Awesome! It has really surpassed 1.15 million. Now, the single price of $63,000 has accumulated to 1.15 million BTC, which is an extremely rare phenomenon in history. Although the recent coldcard hardware wallet vulnerability has forced some long-term holders to transfer BTC. But it is definitely not the main reason for the explosive turnover of chips around 63k. Rather, it is the result of BTC price maintaining low volatility over a long period of accumulation. At the same time, the nearby chip concentration has risen to 13.5%. Chips cannot accumulate indefinitely; the long and short game has reached a critical point where there must be a winner. I am increasingly looking forward to what will happen next.....

It's indeed a bit strange! In the past two days, long-term holders (LTH) have suddenly moved a large amount of chips. For two consecutive days, over 65,000 BTC have been moved (excluding internal transfers within the same entity), causing a significant drop in LTH net holdings. As shown in Figure 2, LTH net holdings started to deviate from the previously continuous upward trend since May and have been "stagnant" until July. This is a very rare phenomenon in the past year. Nearly 14,000 BTC were transferred to exchanges. For example, Trump's publicly listed company transferred 2,628 BTC to the Crypto.com exchange, which is part of this. As for the rest of the net reduction in LTH holdings, where they went and for what purpose, we do not know. Could it be that they know something and chose to hedge early? Regarding possible macro risks, especially those affecting BTC, here are the ones I can think of: 1⃣ The possibility of a Federal Reserve interest rate hike. This time, the vote was split 9:3, the most dissenting votes since September 2016. 2⃣ Middle East conflicts and oil prices are the biggest variables for inflation and are upstream factors of point 1. 3⃣ The US stock market AI sector valuation is highly concentrated, and capital expenditures increasingly rely on debt and private credit financing. If revenue falls short of expectations and financing costs rise, it could trigger systemic deleveraging. 4⃣ The yen carry trade positions have once again piled up into a one-sided net short, crowded and close to historical extremes. Are there others? Friends are welcome to help me add more. Finally, the current sensitivity of BTC's own chip structure will also invisibly amplify the above potential risk points. -------------------------------- Of course, this does not mean it will definitely happen; it is just our speculation based on the abnormal behavior suddenly appearing in LTH. Where there is abnormality, there must be a reason. We should closely monitor LTH behavior changes recently. If large-scale distribution continues, it will inevitably put pressure on the market. If it is just a brief individual behavior, the impact will be limited.

After sharing the chip structure data yesterday, many friends privately asked me: Based on other data, is the probability of an upward fluctuation greater, or downward? To be honest, it's hard for me to answer this question completely free of subjective bias. In a tweet a few days ago, we also discussed that from the logic of "breakeven points acting as support/resistance in bull/bear cycles," the probability of a small-scale downward move is greater, including the case of a "false breakout upward followed by a downward move." But on a larger scale, the trend change process is slow but inevitable. Maybe, if we look back two years from now, many of the current guesses, struggles, and even worries will be unnecessary. Just like the black swan event in November 2022, the price drop accelerated panic selling and helped bring the bear market to a close. However, it might also be because I subjectively hope for a "final drop." That way, there would be a chance to lower the average cost and fill positions accordingly, so the above is hard to guarantee as an absolutely objective view. But I know that whether or not there is a "final drop," the current situation is most likely at or near the bottom, not at the peak or mid-slope. This is within my understanding. Here is a data example: As the market matures, the proportion of LTH (Long-Term Holders) in the total network supply has gradually increased. Once they collectively surrender, the dominance of outflows to exchanges will definitely be stronger than in earlier stages. Therefore, when the proportion of "LTH transferring to exchanges at realized losses" exceeds the previous cycle's high point, it often occurs near the relative bottom of the current cycle. Looking back at February, although the price was similar to now, the values were quite different. So, BTC in February was close in terms of price range but not in timing. After July, the situation changed. More and more bottom conditions from different dimensions should gradually appear. Let's wait and see......

Oh my goodness, I haven't checked the chip structure for a few days, and I was shocked when I looked at the data. On URPD, at the $63,000 level, there's a pillar holding up the sky, with a cumulative total of 890,000 BTC as of today. From what I remember, such intense long-short battles at a single price point haven't happened since the end of 2025. If it weren't for Coinbase locking up 550,000 BTC in the $83,000-$84,000 range, the $63,000 level would probably have exceeded 1,000,000 BTC by now. What does 1,000,000 BTC mean? It accounts for 5% of the total circulation; historically, whenever it exceeds this scale, a major shakeup is almost guaranteed. Because short-term chips are too concentrated, price sensitivity increases. At the end of October 2022, just before the FTX crash, there were 1,000,000 BTC at $19,000 and 870,000 BTC at $18,000. Together, these two levels accounted for 9.7% of the total circulation. Everyone knows what happened next: an event triggered a chain reaction, combined with the fragility of the chip structure, causing significant volatility. Currently, $62,000 and $63,000 combined have already reached 8%....... (By the way, today's chip concentration has reached 13%, entering the warning zone; just a step away from 15%) Come on, give us a good shake! 🤣🤣🤣

Although "on-chain data" and "technical indicators" are two completely different dimensions — the former based on the UTXO algorithm, the latter grounded in volume and price — they often resonate with each other. Perhaps it’s a case of different paths leading to the same destination, both pointing to the same result "at the right time". For example, in our tweet on July 29, we mentioned: BTC has realized net profit and loss curves at two extreme negative values in February and June, showing a divergence with price on a large scale (see quote). This is a signal interpreted from on-chain behavior indicating "seller exhaustion and net loss convergence." At the same time, similar signals appeared in technical indicators. The trend-following CCI indicator showed a weekly-level oversold signal (red dot). In the past 5 years, this signal has appeared 4 times: November 2018, March 2020, June 2022, and November 2025. The oversold signal only represents the intensity at that moment; what truly matters is the subsequent sustained convergence of the curve and its divergence from price. Additionally, if a "downward momentum exhaustion" signal appears during the follow-up process, it indicates that the downward momentum is gradually being absorbed. I interpret this as a precursor to a trend reversal; although slow, the direction is clear. Combining "on-chain data" and "technical indicators," the conclusions are: 1⃣ The large-scale downtrend is almost over, and this is certain. 2⃣ The only uncertainty is whether there will be a "black swan" event like in November 2022, which would only serve as further confirmation of the sustained CCI divergence. 3⃣ Going all-in betting on the "last drop" caused by a black swan is irrational; this is not trading, it’s gambling. 4⃣ At this point, there is no reason to be overly bearish. Time will not favor the shorts.

In a bull market, the main focus is on "realizing profits"; therefore, when the indicator returns to the breakeven point (zero axis), it acts as a support level; sellers clear out, making it easy to form a phase bottom. In a bear market, the main focus is on "realizing losses"; the opposite of a bull market, when at breakeven, it becomes a resistance point; the wise run first, making it easy to form a phase top. Currently, BTC is exactly at the net breakeven point. According to the above logic, if we only look at the smaller timeframes, the probability of "downward" movement is definitely greater than "upward" (including a "false breakout" followed by a drop). But from a higher dimension, we can interpret another layer of information: At the two negative values in February and June, the earlier high is followed by a lower low. When the price is lower, the realized net loss has not continued to expand, forming a divergence pattern with the price. This means the prelude to a trend reversal is slowly and quietly brewing. Even if there is another decline, as long as the realized net loss is again below the previous low, it can almost be confirmed on a larger scale that the probability of "upward" movement will definitely be greater than "downward". It should be noted that historically, the ultimate outcome of sustained divergence is a decisive turning point.

This is data that excites all "cycle traders" As of July 2026, the holdings of belief buyers (CB) have reached 4.02 million BTC; this number has already far exceeded the previous bear market bottom peak of 3.46 million. This means that although a large number of ancient coins have awakened and cashed out during the cycle, even more coins have been taken away by belief buyers, especially when prices fall. Despite BTC being criticized by pessimistic investors, including: low bull market multiples, unfavorable risk-reward ratio, expectations to fall to 40k, 30k, etc.; none of this can shake the confidence and rhythm of belief buyers accumulating coins. Every time I see CB holdings hit a new high, I know we are one step closer to "spring."

Spot, Futures, and Options Cross-Market Data Interpretation These 4 sets placed together reflect that the attitudes of the spot, futures, and options markets toward this rebound are inconsistent. Let's break down the valuable information within: 1⃣ Spot: Mainly Observing As shown in Figure 1, during the May rebound, prices and indicators rose synchronously, and spot funds genuinely participated. However, in this rebound reaching 66,000, volume has continuously shrunk, and funds have not kept up. (Note a detail: In mid-June, there was a pulse in relative volume, corresponding to concentrated turnover at the end of the decline.) 2⃣ Futures: Systematic Retreat As shown in Figure 2, futures trading volume declined during both rebounds, indicating that speculative participation in derivatives has been continuously shrinking since March. This is a continuation of the deleveraging cycle and is not closely related to a single rebound. As shown in Figure 3, after prices approached 66,000, the 7-day moving average of the bullish premium began to fall, indicating that leveraged longs actively cooled off near the dense upper trading zone, and the willingness to be aggressively bullish started to weaken. 3⃣ Options: The Fastest Market to Recover As shown in Figure 4, the Put/Call ratio sharply dropped after July 14. Besides protective puts being closed or expiring worthless, there should also be funds buying calls for right-side positioning. The panic-driven hedging demand quickly exited, which is the only clear signal among the three markets indicating a shift to "no longer fearing a decline." 🚩 Summary: 1⃣ Taken together, all combinations indicate that panic is fading, but confidence has not yet returned; sentiment is in a vacuum between the two. 2⃣ This suggests that the driver of this rise is more likely short covering and passive lifting under low liquidity. After selling pressure decreases, a small amount of buying can push prices up. But so far, no strong new demand has been seen. 3⃣ The futures market also lacks crowded longs for waterfall-style liquidation, so there is insufficient fuel for a long-tail decline. 4⃣ The short-term rebound may still have momentum, but my personal view is that it is more appropriate to regard it as a technical recovery within a bear market. 5⃣ When prices approach the dense upper trading zone (including near the short-term average cost line of chips), pay attention to trading rhythm. 6⃣ Systematic shrinkage in activity and exit of hedging demand are common "no-man's land" features in the late bear market phase. The probability of the market entering a bottoming process is rising, but bottoming is a process. (PS: Due to limited space, more detailed data expansions cannot be included in the article and can only serve as a simple framework reference.)

Institutions surrender, is it an opportunity for retail investors? — The article is a bit long; if you don't have the patience to read it all, you can jump straight to the conclusion at the end. The biggest difference in this cycle compared to previous ones is the introduction of BTC spot ETFs, which have opened the door to many traditional institutional funds, causing a significant change in the market participation structure. For example, recently, ETF net outflows have slowed down, BTC prices have started to stabilize and rebound, and have shown insensitivity to external negative factors. These data are publicly available, but what valuable information hidden behind them deserves our attention? 🚩 Let's start with the logic: ETF net flow is a primary market activity. Only when the ETF price deviates from the NAV (net asset value) will APs (Authorized Participants) engage in "creation/redemption" to arbitrage the price difference. The "ETF net flow" data we often see is the net creation/redemption statistics. Therefore, net flow essentially records the net result of AP arbitrage activities. Only when selling/buying pressure is strong enough to push the price out of premium or discount territory, and persists beyond the arbitrage cost line, will it convert into net inflow/outflow data. ETF trading volume, on the other hand, is secondary market turnover, where buyers and sellers trade on the exchange without creation/redemption. 🚩 Now analyzing the data: Understanding the above logic makes analyzing and comparing related data meaningful! As shown in the chart: 👉 January-February showed "high trading volume + slight net outflow" — indicating huge market divergence, with panic selling while a large amount of funds were absorbing it. Most selling pressure was absorbed by secondary market buyers, and the proportion that actually turned into redemptions in the primary market was very low. 👉 May-July showed "low trading volume + significant net outflow" — meaning total selling pressure was not necessarily greater than in January-February, but the difference was the disappearance of marginal buyers. No one was stepping in, so even moderate selling caused ETFs to persistently trade at a discount, leading to AP redemptions. Thus, this mainly reflects the absence of buyers rather than an increase in sellers. If the January-February surrender was by "fast money" (including institutions and retail), then the May-July surrender was by "slow money," mostly institutions. For example, advisory platforms reducing allocations and rebalancing positions require processes and do not rush timing, naturally causing lag (including mechanical liquidation of hedge fund arbitrage positions). 🚩 Finally, the viewpoint: Based on the above data analysis, we have reason to believe that the second phase of institutional "surrender" from May to July usually represents the tail end of liquidation. However, how long this "tail" will last, the data cannot answer; it is only a confirming indicator, not a leading one. Does institutional surrender mean an opportunity for retail investors? Personally, I think: yes! The most incredible aspect of this cycle is that a large amount of institutional chips are trapped at the peak (for example, MSTR bought BTC at over 100k and still holds it). For some institutions, this is their first time playing crypto and their first cycle experience. In terms of experience, composure, and understanding of the cycle, they are even inferior to many veteran retail investors. Institutions are wolves, retail investors are sheep, and this time, institutions and whales who bought high and sold low appear to us as a group of "clumsy wolves." Of course, in the eyes of wolves, we will always be sheep, so one day they will come back. What we need to do is — hit them hard! Strike while they are weak (a pullback is an opportunity). When they return and push prices higher, the retail investors who chase in will become lambs to be slaughtered again...

Big moves might be coming again...... Historically, there have been many instances where after IV dropped below 40%, a "significant volatility" event occurred. The logic behind this was explained in detail in our May 11 tweet (see quote). 👉 A simple summary has the following 3 points: 1. Low IV indicates a highly consistent consensus on volatility, making unexpected events more likely to be amplified. 2. Low IV attracts volatility arbitrage players, and short covering by bears can amplify volatility. 3. Market makers' short gamma positions deepen, and after a breakout, hedging in the trend amplifies volatility. 🚩 Several cases in the past year include: 1. Fifteen days after IV was below 40% in early January, BTC dropped from 97,000 to 62,000; 2. Fourteen days after IV was below 40% at the end of April, BTC dropped from 82,000 to 60,000; (This is the case I warned about in the May 11 tweet) 3. After June 15, BTC dropped from 66,000 to 58,000; Of course, low IV does not always lead to "downward" volatility. For example, nine days after IV was below 40% in June 2025, there was an "upward" volatility wave from 101,000 to 119,000. So IV does not predict "direction," but rather predicts "magnitude." Back to the present, 1 week: 33%, 1 month: 34%, both below 40%; therefore, the probability of "volatility" triggered by market reflexivity and trading rules is rising. Spot traders don’t have much to worry about, but futures traders, please fasten your seatbelts!