Bitcoin capital inflows go down as prices remain above, resembling 2021-2022 bearish divergence leading up to major correction of the market.Bitcoin capital inflows go down as prices remain above, resembling 2021-2022 bearish divergence leading up to major correction of the market.

Bitcoin Capital Flow Declining Despite Price Rally – Bearish Divergence Signals Potential Market Shift

2025/12/07 01:00
bitcoin13 main

The cryptocurrency market is experiencing some concerning technical signals. Bitcoin’s capital inflows are continuing to decrease but have remained at elevated price levels. Ali, a market analyst, indicated that this situation is similar to the period of 2021-2022, when Bitcoin dropped more than 70% from its peak price. Additionally, the Realized Cap Net Position Change reflects that there has been a decrease in Capital Inflows forming Lower Highs against Capital Price forming Higher Highs.

Understanding the Decline in Capital Flow

Bitcoin‘s capital dynamics have told a very different story from its price action. The Realized Cap Net Position Change has been trending downwards despite price resiliency hinting that although existing holders have kept positions, additional capital injection into the market has slowed down significantly.

New data from blockchain analytics shows this trend to be true. BlackRock’s inaugural Bitcoin ETF has faced more than $2.7 billion in outflows in five consecutive weeks, signaling massive institutional outflows. This comes at the same time as Bitcoin trades at near highs, relating to professional investors reducing exposure regardless of the relative stability of prices.

Declining capital flows coupled with high price levels indicate that the existing holders are propping up the market instead of attracting new buyers. Therefore, any substantial selling pressure might start a rapid downturn because of the lack of sufficient buying appetite to take up the large entries.

Echoes of 2021-2022 – History Repeating Itself

The current market structure looks remarkably like the situation before Bitcoin’s major correction of 2021-2022. During that time frame, Bitcoin hit its all-time high of almost $69,000 in November 2021 when momentum indicators began to form lower highs signaling weakening strength regardless of the rising prices.

The bearish divergence that developed in late 2021 was hence an early warning signal of the downturn that followed. The Federal reserve rate hikes in March 2022 came during the point in time when markets were heavily leveraged, causing a wave of liquidations that sent Bitcoin into a massive and steep year-long decline.

Bitcoin ETFs saw cumulative outflows of $426.13 million in the last day of December, a month for major outflows in general. Despite this, the presence of more mature infrastructure and acceptance of these systems largely within the institutions is a key difference compared to the environment in 2021-2022, potentially offering resilience against the worst downside scenarios.

Long-Term Holders Make Gains Despite Weakness

Amid falling capital flows and institutional withdrawals, there has been a consistent build-up of long-term holders. On-chain data shows that while the short-term holders have been offloading their positions, often at losses, long-term holders have been adding positions.

This pattern is seen in bitcoin markets over time, as investors stack up during times of volatility. The activist position of long-term investors (accumulating during periods of market fluctuations) indicates strong conviction that Bitcoin has a viable long-term proposition, despite potential challenges associated with Bitcoin’s technology in the short term.

Currently, around 70% of the amount of Bitcoin circulating is stored by addresses that have not moved their coins in more than six months. This concentration means less available liquid supply to be used in transactions. While this can help underpin prices during periods of stable demand, if any significant size long-term holder does sell it could have significant market impact.

Conclusion

Current bearish price action for Bitcoin reflects the same bearish divergence that occurred during the 2021-2022 bear market with institutional selling accelerating and new investments slowing down. Despite this, growing accumulation by large buyers, as well as growing infrastructure supporting the Bitcoin ecosystem creates some degree of protection against extreme downside risk. In the coming weeks, it will become clear whether this bearish divergence will result in further downside corrections or temporary consolidation, so prudent risk management will be an important activity for all market participants.

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact [email protected] for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

Citadel pushes SEC to classify open-source developers as unregistered stockbrokers

Citadel pushes SEC to classify open-source developers as unregistered stockbrokers

The post Citadel pushes SEC to classify open-source developers as unregistered stockbrokers appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. On Dec. 2, Citadel Securities filed a 13-page letter with the SEC arguing that decentralized protocols facilitating tokenized US equity trading already meet statutory definitions of exchanges and broker-dealers, and regulators should treat them accordingly. Two days later, the SEC’s Investor Advisory Committee convened a panel on tokenized equities that made clear the question is no longer whether stocks can move on-chain, but whether they can do so without dismantling the permissionless architecture that built DeFi. The gap between those two positions now defines the most consequential regulatory fight in crypto since the Howey test debates. Citadel’s letter arrived at the moment when tokenized equities stopped being a thought experiment. The firm welcomes tokenization in principle but insists that realizing its benefits requires applying “the key bedrock principles and investor protections that underpin the fairness, efficiency, and resiliency of US equity markets.” In other words, the document suggests that companies seeking to trade tokenized Apple shares must comply with Nasdaq rules, including transparent fees, consolidated tape reporting, market surveillance, fair access, and registration as an exchange or broker-dealer. The filing warns that granting broad exemptive relief to DeFi platforms creates a shadow US equity market in which liquidity fragments, retail investors lose Exchange Act protections, and incumbents face regulatory arbitrage from unregistered competitors. Within hours, Uniswap founder Hayden Adams fired back on X, calling Citadel’s position an attempt to “treat software developers of decentralized protocols like centralized intermediaries.” He invoked ConstitutionDAO, the 2021 crowdfunding effort that pooled $47 million in Ethereum to bid on a first-edition Constitution at Sotheby’s, only to lose to Griffin’s $43.2 million bid. Additionally, Adams zeroed in on Citadel’s fair-access argument, calling it “actual nerve” from the dominant player in retail order flow. The exchange captured crypto’s core narrative of permissionless code versus gatekeeper control and…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/12/07 02:32
RWA Tokenization and Crypto Activities Declared High-Risk, Unapproved

RWA Tokenization and Crypto Activities Declared High-Risk, Unapproved

The post RWA Tokenization and Crypto Activities Declared High-Risk, Unapproved appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Key Takeaways: Seven major Chinese financial associations issued a coordinated warning against RWA tokenization and all virtual-currency-related activity. Regulators stressed that no RWA tokenization projects are authorized in China, citing risks of fraud, speculation, and illegal fundraising. Institutions and individuals were told to avoid all forms of crypto involvement, while enforcement measures widen to include foreign firms serving mainland users. China has delivered one of its strongest signals yet that crypto-linked products, especially RWA tokenization remain firmly off-limits. A rare joint notice issued by seven national financial associations warns that emerging narratives around “stablecoins,” “air coins,” mining, and tokenized real-world assets are now being used as fronts for fraudulent fundraising, cross-border fund transfers, and market manipulation. Below is a structured, journalist-style breakdown of the alert, written uniquely, with expanded insights to help readers understand the regulatory landscape and its implications for global crypto markets. Read More: China to Shake Crypto Markets With First-Ever Yuan Stablecoin Plan Amid U.S. Dollar Dominance China’s Joint Warning: RWA Tokenization Not Approved and Considered High-Risk China’s latest advisory makes it clear that the rapid rise of RWA tokenization in global markets does not translate into tolerance at home. The notice states that financial regulators have not approved any RWA token issuance, trading, or financing activities inside the mainland. Officials emphasized that tokenizing traditional assets such as bonds, real estate claims, or corporate receivables introduces several layers of risk. These include: Fake or unverifiable underlying assets Operational and governance failures Speculative hype marketed as financial innovation Use of RWA tokens for illegal fundraising or unapproved securities issuance The message is unambiguous: any assumption that RWAs occupy a regulatory grey zone in China is incorrect. They are grouped alongside virtual currencies, mining schemes, and stablecoins as activities that can trigger criminal liability when conducted domestically. Why RWAs…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/12/07 02:40