Bitcoin On-Chain Demands Suggests That The Market Has Reached Its Bottom

Bitcoin on-chain analysis can be a good way to try to guess where the market is headed. The market tends to repeat itself with metrics looking the same before a bull or a bear rally, thus making this data a pretty good indicator of what’s to come. Analyst Willy Woo uses this same data to demonstrate a pattern that occurs before the bull rally, the criteria which are being met once again.

Start Of A Bull Run?

In a recent string of tweets, analyst Willy Woo presents data from on-chain analysis that points to the bitcoin dump having reached its bottom. According to him, “Price in relation to on-chain demand from both speculative and hodl category of investors are now both at peak oversold levels.” Woo points out that the last time that something like this had happened was when bitcoin reached its bottom following the COVID crash.

5 BTC + 300 Free Spins for new players & 15 BTC + 35.000 Free Spins every month, only at mBitcasino. Play Now!

The analyst further outlines the times where this has happened in the past. Going as far back as 2012, he points out the same had been the case in February of that year. What followed had been the memorable 2021-2013 bull run that saw bitcoin gain more popularity among investors.

Related Reading | Bitcoin Halving To Bring The Subsequent Crypto Frenzy

Fast forward to 2015 and the same had been the case in January of that year. This time, the on-chain metric spelled the bottom of the bear market that had begun previously in 2014, putting an end to the onslaught.

Get 110 USDT Futures Bonus for FREE!

If Woo is right and the on-chain metric continues the way it has historically, then bitcoin may very well have reached the bottom, suggesting that this is the end of the downtrend. However, there is no telling if this is actually the case given that bitcoin had recorded back-to-back bull rallies in 2021.

Bitcoin On The Charts

Bitcoin has lost almost 50% from its all-time high of $69k which it hit in November of last year. This has however not affected the profits of the majority of holders. The digital asset remains one with the highest volume of holders that remain in profit after the market crash.

Related Reading | El Salvador Chivo Bitcoin Wallet Relaunch To Serve 4 Million Users

According to data from IntoTheBlock, 60% of all bitcoin holders are still in profit at current prices. It is important to note that the cryptocurrency was subject to massive sell-offs when investors panicked that the downtrend will continue. Most however have still kept their highly profitable status, with only 35% of all holders currently losing at market prices.

Bitcoin price chart from

Bulls struggle to pull BTC up as bears take hold | Source: BTCUSD on

The majority are long-term holders and indicators point to investors still being very bullish on the digital asset despite the downtrend. With its current growth curve, it is expected that the cryptocurrency will see 1 billion holders in the next four years, making it a highly sought-after asset.

Featured image from Bitcoin News, chart from


Tagged : / / / / /

The Ethereum Foundation Sold At The Top Again. Did They Know Something We Didn’t?

Apparently, the Ethereum Foundation employs incredible traders. Once again, they managed to cash out at the very top. On November 16th, ETH was worth an all-time high of $4891. On the very next day, the Ethereum Foundation sent 20,000 ETH to Kraken and sold them. Is this suspicious at all? Not per se, but this is the second time that they pull the same magic move. 

Related Reading | Why The Ethereum Foundation Launched A Client Incentive Program

A professional trader that goes by the name Edward Morra on Twitter was the first to spot the trade. “Friendly reminder that ETH foundation cashed out at the top (again). ETH down 40+% since then,” he said. Morra also provided a chart that shows ETH’s sharp decline in price since the sale.

5 BTC + 300 Free Spins for new players & 15 BTC + 35.000 Free Spins every month, only at mBitcasino. Play Now!

To add insult to injury, the Ethereum Foundation only paid $20 in gas fees. That might be the most impressive feat of them all.

At the time of writing, the Ethereum Foundation’s wallet holds 353,318 ETH, which is approximately $835K at current prices.

Get 110 USDT Futures Bonus for FREE!

What Do We Know About The Organization’s Previous Sell-Off?

Back to Morra, his Twitter followers told him that this information was of no use to them this late in the game. The trader surprised the world and pulled an ace up his sleeve. As it turns out, Morra tweeted about the trade at the time it happened. Not only that, he warned them, “They cashed out 35k ETH on 17th of May this year, marked on the chart.”

As you can see on the chart, on May 17th the price of ETH was near its previous peak. And after the Ethereum Foundation sold, ETH trended down for months and months. Is this a coincidence? Does the foundation employ great traders? Or, is there something else to this story? Did they dump on retail ETH holders? Did the Ethereum Foundation know anything that the rest of the world didn’t?

At the time of the first sell-off, journalist Colin Wu highlighted the trade and said, “The Ethereum Foundation transferred 35,000 Eth to the Kraken Exchange on May 17. Vitalik said bubbles could have ended already on May 20.” Analyzing the move, Wu said, “This is a normal operation, but it also means that the Foundation thought that bear market is coming.”

The gas fee for this operation was 0.00240474 ETH, or $5.66 at the time of writing. Wow.

ETHUSD price chart for 01/25/2022 - TradingView

ETH price chart for 01/25/2022 on Bitfinex | Source: BTC/USD on

What’s The Ethereum Foundation Anyway?

According to Ethereum’s official site:

“The EF is not a company, or even a traditional non-profit. Their role is not to control or lead Ethereum, nor they are the only organization that funds critical development of Ethereum-related technologies. The EF is one part of a much larger ecosystem.”

The Ethereum Foundation distributes funds to developers via the Ecosystem Support Program and the Fellowship Program, organizes Devcom, and more. To do all that, they surely need Fiat currency in some capacity. The trade makes sense from that angle.

Related Reading | Ethereum Foundation Devs Discuss ETH2 Launch & Economics

The question, though, is, did they know that a crash was coming? And if they did, did they reach that conclusion through technical and on-chain analysis or by… other methods?

Featured Image by PatriestB on Pixabay | Charts by TradingView


Tagged : / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

Are We In A Bear Market? Glassnode Analyses The Latest Bitcoin Crash

Let’s cut to the chase: Glassnode thinks we’re in a bear market. In their latest “The Week On-Chain” newsletter, the company tries to “establish the likelihood that a prolonged bear market is in play” by “using historical investor behaviour, and profitability patterns as our guide.” One thing’s for sure, the recent crash was severe, and “such a heavy drawdown is likely to change investor perceptions and sentiment at a macro scale.”

Related Reading | Bitcoin Leads As Markets Sees Record Outflows. Bear Market Incoming?

How severe was it? According to Glassnode, “this is now the second worst sell-off since the 2018-20 bear market, eclipsed only by July 2021, where the market fell -54% from the highs set in April.” Apart from the price, investors “capitulated over $2.5 Billion in net realised value on-chain this week.” Who were those paper hand investors? “The lion’s share of these losses are attributed to Short-Term Holders.” Of course.

5 BTC + 300 Free Spins for new players & 15 BTC + 35.000 Free Spins every month, only at mBitcasino. Play Now!

Glassnode Points Out The Bear Market Indicators

  • The first indicator Glassnode goes for is “The Net Unrealised Profit/Loss (NUPL) metric.” Which measures “the overall market profitability as a proportion of market cap.” How is Bitcoin doing on that front? “NUPL is currently trading at 0.325 which indicates that an equivalent to 32.5% of the Bitcoin market cap is held as an unrealised profit.”

Price drawdown from ATH - Glassnode

BTC Price Drawdown from ATH | Source: Glassnode

How does this point to a bear market? “Considering previous cycles, such low profitability is typical in the early to mid phase of a bear market (orange). One could also reasonably argue that a bear market started in May 2021 based on this observation.” This is not enough, though. But Glassnode has more.

  • The second indicator the company hit us with is “The MVRV Ratio.” This one “is calculated as the market cap, divided by the realised cap; and is a useful tool for identifying periods of high, and poor investor profitability.”

How does this point to a bear market? “With a current MVRV-Z reading of 0.85,  the market is well within territory visited in bearish markets, and a bearish divergence is noted, similar to the NUPL metric above.” Is this enough? No way. But Glassnode has an ace up its sleeve.

Get 110 USDT Futures Bonus for FREE!

  • The third indicator is “the Realised-to-Liveliness Ratio (RTLR).” They use “the Realised Price using Liveliness in the denominator” to calculate this one. 

How does this point to a bear market? “The market is now trading below the RTLR price of $39.2k, but above the Realised price of $24.2k. Again, this is often observed during early to mid stage bear markets.”

Who Sold And Who Is Still Holding Strong?

There’s no surprise here. The “Short-Term Holders (STH)” are selling. How does Glassnode define STHs, though? By the age of their coins. “Coins are considered to be owned by STHs when they are younger than ~155-days, and are statistically more likely to be spent in the face of volatility.” No surprise there either.

It’s worth pointing out that the STH’s coins are “currently held at a loss.” In fact, “as of this week, almost the entire STH supply is underwater.” That could be scary for newcomers, so those coins are at risk of being sold. At a loss. These people are going to regret their emotional decisions for life, but that’s a topic for another article.

BTCUSD price chart for 01/24/2022 - TradingView

BTC price chart for 01/24/2022 on Oanda | Source: BTC/USD on

The other question here is, who’s holding strong? According to Glassnode, “Interestingly, STH supply remains near multi-year lows, which is indicative of their counter-part, the Long-Term Holders (LTHs), who appear impressively unfazed by such a severe drawdown.” Of course. People who already understood the game are not easy to shake.

How are the LTH’s coins doing? “Over 59.3% of the circulating supply has now been dormant for over 1yr, increasing by 5.8% of circulating supply in the last three months.” This sounds bullish, but Glassnode finds a way to rain on the LTH’s parade. “Whilst a rising, and large proportion of mature coins is generally considered constructive, it once again bears similarities to a bear market, a time when only the HODLers and patient accumulators remain.”

Related Reading | Bitcoin Bottom Signal From Bear Market, Black Thursday Could Save The Bull Run

Conclusions And Hopium

According to Glassnode, one could argue that the “bear market started in May 2021.” Does it feel like a bear market, though? No, it doesn’t. It doesn’t feel like a bull market, either. We may be in a new phase. The Bitcoin cycle might be dead. Or maybe we’re just in a bear market as Glassnode tried to prove. Either way, LTHs are not selling.

Featured Image by mana5280 on Unsplash  | Charts by Glassnode and TradingView


Tagged : / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

Bitcoin Supply is Moving to Strong Hands amid BTC On-Chain Analysis Going Mainstream

Ever since Bitcoin (BTC) hit an all-time high (ATH) price of $69,000 earlier this month, the leading cryptocurrency has retraced, even falling below the psychological price of $60K. Bitcoin was hovering around $57,636 during intraday trading, according to CoinMarketCap. - 2021-11-26T163055.077.jpg

Nevertheless, this correction has not dampened the spirits of strong hands, investors who hold for future purposes, because they are accumulating more coins. Market analyst Will Clemente confirmed:

“Over the last two weeks, clear bullish divergence between BTC supply moving to strong hands and price.”


Bitcoin whales have also been on a buying spree based on the opportunity presented by the price grind down. On-chain insight provider Santiment noted:

“If you’ve been waiting for Bitcoin whales to show signs of accumulation, our data indicates it’s happening once again. In the past week, a total 59K BTC has been added to addresses that hold between 100 to 10K BTC. This is 0.29% of the total supply.”


Crypto analyst Ali Martinez echoed these sentiments and said:

“Whales are buying your Bitcoin. Roughly 30,000 BTC have left exchanges since the correction began on Nov. 8. That’s $1,710,000,000 worth of BTC.”


The demand for Bitcoin on-chain analysis is increasing

Bitcoin on-chain analytics was recently featured on CNBC, showing the growing demand for deeper crypto research. 

The on-chain analysis takes a different approach because it incorporates metrics created using cutting edge technologies like machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) to get a clear picture of what is happening in the market. 

For instance, based on the Bitcoin cumulative on-chain transfer volume, approximately 6.9 billion BTC have been moved on-chain. Yassine Elmandjra, a crypto analyst at ARK Invest, stated:

“Since inception, 6.9 billion BTC have been transferred on-chain, settling ~$60 trillion dollars of cumulative value at the price of each transfer and ~$400 trillion of cumulative value at today’s prices.”


Nevertheless, it remains to be seen how Bitcoin ends the year because $100,000 is forecasted as the largest strike price for Bitcoin options in 2021. 

Image source: Shutterstock


Tagged : / / / / / /

Valuing Bitcoin Based On HODLer Behavior

October 25, 2021

Defining Money

After 12 years of adoption, the concept of bitcoin as digital money is now widely known. Ironically, when learning about bitcoin, many individuals are forced to (re)consider what money is. One example of a definition that they may run into is:

Bitcoin’s digital nature allows a seamless transfer of value across space. Its 21 million maximum supply makes it dilution-resistant and perfectly scarce, also allowing it to maintain purchasing power over time ​​— assuming the future demand does not decline. So far that hasn’t been the case.

Quite the opposite, actually. In a world that is choking on the side effects of endless money printing and ever-growing mountains of debt, bitcoin’s hard money properties give it a gravitational pull from which it is difficult to detach. The resulting adoption improves its salability and market liquidity, repeatedly opening doors for even larger market participants to dip their toes into a pool that keeps expanding.

With bitcoin currently being added to the balance sheets of publicly traded companies and even countries, an increasing number of people are trying to answer the question “what gives bitcoin value?” and thus what a fair price is.

Valuing Bitcoin

When Bitcoin was just one week old, Hal Finney became not only the first person besides Satoshi to mine bitcoin and receive the first transaction, but also the first to publicly speculate about its long-term value. By comparing its target market to a rough estimate of the worldwide household wealth, he envisioned a potential $100 trillion to $300 trillion market cap, which would give bitcoin a value of around $10 million per coin.

Since then, there have been many attempts at modeling both the short-term and long-term bitcoin price. Perhaps the most well-known models are the Stock-to-Flow (S2F) and S2F cross-asset (S2FX) models by PlanB that predict a price for the current halving cycle (2020-2024) of around $100,000 and $288,000, respectively. Although the statistical and methodological validity of either model can be debated, the models facilitated a narrative around scarcity as the central property that gives bitcoin value.

Others have attempted to predict the bitcoin price via regression models that use time as an input variable. However, the predictions of time-based models tend to vary depending on the time period that is used as input for the model, providing unstable predictions based on methodologically invalid models.

Another approach is to extrapolate futures price via statistical regression, but to adaptively value it in comparison to a baseline for “fair value” that adjusts as more information becomes available. An example of such a dynamic model is the Bitcoin Price Temperature (BPT), which attributes a relative valuation to price in comparison to its four-year average. Since the bitcoin price tends to move in four year cycles (at least historically), comparing prices to their four-year trend can help estimate how overheated or undercooled prices are. A downside of using just price is that it assumes that these trends are stable, which is not necessarily the case. Changes in market participants’ behavior can completely reverse a previously strong trend, which such purely price-based valuation models are only sensitive to after a lag.

An interesting aspect about Bitcoin is that its timechain is a public ledger of all transactions that were ever made. It provides a database about which legacy economists can only dream. In February 2017, Willy Woo first leveraged this by introducing the Network Value to Transactions (NVT) Ratio. In doing so, Woo pioneered the on-chain analysis field that has become very popular since then. The NVT Ratio compares the value of the bitcoin market to the value of all coins that are transacted weekly. Therefore, this models the bitcoin price based on one of the defining properties of money: the ability to transfer value.

Since the introduction of Woo’s NVT Ratio, Lightning Network adoption is changing Bitcoin’s on-chain footprint. An increasing amount of value is no longer being transacted directly on-chain but flows via channels on a layer on top of Bitcoin. As a result, the NVT ratio is gradually losing accuracy, creating a need for us to come up with alternative valuation methods.

HODLer Behavior As A Measurement Stick

If scarcity is a key aspect that makes a money valuable by allowing it to transfer value across time, investigating the behavior of those that have provably experienced this use case may provide meaningful insights into how it is valued by those that seem to understand it.

In March 2020, on-chain data intelligence company Glassnode made a first attempt at this. By analyzing the age of bitcoin transactions, they found that above a cut-off point of around 155 days, unspent transaction outputs (UTXOs) had a very low likelihood of moving on-chain again. Based on this, they created a metric they called Long-Term Holder (LTH) supply, which is the total amount of bitcoin that falls into this basket. In November 2020, Glassnode improved upon the metric by no longer looking at individual UTXOs, but instead utilizing (proprietary) algorithms and on-chain forensics to look at the average coin age of entities instead. They also applied a more fluid threshold for coins to age into this LTH supply.

A month later, in December 2020, Glassnode again iterated upon this concept by introducing a new metric called illiquid supply. Where the LTH supply looks at an entity’s average unspent bitcoin age, the illiquid supply looks at the entity’s spending history and classifies the entity as either illiquid, liquid or highly liquid. Figure 1 displays the circulating bitcoin supply (black), LTH supply (blue) and illiquid supply (red).

Figure 1: The circulating bitcoin supply (black), illiquid supply (red) and long-term holder supply (blue)

Figure 1: The circulating bitcoin supply (black), illiquid supply (red) and long-term holder supply (blue)

As can be seen in Figure 1, Glassnode’s algorithm for the illiquid supply appears to apply a more liberal method when it comes to classifying an entity as unlikely to spend.

Knowing how much supply is in the hands of these long-term holders and illiquid entities, we can calculate the Long-term holder Value (LV) and Illiquid Value (IV), which represent the total value of the LTH and illiquid supply (LTH or Illiquid supply * price), respectively. Since the bitcoin price can be volatile, applying a moving average over the LV and IV is helpful to better grasp its long-term trends. Figure 2 visualizes the LV and IV with a 1-year moving average that accounts for seasonal effects (e.g., seasonal effects on bitcoin mining, tax seasons, etc) on a yearly basis.

Figure 2: The bitcoin Market Value (MV, black) and 1-year moving averages of the Illiquid Value (IV) and Long-term holder Value (LV)

Figure 2: The bitcoin Market Value (MV, black) and 1-year moving averages of the Illiquid Value (IV) and Long-term holder Value (LV)

As can be seen in figure 2, the yearly average of the total value of the bitcoin supply that is in the hands of long-term holders and illiquid entities tends to be where the bitcoin price finds support during market downturns.

The reason for this can be attributed to a phenomenon called “HODLing,” which stems from a meme that finds its origin in a 2013 Bitcoin Forum post. Historically, bitcoin bear markets have proven to be tough, causing it to be declared dead 432 times at the time of writing. During bear markets, speculators that only bought bitcoin to try and get rich quick sell their coins. As a result, the market is flooded with excess supply that it may have difficulty absorbing after overly euphoric market conditions when the demand from these same speculators that drove up price falls away. Price then trends down until the low-conviction holders are all shaken from their positions and only “HODLers of last resort” remain. By holding onto their coins no matter what, this group effectively sets the price floor that was visualized in Figure 2. After all, thanks to the inelasticity of the bitcoin supply, price can only move up when there are no sellers left while there still is some demand.

Comparing Market Value To Illiquid And LTH Value

Similar to how David Puell and Murad Mahmudov created the Market-Value-to-Realized-Value (MVRV) Ratio that the anon account “Awe & Wonder” then standardized into the MVRV Z-Score, it is possible to compare the bitcoin market value to the illiquid and LTH value.

This is done by first calculating the difference between the Market Value (MV) and the Long-term holder Value (LV) and Illiquid Value (IV), respectively. That number is then divided by the standard deviation of the MV, creating the Market-Value-to-Long-term-holder-Value (MVLV) and Market-Value-to-Illiquid-Value (MVIV) metrics. The resulting MVLV and MVIV metrics therefore represent the number of standard deviations that the market value is (over)extended in comparison to the total value of the LTH and illiquid supply (figure 3).

Figure 3: The Market-Value-to-Illiquid-Value (MVIV) and Market-Value-to-Long-term-holder-Value (MVLV) metrics

Figure 3: The Market-Value-to-Illiquid-Value (MVIV) and Market-Value-to-Long-term-holder-Value (MVLV) metrics

Due to the similarity in the LV and IV metrics, both fundamentally and data-wise, the MVIV and MVLV are similar metrics, where the MVIV is the most expressive. The choice to use either should be based on the degree to which one feels that coin ageing should be considered to determine whether an entity is likely to sell their coins since that aspect is more strongly reflected in the LV than in the IV.

Both metrics allow historical comparison of the overall market value in comparison to the value of the supply that is in the hands of entities that are unlikely to sell. As can be seen in Figure 3, bear markets tend to bottom out at values around 0 (which is the 1-year moving average of the IV and LV itself) and have historically topped out at values of about 8 and higher. Although the cyclicality in Bitcoin’s market valuation is mesmerizing and seduces many to assume that history will repeat, there are no guarantees that this (four-year) cyclicality will necessarily continue.


Now that we have a metric that quantifies the relative valuation of the bitcoin market in comparison to the value of the LTH and illiquid supply, it is possible to map the bitcoin price at each respective MVIV/MVLV level on top of the price chart, allowing us to graph how much room for growth or decline there is for price to reach certain MVIV/MVLV levels again. This was done before with the BPT Bands and MVRV Bands that were discussed above.

This is done by adding a multiple of the standard deviation of MV to the IV or LV itself, where the multiple represents the MVIV/MVLV value that you want to visualize. The resulting numbers are then divided by the circulating bitcoin supply to get the valuations per bitcoin. When plotted on top of the price chart, these values represent the “Bands” in the MVIV Bands and MVLV Bands concepts that are visualized in Figures 4 and 5, respectively.

Figure 4: The bitcoin price (black) and Market-Value-to-Illiquid-Value (MVIV) Bands (colored)

Figure 4: The bitcoin price (black) and Market-Value-to-Illiquid-Value (MVIV) Bands (colored)

Figure 5: the bitcoin price (black) and Market-Value-to-Long-term-holder-Value (MVLV) Bands (colored)

Figure 5: the bitcoin price (black) and Market-Value-to-Long-term-holder-Value (MVLV) Bands (colored)

Comparing Floor Models

With the MVIV and MVLV Bands added to the mix, we now have four bitcoin valuation models that each use different baselines to estimate its “fair value.” Figure 6 displays the baseline values of the MVIV, MVLV, MVRV and BPT Bands models.

Figure 6: The bitcoin price (black) and the 0-bands of the MVRV (blue), MVLV (green), MVIV (orange) and BPT (red)

Figure 6: The bitcoin price (black) and the 0-bands of the MVRV (blue), MVLV (green), MVIV (orange) and BPT (red)

As can be seen, the MVRV Bands baseline is the most responsive, since it is the only metric that does not include a one-year (MVIV & MVLV) or four-year (BPT) moving average component.

While relevant, that does not necessarily mean that it is the superior model to rely on. As can be seen in Figure 6, the baselines of both the illiquid and LTH supply value are currently above that of the MVRV, which has historically only briefly occurred late 2014 and late 2018 during peak bear market conditions, and never during a market uptrend towards all-time highs as is currently the case.

An explanation may be that a shift in how the world sees bitcoin may be happening. As can be seen in Figure 7, the trends for the percentage of the circulating bitcoin supply that is not on exchanges (blue) or that is labelled illiquid (green) have dramatically changed since roughly March 12, 2020.

Figure 7: The illiquid and non-exchange supply as a percentage of the circulating bitcoin supply (source)

Figure 7: The illiquid and non-exchange supply as a percentage of the circulating bitcoin supply (source)

On that day, global financial market sell offs triggered a cascade of long liquidations that took the bitcoin price down over 50% in two days and cleared the market of all excess leverage. Since then, publicly traded companies and now even a country have adopted bitcoin, while central banks have turned on their money printers heavily in their attempt to combat the economic downturn, creating a gigantic asset bubble instead.

In a time where bitcoin is making strides to replace gold as the go-to hard money shelter against monetary inflation, an increased adoption of bitcoin as an asset to transfer value over time means that coins become less likely to move on-chain. That trend may be exacerbated by Lightning Network adoption, which reduces the need to transact on-chain even further. As a result, unspent transactions may take more time to realize value via an on-chain footprint as is quantified in the MVRV metric. Simultaneously, their likelihood of being included in Glassnode’s illiquid or LTH supply increases.

If these trends continue, it is possible that the MVRV baseline will start lagging and that the presented MVIV and MVLV metrics may provide a more reliable estimate for the bitcoin floor price. It is therefore nice that we now have multiple similar options to fall back on that utilize this valuation method from different angles. For the time being, these metrics are very similar — especially when the bitcoin market value deviates further from the respective baselines (Figure 8).

Figure 8: Bitcoin MVRV, MVLV, MVIV and BPT metric comparison

Figure 8: Bitcoin MVRV, MVLV, MVIV and BPT metric comparison

The similarity between the floor models that are depicted in Figure 7 and the resulting metrics of Figure 8 can also be seen as a form of confluence. The MVRV, MVLV and MVIV all incorporate the lifespan of the underlying coins. These metrics therefore reflect investor time preference and hold valuable information about the relative bitcoin valuation in comparison to the price floor that is set by HODLers.

A limitation of the presented MVLV and MVIV Bands metrics that we need to be cognizant of is that proprietary algorithms were used by Glassnode to construct the illiquid and long-term holder supply metrics. It is likely that Glassnode will keep improving upon those algorithms to optimally service their clients, which would mean that both future and historic values may be subject to change over time. Charts representing MVIV and MVLV (Bands) metrics therefore should be seen as a snapshot in time that uses the most up-to-date method to quantify the supply that is in the hands of entities that are unlikely to spend it, and not to be compared to prior visualizations of the same metric.

At the time of writing there is no web-based version of the metric available yet (Glassnode’s Workbench currently does not support an expanding standard deviation), but the R code for the metrics and charts presented here is available on GitHub.

Special thanks go out to @Anoi30604540, @_Checkmatey_ and @WClementeIII for providing feedback on the draft of this article.

Disclaimer: This article was written for educational and informational purposes only and should not be taken as investment advice.

This is a guest post by Dilution-proof. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC, Inc. or Bitcoin Magazine.


Tagged : / / / / / /
Bitcoin (BTC) $ 26,197.02 0.30%
Ethereum (ETH) $ 1,586.36 0.90%
Litecoin (LTC) $ 64.20 0.10%
Bitcoin Cash (BCH) $ 212.38 2.48%