultimately, this migration signals a potential reshaping of the AI industry's pricing model, moving competition from pure performance benchmarks to practical cost-effectiveness, with increased choice and downward price pressure benefiting end-users.

链捕手Há 1h

When American Giants 'Defect' to Chinese AI Models

链捕手Há 1h

Trading

Spot
活动图片

Categorias popularesright-arrow

Etiquetas Popularesright-arrow