分类： Bitcoin

Japan is advancing custody rules, Hong Kong is standardizing digitally native bond issuance, and Singapore has approved the first retail tokenized fund.

The sequence is rules, issuance, and cash-like instruments. The link to crypto is not narrative but plumbing that reduces friction for collateral and settlement near BTC and ETH venues.

Japan’s Financial Services Agency set out a pathway that brings crypto closer to Financial Instruments and Exchange Act treatment while reaffirming hardware-segregated custody as the baseline.

The agency’s English discussion paper cites more than 12 million exchange accounts and user assets exceeding ¥5 trillion held by exchanges as of January 2025, with cold wallets serving as the primary means of segregation.

It also outlines information disclosure via exchanges for non-fundraising tokens, flags growth in decentralized exchanges and non-custodial wallets, and points to future alignment on insider-trading and market rules.

According to the FSA paper, a 2025 bill to amend the Payment Services Act, including asset-location requirements and a new intermediary business category, has been submitted to the Diet.

This approach reduces legal and operational uncertainty for banks and broker-dealers that have treated custody and liability as gating risks.

If disclosures are channeled through exchanges for Type 2 tokens and conduct rules converge with the FIEA lens, distribution can expand without the need for bespoke frameworks per asset class.

The practical outlet is broader menus on regulated platforms where BTC and ETH sit within a known disclosure and custody perimeter.

Balance sheet shift sets the demand backdrop

Japan’s household balance sheet, roughly ¥2,200 trillion in financial assets, adds latent firepower as the Bank of Japan anticipates portfolio shifts from deposits to investments as rates normalize.

According to Reuters, the BOJ expects rising inflation to drive demand for new financial services, which could align with exchange distribution once the rules are settled.

Hong Kong, in parallel, has moved from pilots to programmatic issuance of digitally native bonds.

The HKSAR Government’s multi-currency HK$6 billion green bond in 2024 was issued by HSBC Orion with settlement at T+1, compared to T+5 in conventional flows, and maintained compatibility with CMU and Euroclear-style infrastructure.

According to the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, the Digital Bond Grant Scheme offsets origination and platform costs with grants up to HK$2.5 million per qualifying issuance, which lowers issuer hurdles and encourages repeat use of digital rails.

Law firm notes from Linklaters and Ashurst document the first-of-its-kind corporate digitally native notes listed on the HKEX and Bank of Communications’ digitally native bonds in late 2024 and January 2025, expanding beyond sovereign issuance.

The through-line is that DLT wallets and connectivity have moved into production finance.

When settlement compresses from T+5 to T+1 and cash handling syncs with central market utilities, treasurers and funds keep wallets live for working balances and collateral.

That adjacency matters for BTC and ETH because the same operational stack can support tokenized cash and credit lines that sit one hop away from crypto venues for hedging or treasury purposes.

Securities Finance Times’ case material on Orion highlights the counterparty and margin savings that come from time compression, which is a direct cost argument rather than a branding exercise.

Policy scaffolding around settlement assets is also widening.

Hong Kong passed a stablecoin licensing bill in May 2025, creating a path for regulated issuers and a sandbox for rollouts.

According to Reuters, the bill moves the jurisdiction closer to compliant settlement tokens that could sit alongside digitally native notes.

If HKD or USD fully reserved stablecoins operate on the same rails that link to CMU, portfolio managers gain a clean route to park and mobilize balances.

Those balances can also be held in crypto liquidity hubs without requiring excess reconciliation.

Singapore added the consumer-grade piece: retail tokenized cash.

The Monetary Authority of Singapore approved the Franklin OnChain U.S. Dollar Short-Term Money Market Fund for retail sale on May 15, 2025.

Franklin’s transfer-agency stack issues tokenized shares in a VCC structure, and distribution can flow through local channels with standard investor protections.

According to The Business Times, Singapore’s asset management industry reached S$6.07 trillion in 2024, a 12.2% increase year-over-year, providing a substantial domestic base for tokenized funds.

Reuters reports that DBS, Franklin Templeton, and Ripple subsequently teamed up to list sgBENJI on DBS Digital Exchange in September 2025, with stated plans to use tokens as collateral and to execute swaps versus Ripple’s RLUSD stablecoin.

How new tokenized rails translate into crypto-market liquidity

This set of rails affects crypto through liquidity adjacencies rather than direct allocation mandates.

If exchanges and prime brokers accept tokenized money market fund shares as collateral, users can toggle between cash-like tokens and BTC or ETH within a single operational perimeter.

That compresses the basis, deepens the spot and derivatives depth, and reduces the need to move fiat off the platform.

In Japan, exchange-held user assets exceeding ¥5 trillion represent existing custody that can be reweighted toward BTC and ETH once disclosure and market conduct rules are finalized.

In Hong Kong, recurring digitally native bond issuance with T+1 settlement keeps institutional wallets active, making it easier to scale tokenized cash pools that can interact with crypto markets.

In Singapore, retail-grade tokenized cash provides a base layer that can face banks and trading venues, moving beyond pilot-only gating.

Plausibility ranges help quantify the runway over the next 12 to 24 months.

If only 0.5% of Japan’s exchange-held assets are converted into BTC and ETH under more explicit rules, roughly ¥25 billion, or about US$165 million, would be added to spot demand.

If new NISA-related flows bring another 1% to crypto allocations, that could add US$100 million to US$200 million, placing a base case between US$250 million and US$400 million.

A cleaner legal landing that enables ETF-like wrappers could drive flows into the low single-digit billions of dollars over the next two years, consistent with the BOJ’s commentary on portfolio diversification.

Regulatory timing and issuance momentum as swing factors

If enforcement tightens around market integrity before new wrappers arrive, the impact could be flat to modestly positive.

In Hong Kong, another HKSAR batch in the HK$5 billion to HK$10 billion range, plus two to four corporate digitally native notes at HK$1 billion to HK$3 billion each, would keep institutional wallets alive.

If 1–2% of participating balances bridge into tokenized cash on the same rails, US$100 million to US$300 million could sit on-chain adjacent to crypto venues.

A stronger outcome, aided by the Digital Bond Grant Scheme and stablecoin licensing, could propel total digital bond volume above HK$20 billion within a year and increase on-chain cash above US$500 million.

If issuance momentum fades into proofs of concept, on-chain cash could remain below US$100 million with limited spillover.

In Singapore, if 0.1% of S$6.07 trillion in AUM is allocated to tokenized cash and funds, approximately S$6 billion, or US$4.4 billion, would form a tokenized base.

Even if only 2–5% of that base interacts as collateral near crypto, the effective liquidity adjacency would be about US$90 million to US$220 million.

Wider collateralization of tokenized money market funds across banks would lift that figure, and Project Guardian’s links with foreign banks would expand distribution.

A slow retail ramp, driven by suitability checks and onboarding, would push the impact below US$100 million.

The global context supports scale.

BCG and ADDX project that asset tokenization could reach approximately US$16.1 trillion by 2030, and BIS papers emphasize the importance of unified ledgers, legal certainty, and delivery-versus-payment designs that reduce settlement risk.

The value proposition that resonated in Hong Kong’s digital bonds is concrete: T+5 to T+1, lower counterparty and margin costs, and compatibility with incumbent market utilities.

Regulatory timing will dictate how quickly these rails convert into usable liquidity

As these factors are codified in rules and grants in Asia’s three hubs, wallets and tokenized cash become standard operating tools rather than experiments, and crypto markets benefit from tighter spreads and deeper collateral pools as a byproduct.

Below is a concise milestone table for reference.

Market	Milestone (policy/rail)	Date	“So what” for crypto
Japan	FSA discussion paper (Eng.), disclosure classes, custody reaffirmed, 2025 PSA bill submitted	Apr–Jul 2025	Lower legal and ops risk, broader exchange products, smoother BTC and ETH distribution
Hong Kong	World’s first multi-currency digitally native green bond (HK$6bn) on Orion, DBGS subsidy	Feb–Nov 2024	T+1 settlement and cost reduction, grants tilt issuers to digital rails, persistent wallets
Hong Kong	Corporate digitally native notes on HKEX, BoCom digitally native bonds	Sep 2024–Jan 2025	Non-sovereign issuance de-risks rails through diversity of issuers
Hong Kong	Third HKSAR digital bond batch marketed	Nov 2025	More volume primes CMU-linked wallets near crypto venues
Hong Kong	Stablecoin licensing bill passed	May 2025	Regulated settlement tokens can operate alongside digital bonds
Singapore	First retail tokenized fund (Franklin OnChain MMF) approved by MAS	May 2025	Retail-grade on-chain cash, future collateral for crypto
Singapore	DBS, Franklin Templeton, Ripple list sgBENJI and outline collateralization	Sept 2025	Tokenized MMF as tradable collateral, tighter spreads

According to HSBC’s digital bond case study, the operational delta is measurable in terms of time and margin, which is what scales when boards request repeatable savings.

According to the HKMA’s grant program, issuers can recover up to HK$2.5 million per issuance, which turns pilot economics into routine issuance economics.

According to the FSA, cold-wallet segregation remains the principle in Japan.

According to The Business Times, Singapore’s AUM base is at a record level. These are the anchors that connect policy to flow.

The immediate watchpoints are the FSA’s synthesis of public comments and movement on market conduct scope, the size and timing of Hong Kong’s third HKSAR batch, and DBGS uptake among corporates and SOEs, as well as the retail distribution of the Franklin fund, plus collateral acceptance beyond DBS under MAS’s Project Guardian umbrella.

Hong Kong’s third HKSAR digital bond batch is now being marketed.

Grayscale filed an S-1 form with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on Nov. 13 to list Class A common stock on the New York Stock Exchange under ticker symbol GRAY.

The firm manages approximately $35 billion across more than 40 crypto products, including spot Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs.

As a public company, Grayscale will have to disclose more financials and face shareholder pressure, which could influence future fee decisions and product strategy.

The filing does not specify share count or pricing range for the proposed offering. Morgan Stanley, BofA Securities, Jefferies, and Cantor will serve as lead managing bookrunners.

Financial performance shows revenue pressure

Grayscale reported $318.7 million in revenue for the nine months ended Sept. 30, down from $397.9 million in the same period of 2024. The company posted net income of $203.3 million through September 2025 compared with $223.7 million a year earlier.

Operating margin reached 65.7% in the recent nine-month period.

The firm’s weighted-average management fee declined to 1.39% through September 2025 from 1.67% in the prior-year period, reflecting competitive pressure from lower-cost ETF entrants, including BlackRock and Fidelity.

Average assets under management slipped to $30.6 billion from $31.8 billion year-over-year.

Full-year 2024 results showed revenue of $506.2 million and net income of $282.1 million, down from $512.7 million and $325 million, respectively, in 2023. The company attributed the decline to reduced management fees, outflows, and distributions.

Dual-class structure preserves DCG control

The offering employs a dual-class share structure, giving Digital Currency Group, Grayscale’s parent company, 10 votes per Class B share compared with one vote per Class A share.

DCG will retain approximately 70% of total voting power after the IPO through its Class B holdings, which carry no economic rights. Each Class A share will receive one vote and full economic participation.

The structure qualifies Grayscale as a “controlled company” under NYSE rules, exempting it from certain corporate governance requirements. The Class B super-voting rights terminate when DCG’s ownership falls below 20% of total shares outstanding.

Impact on ETF holders remains indirect

The IPO does not alter the legal structure, custody arrangements, or operations of Grayscale’s existing trusts and ETFs.

Fund assets remain held by third-party custodians under separate trust agreements.

The company completed a reorganization into a Delaware holding structure earlier in 2025, which it stated would not materially affect trust operations.

Net proceeds from the offering will be used to purchase membership interests from existing owners in Grayscale Operating, rather than funding capital expenditures.

The transaction converts private ownership stakes into publicly tradable equity without requiring the injection of new capital into fund operations or altering sponsor fee arrangements.

Grayscale reserved a portion of IPO shares for eligible investors in its Bitcoin Trust ETF (GBTC) and Ethereum Trust ETF (ETHE) through a directed share program.

Participants must have held GBTC or ETHE shares as of Oct. 28 and complete pre-registration by Nov. 24. The program does not guarantee allocations, and shares purchased through it face no lock-up restrictions.

The public listing will subject Grayscale to quarterly and annual reporting requirements, providing ETF investors with increased visibility into the sponsor’s financial condition, litigation exposure, and product concentration.

The registration statement indicates that future fee decisions and product expansion plans will face scrutiny from public equity holders alongside existing competitive pressure in the ETF market.

Earlier in the year, Europe’s Central Bank (ECB) President Christine Lagarde insisted that Bitcoin would not be included in the reserve portfolios of central banks under the ECB’s umbrella; the statement was intended to draw a firm boundary around sovereign engagement with digital assets.

For more than two decades, reserve cohesion has served as a marker of European stability, with eurozone institutions typically presenting a united front on monetary doctrine questions.

Yet within the same year, the Czech National Bank introduced an unexpected complication, not through debate or public dissent, but through a modest transaction that quietly expanded the technical perimeter of European reserve management.

On Nov. 13, the CNB confirmed that it had acquired roughly $1 million in Bitcoin, USD-backed stablecoins, and a tokenized deposit, placing the assets in a dedicated “test portfolio” designed to evaluate custody, valuation, compliance, and settlement procedures.

The bank’s leadership emphasized that the purchase would not be incorporated into official reserves and was not intended to signal any policy shift.

However, the act of conducting the experiment and doing so with live assets rather than laboratory models marks the first time an EU-member central bank has created and disclosed an operational framework capable of supporting Bitcoin at a sovereign scale.

That alone is enough to alter how markets interpret Bitcoin’s long-term role in the global financial system.

A test portfolio that expands the boundaries of what Bitcoin represents

The importance of the Czech pilot lies less in its size than in the infrastructure it puts into motion. Central banks regularly conduct internal analysis on new asset classes, but they rarely build a complete operational workflow unless they believe that such capabilities may eventually be required.

In this case, the CNB is examining the full suite of procedures necessary for managing digital instruments under reserve-grade scrutiny: secure key management, multi-layer approval chains, AML verification standards, crisis-response simulations, mark-to-market reconciliation, and integration with established reporting frameworks.

These processes are difficult to design and expensive to maintain, which is precisely why institutions do not establish them unless they anticipate that the underlying asset may become relevant in scenarios where preparation matters more than public signaling.

Once a central bank possesses the architecture to store and manage Bitcoin, the distinction between “test asset” and “reserve asset” becomes a matter of policy choice rather than operational feasibility.

For markets, this changes Bitcoin’s position in the sovereign selectorate. The asset shifts from being a conceptual outlier to a technically viable option whose adoption probability, however small today, is no longer zero.

Pricing models for long-duration assets respond to possibility as much as reality, and Bitcoin is particularly sensitive to changes in perceived legitimacy because a significant portion of its valuation has always reflected expectations about its future monetary relevance rather than current institutional participation.

How Prague’s move reshapes the market narrative around Bitcoin

The Czech experiment arrives at a moment when Bitcoin’s macro profile is already evolving, driven by ETF inflows, expanding liquidity, and a growing body of historical data about its correlation behavior under different rate environments.

What the CNB adds to that landscape is an entirely different form of signal: a sovereign institution treating Bitcoin as an instrument demanding operational mastery, even without committing to eventual adoption.

This reframing matters because central banks influence markets not only through their purchases but through the categories they create.

Therefore, when Bitcoin enters the realm of assets that a central bank must understand, it establishes a structural foothold in the global financial architecture.

For traders, the significance lies not in the Czech Republic suddenly accumulating a meaningful position, but in Bitcoin having crossed into the class of instruments that sovereign institutions are preparing to interact with if conditions change.

That preparation introduces what some macro analysts describe as a “sovereign option premium”: a valuation component reflecting the non-zero probability that future reserve diversification, stress-hedging, or geopolitical responses could involve digital assets.

Even if no central bank adopts Bitcoin in the near term, the act of operational testing reduces the asset’s existential risk profile and the fear that governments would remain universally hostile or permanently structurally excluded from interacting with it. In asset-pricing models, lower existential risk translates into higher long-term fair value.

This mechanism explains why a small, symbolic purchase can reshape Bitcoin’s strategic narrative without directly affecting its liquidity. Sovereign institutions rarely begin with large allocations; instead, they start with the infrastructure that enables them to act without improvisation.

Thus, the Czech step signals that Bitcoin has entered this preparatory phase, and markets tend to anticipate the implications of such transitions long before they occur.

Longer-term impact on BTC

The Czech Republic occupies a unique institutional position. It is bound by EU regulation, including MiCA, but operates outside the eurozone and thus retains full autonomy over its reserve composition.

Historically, non-Euro EU members have informally aligned with ECB reserve norms in the interest of maintaining credibility and cohesion; however, the absence of formal enforcement mechanisms has meant that such alignment has always been voluntary.

The CNB’s experiment does not constitute a break with the ECB. Yet, it demonstrates the limits of centralized guidance in an era when inflation cycles, debt dynamics, and technological change encourage reserve managers to pursue a broader palette of options.

For Bitcoin, this creates an important precedent. Europe is the world’s second-largest reserve bloc, and even minor shifts in its analytical posture can influence global perceptions of what constitutes a legitimate sovereign asset.

Suppose other non-Euro EU central banks or mid-sized institutions outside Europe, facing similar diversification pressures, replicate the Czech approach. In that case, Bitcoin’s sovereign thesis will mature more quickly than policy statements alone would suggest.

Central banks do not need to adopt Bitcoin for the asset to benefit from the operational normalization underway. They need only acknowledge that the capacity to manage it is part of their institutional toolkit.

The CNB has not signaled any intention to add Bitcoin to official reserves, and its leadership remains aligned with Europe’s cautious stance on digital assets. Even so, the act of building the infrastructure subtly changes the baseline from which future decisions will be made.

In that sense, the impact on Bitcoin is less about immediate demand and more about the narrative foundation it gains from being treated as a reserve-relevant instrument. Markets understand this dynamic well: institutional readiness is often the earliest indicator of eventual adoption, even if actual positions come years later.

Bitcoin’s long-term valuation models now incorporate the reality that at least one European central bank has decided the asset deserves operational competence rather than rhetorical dismissal.

For months, crypto traders have timed leverage, funding, and liquidity around the monthly U.S. inflation print.

This week, those who had hoped the recent vote to reopen the government would bring new macro data were disappointed to find nothing on the tape. The Bureau of Labor Statistics said in October that

“No other releases will be rescheduled or produced until the resumption of regular government services.”

The last completed CPI report, covering September, was released late on October 24, following the shutdown’s interruption of normal operations.

The all-items index level came in at 324.80, with headline and core inflation both at 3.0% year-over-year. Trading Economics currently lists December 10 as the next scheduled date on the CPI calendar.

Why the Missing October Print Matters for Markets

There is now a gap for October that may never be filled. Because the shutdown covered the full data-collection period, field staff were unable to gather the price sample that underpins CPI. That may be collated and included in the December update, but the indication is that there will now be a gap.

White House Press Secretary blamed the gap on the Democrats, asserting,

“The Democrats may have permanently damaged the Federal Statistical System with October CPI and jobs reports likely never being released.”

Without that survey, the BLS could not post an update on Nov. 13, the standard date when markets would have received the October reading. Officials have signaled that October may not be reconstructable even after operations return to normal, as there is no primary data to benchmark against.

For crypto markets, the absence of a number mattered more than any hypothetical value. Bitcoin and Ethereum entered the week positioned for a volatility event that never materialized. Though volatility came regardless.

Spot Bitcoin fell around 6% over the session, along with a sea of red across the entire crypto market. Liquidity remains thin, and derivatives open interest edged lower, a behavior that aligns with a market waiting for macroeconomic information that did not materialize.

The missing CPI broke the usual chain that connects inflation data to crypto price action.

Normally, a softer print feeds expectations for a less restrictive Federal Reserve path. Treasury yields edge down, the dollar weakens, and risk assets, including Bitcoin, catch a bid.

A hotter print does the opposite, firming expectations for tighter policy and pressuring long-duration assets.

With no data, rates desks had no fresh input for real yields or breakeven inflation. The Fed outlook shifts to a trade on speeches, market-based inflation swaps, and secondary indicators.

That macro vacuum pushed crypto further into its role as a proxy for expectations about future policy rather than a simple high-beta extension of equities.

Without CPI, desks leaned more on liquidity, ETF flows, and options positioning. Funding rates on major futures pairs compressed as new directional leverage stayed on the sidelines.

All of this redirects attention to Dec. 10, the next date on the CPI calendar. Trading Economics lists that day as the “next release,” although the value field is empty, emphasizing that it is a placeholder rather than a confirmed dataset.

The Market Impact of October’s Unfillable CPI Gap

Markets now have to price three broad paths for what that date could bring.

One path is for the BLS to manage the reconstruction of some form of October CPI using partial samples, imputation, or model-based estimates.

If that happens, traders may treat the number as lower quality than a normal print, since the underlying survey would not follow the standard methodology. Reaction in crypto could be modest.

If the headline monthly change lands at 0.2% or below, consistent with a controlled disinflation trend, the usual pattern would be dollar softness, a pullback in yields, and a Bitcoin bounce.

Ethereum is likely to outperform over the next one to two days as traders re-engage with higher-beta risk. Smaller altcoins tend to follow, often moving in the 5–12% range once liquidity shifts down the risk curve.

If the reconstructed number or a clean November print falls in a “sticky” zone around 0.3–0.4% month-on-month, the message for policy becomes less clear.

Yields may move in a narrow range, and crypto could end the day close to where it started. Bitcoin may trade flat, with altcoins underperforming as traders cut marginal risk.

Funding rates in perpetual futures could slide into slightly negative territory as short-term hedging flows dominate.

A third path is that inflation data comes in hot at 0.5% or above. That outcome would strengthen expectations that the Fed needs to keep policy tight for longer, pulling the dollar higher and pushing Treasury yields up across the curve.

In previous episodes, such combinations have been associated with a 3–6% intraday drop in Bitcoin, sharper moves in Ethereum, and a broad deleveraging in altcoins.

Liquidation volumes in such washouts often run two to four times above recent norms as overleveraged positions are forced out.

How the CPI Void Reshapes Short-Term Macro Trading

The more unusual scenario is that Dec. 10 arrives with no October CPI at all because the BLS decides the missing survey cannot be credibly reconstructed or additional delays occur in the pipeline.

In that world, the next clean reading would reflect November conditions, and the gap between hard inflation data points would stretch to almost two months.

Treasuries would need to lean more heavily on breakeven markets and inflation swaps to anchor expectations. The term’ premium across the curve’ could embed a fatter risk buffer for the uncertainty surrounding true price dynamics.

Trading Economics currently forecasts continued inflation pressure into next year, with CPI rising month-on-month.

For digital assets, a world with unreliable or irregular inflation data introduces a new kind of macro regime.

Crypto becomes more of a “macro-smoothed” asset class, trading on slower-moving forces such as ETF flows, structural demand from long-only allocators, corporate balance sheet decisions, and the plumbing of dollar liquidity.

Short-term volatility driven by scheduled data would fall, replaced by longer episodes of uncertainty punctuated by policy communication and idiosyncratic crypto events.

That regime would likely reinforce Bitcoin’s status as the sector’s benchmark. When macroeconomic uncertainty is high but data are sparse, traders have a lower appetite for tokens farther out on the risk spectrum.

Capital tends to consolidate into assets with deeper liquidity, clearer narratives, and more developed derivatives markets. Altcoins that rely on high leverage or speculative momentum for price support may find these conditions scarce until regular macroeconomic releases resume.

The CPI gap also elevates the importance of alternative data sources and nowcasting models that attempt to infer inflation from high-frequency inputs such as card spending, freight rates, or online prices.

Traditional macro desks already track those indicators, but without a monthly BLS checkpoint, they carry more weight.

Crypto traders may have to incorporate such tools more systematically if the formal inflation pipeline remains unstable.

For now, the CPI story is not about an upside or downside surprise but about an empty line in the macro calendar.

The last confirmed reading shows a 324.80 index level for September with 3.0% inflation on both headline and core measures.

The next entry is a blank field on Dec. 10 that may or may not contain October’s missing data. Crypto markets are trading around this absence, waiting to see whether the world’s most-watched inflation gauge reappears or whether the macro vacuum persists.

Bitcoin has done what many bulls dreaded: it plunged below six figures, crashed through $100,000, and even tumbled past $98,000 in a wave of liquidations not seen since May.

As reported by CryptoSlate, BTC fell to $98,550, triggering $190 million in long liquidations in one hour and $655 million in 24 hours as spot ETFs saw a $278 million net outflow on Nov. 12 and $961 million for the month so far.

This event shifted a slow decline into a sharp drop, clearing leveraged longs and forcing the market to face the on-chain support below the price.

On-chain data reveals shifting market structure beneath $100k

Coinbase data showed the extent of the move in the US after liquidations began. Bitcoin peaked at $103,988 before falling to $95,900, last closing near $96,940: barely 2% above $95,000, the on-chain HODLers Wall. The market fell from a 5% cushion above the wall to nearly touching it.

The on-chain wall’s structure remains, but price behavior has changed. Cost-basis distribution shows that approximately 65% of all invested USD in Bitcoin is above $95,000, with every short-term holder’s coin priced there or higher, and 30% of the long-term holder supply in the same range.

This isn’t the thin, speculative air of 2017’s top or the initial 2021 peak. It’s similar to the denser “second-wind” structure of late 2021, where seasoned holders and new entrants shared the topping zone, and resolution took months.

That density explains why spot has dragged for so long. The US election rally last year pulled a broad swath of buyers into the $95k–$115k range and trapped them through a year of sideways trading.

With the short-term holder cost basis already breached at about $112,000, every failed attempt to recover that level trapped more recent buyers underwater while long-term holders sat on a layered cost-basis ladder just below the highs.

Futures unwind and ETF outflows reveal a thinning support zone

The latest cascade exposed that structure: once futures longs started to unwind, there was very little fresh demand between the $106k-$118k resistance area that Glassnode flagged and the psychological $100k handle, and ETF demand was no longer strong enough to absorb forced selling.

The key difference now is who’s selling. In 2017 and 2021, supply near the top was mostly from short-term holders. After those peaks, older, in-profit coins rotated out. Then, unrealized losses reached 15% of the market cap within six weeks, filling old air pockets.

In 2025, unrealized losses are about half what they were in January 2022, despite BTC trading under $100k and touching the wall.

Glassnode data shows STHs have been underwater against their $111,900 cost basis since October. Their realized profit-loss ratio fell below 0.21 near $98,000, meaning over 80% of the value they moved there was sold at a loss.

This is classic capitulation by top buyers, not a broad LTH exit. Checkonchain confirms: almost half the coins recently sold came from high-entry, recent buyers exiting as the market hovers near the wall.

That’s why $95k still matters. It was a theoretical bull cycle “fail point”; now the price nears it. New Coinbase data shows that BTC’s $95,900 low places it deep within the long-term holder zone, where most coins remain unmoved. If this group stays firm, the wall can absorb forced STH and derivatives selling.

However, if Bitcoin cleanly loses $95,000, the roadmap is reasonably clear. The first shelf sits around $85,000, the “tariff tantrum” low, where spot hammered out a local bottom during earlier policy jitters and briefly refilled part of last year’s air pocket.

Below that is the True Market Mean at $82,000, which sits directly over the residual gap from the US election pump and would be a natural magnet for a deeper flush. Only beyond those levels does the large, older demand band between $50,000 and $75,000 re-enter the conversation.

How this cycle’s risk profile differs from 2022

There is another key difference from 2022 that the current price action has not undone.

Back then, the loss of the $45k base of that cycle’s HODLers Wall was swift and brutal: STH cost basis gave way at $54k, the wall at $45k offered almost no support, and the market spilled straight down to the True Market Mean around $36k, intersecting a multi-year air-pocket that went all the way back to the start of the cycle.

In this cycle, the potential fall from the wall to the mean is much shorter, and the underlying demand from the 2024 range is closer in price. A move from $95k to the low-$80ks would hurt, but it would not recreate the kind of deep, multi-year bear that followed the 2021 peaks.

The short-term backdrop remains fragile. ETF flows tilt negative, redemptions replacing the steady inflows that supported Bitcoin for most of the year. Perpetual funding and open interest have declined since October’s leverage flush. Options markets now pay an 11% implied volatility premium for puts over calls, signaling traders are hedging for downside.

What happens next depends less on short-term traders than on the holders who own the bulk of the supply above and just below $95k.

If they hold their nerve, the wall can continue to act as a floor, giving the market time to rebuild demand. If they crack, the path through $85k and down toward the $82k mean is already drawn on the on-chain chart.

Equity screens show a broad red, with the S&P 500 down around 1.8% and the entire crypto market under pressure simultaneously.

What appears to be an unexplained wipeout is, in fact, a layered move driven by interest rate expectations, crowded positioning in tech and AI names, and a shift in global risk appetite that is pulling liquidity from the parts of the market that led the prior rally.

Across crypto, the tape was heavy over the last 24 hours: Bitcoin -5.8%, Ethereum -9.4%, XRP -8.8%, Solana -9.2%, and BNB -5.2%. As a result, the total market cap fell by 6% to $3.2 trillion from around $3.4 trillion.

Over $1.1 billion was wiped out from futures markets, according to CoinGlass data, with over $500 million liquidated from Bitcoin positions alone.

Tightening financial conditions reverberate through growth assets.

The first piece sits with the Federal Reserve. Markets spent much of the year pricing in a clear path toward rate cuts and a softer stance on policy.

Recent communication has pushed back on that comfort, with officials leaning toward keeping policy tight for longer and treating incoming data with caution.

Investors had built in a faster easing path, and the adjustment toward fewer or later cuts has pushed yields higher across the curve.

Higher real yields compress the present value of long-dated cash flows, which hits growth stocks and long-duration assets and pulls forward the valuation reset that had been delayed by abundant liquidity.

That repricing feeds directly into the sector that carried much of the index-level gains. The latest leg of the S&P 500 move was led by mega-cap tech and AI-related names.

Markets have been debating whether the earnings and spending path can match the premium baked into those stocks.

Shares of Nvidia, Alphabet, and Tesla have come under pressure as traders reassess how much AI-driven revenue and margin expansion can realistically land within the next few years.

When these names lose altitude, cap-weighted indices move with them, and passive products like SPY show broad declines even if other sectors are relatively stable.

Reshaping risk premiums and driving a broad rethink of where capital can safely sit.

The move is not only about valuations, it is also about positioning and flows. There has been a rotation out of the prior “everything up” phase toward a more defensive stance as policy, macro, and earnings uncertainty builds.

That is visible in the distribution of sector returns. In the most recent session, technology stocks fell by around 2%, while healthcare stocks gained close to 0.9%.

Capital is shifting from high-growth areas with multiple returns to value and defensive sectors, such as healthcare and, in some cases, energy.

From an index-level view, however, the heavy weight of tech means those smaller pockets of green are not enough to offset the drag from mega caps, so the screen still looks uniformly red.

Macro and political headlines are adding to that caution. The Dow fell approximately 397 points in a single session as traders sought to reduce risk and raise cash.

Concerns around fiscal negotiations and the prospect of government shutdown brinkmanship in the United States have added another source of uncertainty to the outlook for growth and policy.

In Europe, the upcoming UK budget forecasts are causing markets to react to the prospect of higher taxes and tighter fiscal room, which is pressuring domestic stocks and weighing on broader European sentiment.

Together, these factors create an environment where cross-border flows into US equities can slow or reverse, which further amplifies weakness in benchmarks such as the S&P 500.

This backdrop matters for crypto because the same drivers shape funding, leverage, and risk appetite on-chain and in derivatives.

How shifting rate expectations and tech unwinds triggered the sell-off.

For much of the year, Bitcoin and large-cap digital assets have behaved as high-beta expressions of the same macro trade that supported growth equities.

When real yields rise, the dollar strengthens, and volatility increases in stocks, multi-asset funds, and crossover traders often reduce their exposure across the board.

That means de-risking in tech portfolios can coincide with reductions in crypto holdings, forced liquidations in perpetual futures, and lower demand for leverage.

Even crypto-native flows feel the impact as stablecoin yields compete with Treasury rates and marginal capital faces a clearer opportunity cost.

At the same time, the structure of equity indices shapes how “everything red” appears on trading dashboards. SPY tracks large-cap US stocks, with considerable weight in information technology and communication services.

When those sectors come under pressure, the ETF reflects that move almost immediately.

According to the Financial Times, a renewed bout of “tech jitters” has driven broad US stock declines, as traders question whether the AI and cloud spend cycle can keep pace with prior expectations.

SPY’s drop of roughly 1.8% fits that pattern, where heavy selling in a concentrated group of leaders pulls the rest of the basket lower even if some defensive or value names are flat or slightly positive.

Flows also matter around the edges. When buyback programs pause during blackout windows, a steady source of corporate demand for shares temporarily disappears.

If that coincides with higher volatility, hawkish central bank messaging, and headline risk around budgets or shutdowns, selling pressure has fewer natural counterparties.

Earnings results have been solid in many cases; yet, the bar set by prior guidance and market expectations leaves less room for an upside surprise.

Parsing what comes next: why cross-asset signals matter now.

In that environment, “good enough” numbers can still lead to downward price moves as traders lock in gains and fade stretched narratives.

For crypto markets, the forward path hinges on how this macro repricing evolves rather than on any single equity session.

If the higher-for-longer policy remains the base case and the cost of capital stays elevated, the hurdle rate for speculative and long-duration assets remains high.

Bitcoin’s role as a liquidity asset, macro hedge, or risk asset can shift across cycles, so monitoring realized correlation with equities, ETF flow data, and stablecoin market value will be important for reading whether the current sell-off reflects a temporary flush or a deeper reset of risk appetite.

For now, a slower path to rate cuts, pressure on crowded tech and AI trades, and more cautious global capital flows are working together to keep both equities and crypto in the same red zone.

Canary Capital’s spot XRP ETF surpassed $36 million in trading volume within its first three hours on Nov. 13, positioning the fund as a contender for the strongest exchange-traded fund debut of 2025.

The XRPC traded at $25.74 as of 4:43 P.M. UTC, generating volume equivalent to 63% of Bitwise’s Solana ETF (BSOL) first-day performance, which is the current 2025 benchmark among more than 850 fund launches.

Bloomberg senior ETF analyst Eric Balchunas projected the fund would “blow away” his initial $17 million estimate and potentially surpass BSOL’s $57 million opening-day record.

XRP climbed 3.3% to $2.41 in the 24 hours surrounding the launch while Ethereum and Solana declined 1.4% and 1.3%, respectively.

The divergence suggests concentrated buying interest tied to the new investment vehicle rather than broader market momentum.

Canary Capital framed its product around XRP Ledger’s technical architecture, stating on X that the network “represents a leading framework for global payments, purpose-built for interoperability and real-world settlement.”

The positioning emphasizes payment infrastructure over speculative trading, aligning with Ripple’s long-standing narrative around enterprise adoption.

Regulatory context frames launch significance

The fund’s approval carries weight beyond its trading metrics. The Securities and Exchange Commission maintained active litigation against Ripple Labs for five years before settling three months ago.

Following the decision, XRPC is the first XRP public spot investment product registered under the Securities Act of 1933.

NovaDius Wealth president Nate Geraci stated on Nov. 2 that the launch represents “the final nail in the coffin of previous anti-crypto regulators.”

On Nov. 11, he noted the SEC appealed a court ruling that XRP did not constitute a security just one year prior. Geraci stated:

“Hard to describe crypto regulatory shift over past year. Night & day.”

Additionally, he predicted on Oct. 29 that the fund would “easily become” a billion-dollar product within months, with “flows dramatically exceeding what people are expecting.”

Regarding inflows, experts predicted in September that XRP ETFs would capture $8 billion in their first year of trading.

The launch tests whether institutional demand for XRP exists, despite the SEC’s years of creating a scenario of legal uncertainty for Ripple, which only recently started to change.