Lei06

Crypto Market Participants & Web3 Content Creators. Study on-chain data, track hot narratives, and make transactions that you can understand. I believe that good content requires patience just like good positions.

1.1KFollowing

1.3Kfollowers

Feed

Yesterday, when writing about BTC, I used this message: "CoinTelegraph headline: Bitcoin stalls as BTC ETF outflows hit $268M" Translation: BTC is stalling, with a single-day ETF net outflow of $268 million, institutions are pulling money out. Today, from the same CoinTelegraph, another article was published: "Spot Bitcoin ETFs log 6th straight week of net inflows for first time in 9 months" Translation: BTC spot ETFs have had net inflows for 6 consecutive weeks, marking the longest continuous inflow record in 9 months. Two articles, same media outlet, same ETF market, less than 24 hours apart. One says: institutions are outflowing. The other says: institutions are continuously inflowing, and it's the strongest inflow momentum in 9 months. This is not a contradiction; it's a matter of the time window. From a daily perspective: on a certain day, some institutions locked in profits, resulting in a single-day ETF net outflow of $268M — this is a fact. From a weekly perspective: for 6 consecutive weeks, each week's net flow has been positive, with no net outflow weeks in that period — this is also a fact. Both things can be true simultaneously. A $268M outflow in one day happens within the context of a 6-week continuous net inflow. It's like a pebble going uphill on a downhill path — you step on that stone and feel like you're going up; but looking at the whole path, it's going down. Or vice versa: you're walking uphill, but one step slips and you feel like you're sinking; looking at the whole path, you're climbing up. Today's BTC ETF is the latter. Let's put the numbers out: 9 months ago, the last time BTC spot ETFs had a similar continuous net inflow was summer 2025 — then, there were 7 consecutive weeks of net inflows, totaling $7.57 billion. How far BTC's price moved after that continuous inflow, this series does not predict, but that history can be checked. Today it's 6 consecutive weeks. Not yet 7 consecutive weeks. But 6 consecutive weeks itself is a signal not seen in 9 months. Yesterday's conclusion in this series was: "Retail investors quietly increased longs in contracts, institutions were pulling out via ETFs — $80K is the intersection point for both sides." Today, part of that conclusion needs updating: From a single-day view, institutions did outflow yesterday. From a weekly view, over the past 6 weeks, institutions have been net inflowing, and the persistence of inflows is the strongest in 9 months. The "divergence" between retail and institutions may not be as large as written yesterday — at least on the weekly scale, institutions are not retreating but continuously entering. Jack Mallers said something today that can be added here as a footnote: "If Wall Street coming in could 'kill' BTC, then BTC was never worth succeeding from the start." The subtext of this sentence is: Wall Street coming in is inevitable; the way and timeline of entry can be discussed, but the fact of "coming in" itself is already happening. 6 consecutive weeks of net inflows is the quantitative version of this fact. Daily perspective $268M outflow, weekly perspective 6 consecutive weeks of net inflows marking the longest in 9 months — same ETF market, different perspectives, opposite conclusions; 9 months ago, that 7 consecutive weeks of inflows corresponded to $7.57 billion, today is the 6th week, the story is not finished yet. $BTC

The previous article in this series discussed BSB, concluding: "Long-short ratio (10 periods of 4h): 52.78% → 55.18% — For the first time in this series, the long position ratio of a single asset has almost steadily increased in nearly every period over 10 periods, not a spike, but a gradual expansion." Today, I pulled out a new 10-period window. The first 4 periods continue from the previous article, then something happened that has never occurred since this series started tracking BSB: 54.32% → 54.01% → 54.71% → 55.18% → 54.31% → 50.63% → 50.71% → 51.98% → 55.92% → 57.93% Period 6: 50.63% This is the lowest long position ratio since this series began tracking BSB — also the closest to the 50% equilibrium line, just 0.63 percentage points away. In the previous article about TON, there was a sentence: "TON long-short ratio 50.79%, approaching the 50% equilibrium line — is it holding, or will it fail?" Today, BSB gave a more extreme version than TON: 50.63%, even closer to the equilibrium line than TON's 50.79%. But BSB held. After the 50.63% in period 6: 50.71% → 51.98% → 55.92% → 57.93% Four consecutive periods of rebound, ultimately pushing to 57.93% — an absolute new high for the long position ratio since this series started tracking BSB, surpassing the previous conclusion's 55.18%. From 50.63% to 57.93%, a one-sided rebound of 7.30 percentage points. This is not a "slow climb," but a U-shaped curve — first dropping, holding the equilibrium line, then quickly recovering and reaching a new high. What happened behind this U-shape? Let's look at the implied prices: Period 4 (latest in previous article): implied $0.606, current price $0.6031, basically matching. Period 5: implied $0.664 (price rising) Period 6 (long 50.63% extreme): implied $0.741 (highest price, fewest longs) Periods 7-9: implied $0.639 → $0.576 → $0.527 (price falling, from $0.74 down to $0.53) Period 10 (latest): implied $0.556, current price $0.5447 This is the most insightful part of today's curve: When BSB rose to $0.741, the long position ratio dropped to 50.63% — indicating that near the highest price point, the new positions entering the market were almost evenly split between shorts and longs, with shorts slightly in the majority. In other words: at BSB's most expensive point, the number of short sellers was almost equal to the number of long buyers. Then the price fell from $0.741 to $0.527 — a drop of -28.9%. During this process, the long-short ratio rose from 50.63% to 55.92% (period 9) — indicating that during the price decline, a group of new longs quietly entered, building positions at lower prices. The latest period is 57.93%, price $0.556 — these longs who entered around $0.53-$0.56 are currently showing a slight unrealized loss (implied average price $0.556 vs current price $0.5447, about -2.1%). But they did not enter at the highest point. They came in after the price dropped nearly 30%. This is a recurring pattern observed in this series: the highest price point is when shorts are most concentrated, and after the price falls, longs quietly accumulate. Placing today's BSB 57.93% on the long position ratio axis of this series: LAB: 28.36% (shorts dominate) BTC: 44.10% TON: 50.79% BSB: 57.93% (latest today) DOGS: about 55% NOT: 65.50% BILL: 58.81% ETH: 72.86% (series extreme) BSB's 57.93% today has surpassed DOGS' historical midpoint and is almost level with BILL's latest 58.81% — no longer "mid-upper range," but already in the "long-dominant zone" at a high level. Long-short ratio U-shaped curve: 55.18% → 50.63% (almost broke equilibrium line) → 57.93% (series high) — the previous article showed a slow climb, today tested the equilibrium line, held it, then ended higher; shorts were most concentrated at the highest price point, and after the price fell, longs accumulated. $BSB $CHIP $LAB

This series writing about BTC shows the long-short ratio data has been slowly climbing: In the previous articles about BTC, the long ratio was 39.56%, the highest in the series at that time. The last article recorded 43.07%, setting a new series high again. Today's latest 6 periods of 4h complete arcs: 43.63% → 43.67% → 43.74% → 43.92% → 43.86% → 44.10% 44.10% — this is the absolute new high for the proportion of long accounts in the contract market since this series started tracking BTC. From 39.56% to 44.10%, every time BTC is written about, the long-short ratio keeps rising — behind this is a group of people who, in the $79K to $80K range, each period sees more accounts choosing the long direction. In these 6 periods, the short ratio dropped from 56.37% to 55.90% — shorts still dominate, but the majority is shrinking. Now, put this number together with another event that happened on the same day: CoinTelegraph's headline today: "Bitcoin stalls as BTC ETF outflows hit $268M: Will new Fed chair restore the rally?" In plain language: BTC is stalling, ETF net outflows hit $268 million in a single day, institutions are pulling money out. On the same day, at the same price ($80,377), two opposite directional events occurred: In the contract market, retail/small and medium accounts' long ratio hit a new high during the tracking period (44.10%). In the ETF market, institutional investors had a net outflow of $268M. This is the most obvious divergence in position direction between retail and institutions since this series started writing about BTC. This kind of divergence has a reference in this series: Previously wrote: "Fear & Greed 38 (retail sentiment), but institutions are adding positions" — at that time, institutions were more optimistic than retail. Today is a different kind of divergence: retail quietly adding longs in contracts, institutions withdrawing from ETFs. Which side is "smarter" is a question this series never answers. But one detail worth noting: the $268M net outflow is not a small amount; it is a relatively large single-day net outflow in the BTC ETF market. The subtitle of that CoinTelegraph article is: "weak DXY and the eventual appointment of a new Fed chair could resume the rally" — meaning if the dollar weakens and a new Fed chair is appointed, the rally might resume. "Might resume" indicates today's consensus is: no rise for now. BTC at $80,377, contract longs at a series high of 44.10%, but ETF single-day net outflow of $268M — at the same price, retail is adding longs, institutions are withdrawing; $80K has been reached, but there is a big question mark about this "holding steady." #非农数据连续超出预期：降息预期走低 $BTC