Phyrex.Ni
Phyrex.Ni
No extravagance, no waste
0Following
2.4Kfollowers
Feed
Feed
I remember discussing this with @Murphychen888 M before, and the final conclusion is that the newly acquired $BTC by long-term holders can also be considered as long-term held Bitcoin to some extent. This extent refers to the average holding time of each new Bitcoin after it enters the wallet.
However, it is true that the official explanation from GlassNode is not very clear, but it’s not a big deal. For us ordinary investors, the data shows that the Bitcoin held long-term is increasing, which is the most important data, as it indicates that the Bitcoin willing to participate in trading is decreasing.
Currently, the long-term held BTC has exceeded 73.77%, and a portion of the remaining short-term held BTC is gradually turning into long-term holdings.
I warmly welcome discussions from everyone. Little Chu @riyuexiaochu, I almost forgot to mention this. Thanks to M for directly asking someone from the GlassNode team.
Murphychen
I used to be confused about how long-term holders (LTH) and short-term holders (STH) are specifically classified. If there is a misunderstanding of the logic behind the data, it can lead to biased or even incorrect analysis.
To address this, I had an in-depth discussion with the Glassnode developer team regarding the algorithms and definitions of LTH and STH. To date, there should not be a comprehensive analysis and explanation in the Chinese community.
I happened to see Ni Da @PhyrexNi and Teacher Xiao Chu @riyuexiaochu discussing this topic, so I’ll try to explain:
Step one, to determine the exact threshold for distinguishing STH and LTH based on coin age, Glassnode analyzed the slope of the probability curve of UTXOs being spent over various time periods. The result showed that in each case, the maximum slope of the sample occurred at a coin age of exactly 155 days.
In other words, the probability of BTC being moved again is minimized only after holding for at least 155 days. Therefore, we use 155 days as the basic distinction standard between LTH and STH.
Step two, based on this, Glassnode engineers also considered the average time each on-chain entity has held since the purchase date. If this time exceeds 155 days, the entity is considered a long-term holder.
For example, if I have 10 BTC in my wallet held for 300 days, and today I buy 5 BTC held for 1 day, then the average time is: (10*300+5*1)÷15=200 days; this time is greater than 155 days, so the 5 BTC I bought today will be classified as long-term holders.
Step three, to refine the sharp classification threshold and convert it into a smooth weighting factor curve, Glassnode used a logistic function with a midpoint of 155 days and a transition width of 10 days.
This way, the curve will be smoother and will not suddenly spike or drop. Generally speaking, if held for about 177 days, 90% of the Bitcoin will be classified into the LTH supply.
So, in summary, the increase in net holdings of LTH indicates two points:
🚩 1. Older LTHs are increasing their holdings, as long as the average holding time of BTC in the wallet is greater than 155 days;
🚩 2. BTC held by STHs has been held, and after about 177 days, it becomes new LTH;
However, an increase in net holdings of LTH does not mean that LTHs are not selling.
For example, looking at Chart 4: from July 7, 2025, to now, LTHs have cumulatively spent 5.747 million BTC, but the actual net holdings of LTH have only decreased by 44,000 BTC. This indicates that while LTHs are spending, a large number of STHs are holding steady, thus replenishing the LTH.
Since February 14, 2026, the net holdings of LTH have resumed an upward trend, indicating that the total number of old LTHs increasing their holdings plus STHs holding steady and transitioning to new LTHs has exceeded the amount spent by LTHs.
For the market, this means that the pressure from the supply side has decreased. As the demand side continues to accumulate with the improvement of the macro environment, we will gradually emerge from the swamp of the bear market.
The benefits of shorting WTI on cryptocurrency platforms are the ability to use high leverage, while the downside is the funding rate.
The advantages of shorting WTI through brokers or traditional futures accounts are lower costs and prices that are closer to the actual crude oil futures market, but the downside is that the leverage is not as high.
If it's just a short-term gamble, for example, judging that the risk premium in the Strait of Hormuz has been overvalued, then the advantage of cryptocurrency platforms lies in their flexibility, speed, and high leverage, making them suitable for a quick emotional pullback.
However, if it's a medium to long-term judgment, such as believing that oil prices cannot sustainably hold above $120 or $130, then brokers or traditional futures accounts are actually more suitable.
Especially in cryptocurrency platforms, if the funding rate remains persistently high, even if the direction is ultimately correct, one might still be slowly ground down in the process.
Setting the liquidation price around $138 is actually a very smart move. Because the historical highest price for WTI is around $147 in 2008. Breaking through this historical high is not easy.
Once oil prices enter the $120, $130, or $140 range, demand destruction will occur quickly; aviation, shipping, chemicals, and gasoline consumption will all be compressed, and rising inflation will force central banks to adopt a more hawkish stance, ultimately hitting the economy and crude oil demand.
In the latest survey, although analysts have raised their oil price forecasts, the expected average price for WTI in 2026 is only $80.07 per barrel, indicating that the mainstream baseline scenario is still not one of breaking through historical highs in the long term.
I have always believed in being bearish; shorting WTI is fine, but there must be a relatively high liquidation price as a guarantee.
Ai姨
The oil short sellers on Hyperliquid are losing money while paying funding fees 🥲
Address 0x60a…685f6 added 1.2 million USDC as margin to Hyperliquid ten minutes ago to raise the liquidation price of the oil short position.
Currently, he holds short positions of 103,000 $CL and 21,000 $BRENTOIL, with a total value of $13.58 million, an unrealized loss of $1.8 million, and the latest liquidation prices are $138.48 and $144.64, with funding fees reaching as high as $240,000.
Portal 👉
😂 The funniest thing is not that cryptocurrencies are ranked first.
But rather politics; the Iran conflict is also a reason affecting cryptocurrencies, along with business and finance, since the U.S. market has the biggest impact on cryptocurrencies. In this top ten, at least four items are directly or indirectly related to cryptocurrencies.
This also tells us what currently has the best traffic on X.
Although cryptocurrency is the most muted option in X, it still cannot be complacent. A bear market should be about building, so that the bull market can yield better results.
Phyrex.Ni
Statement: I have not received any funding from foreign hostile forces, nor have I conveyed the idea that doing nothing is acceptable. Even in the crypto space, I hope everyone firmly resists the mindset of doing nothing. We must persist in actively buying the dip; if there are difficulties, we should face them, and if there are none, we should create challenges to overcome!
Statement: I have not received any funding from foreign hostile forces, nor have I conveyed the idea that doing nothing is acceptable. Even in the crypto space, I hope everyone firmly resists the mindset of doing nothing. We must persist in actively buying the dip; if there are difficulties, we should face them, and if there are none, we should create challenges to overcome!
Let me elaborate on my reasons for shorting WTI:
The following are just my personal reasons for shorting and do not necessarily mean they are correct. This is just how I see it, and I do not recommend copying my strategy. I am not responsible for any losses incurred from copying me 😂
First: The ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran has been extended, and neither side wants to fight. The current situation in the Strait of Hormuz should be temporary and won't last long.
Second: During wartime, WTI has reached a peak price of over $120, so I set my liquidation price above $120. The last time it exceeded $120 was in 2022.
Third: The historical highest price for WTI is $147, which indicates that there is a ceiling for further increases. Typically, WTI trades below $75. Currently, I have averaged down at $103, and I personally believe the downside potential is greater than the upside potential.
It's best to short through a broker to avoid issues with funding rates, although the current funding rates are not high.
That said, I may not be right; this just represents my own trading approach.
Phyrex.Ni
The impact of the UAE's exit from OPEC and OPEC+ on oil prices
Brother Wu @qinbafrank has already explained the impact of the UAE's exit from OPEC and OPEC+. I see that some friends in the comments are worried about whether oil prices will continue to rise as a result.
But in fact, from a long-term perspective, the UAE's exit from OPEC+ is not the core reason for rising oil prices; rather, it is likely to suppress oil prices.
Today, both WTI and Brent have surpassed $100, which is essentially not because of the UAE's exit, but because the market is trading on the risks of disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz.
In other words, the core of the current rise in oil prices is:
Transport disruptions + geopolitical risks + supply uncertainties.
It is not because the oil on the market will decrease after the UAE exits OPEC+. On the contrary, the core of the UAE's exit is not to reduce oil production, but to avoid being restricted by OPEC+'s production quotas.
Previously, although the UAE had the capacity to increase production and exports, it could not casually raise output due to the OPEC+ production reduction framework. Now, if it exits OPEC+, this restriction will be lifted, and the UAE will actually have greater room for increasing production.
So in the short term, oil prices may continue to maintain high volatility due to the situation in the Strait of Hormuz, Iran, and maritime risks, and may even continue to rise.
But in the medium to long term, if the Strait of Hormuz becomes clear again and the geopolitical risk premium starts to decline, then the UAE's exit from OPEC+ will actually become a factor pushing oil prices down.
Because the market ultimately trades on supply and demand relationships.
If the UAE increases production, global oil supply will increase. If Saudi Arabia is also forced to adjust its strategy to maintain market share, then OPEC+'s ability to control prices will further decline.
In the most extreme case, oil-producing countries will re-enter the game of whether to protect prices or market share.
If everyone chooses to protect prices, then oil prices can remain high. But if some countries start to grab market share, oil prices will be significantly suppressed.
For the current situation, if the issues in the Strait of Hormuz are not resolved soon, oil prices will still carry a risk premium. But if the Strait of Hormuz gradually recovers and the UAE begins to release production capacity, then a drop in oil prices is inevitable; it's just a matter of time.
So my judgment is: the UAE's exit from OPEC+ is not the main reason for rising oil prices in the short term, but in the medium to long term, it is a potential bearish factor for oil prices.
This is my personal opinion; I still recommend shorting WTI at high prices.
Some friends have good questions. It seems that the funds have shifted from net outflow to net inflow, so will the upward trend of Bitcoin change?
From my personal perspective, data can only explain what has happened in the past and is difficult to predict the future, or rather, data represents predictions about the future under normal circumstances.
For example, the drop in April 2025 was due to Trump's tariff war, and the subsequent rise was because Trump changed his initial tariff ideas, which was favorable for the market, leading to the increase.
Currently, the rise is more due to the ceasefire between Iran and the United States, which the market sees as positive, expecting oil prices to drop, inflation not to continue rising, and the probability of recession to decrease, thus leading to a large influx of funds.
However, if we assume that Iran and the United States start fighting again tomorrow, or even escalate into war, then funds will likely retreat, and naturally, the market will worsen, leading to a drop in the price of $BTC.
When discussing trends, it is necessary to look at the long cycle versus the short term. In the long cycle, the U.S. will eventually enter a rate-cutting cycle; this is certain, but the timing is uncertain. Therefore, according to the economic cycle, a low-interest-rate period will inevitably come, and low rates are often favorable for risk markets.
But in the short term, there are many constraints, such as oil prices, geopolitical conflicts, tariffs, monetary policy, and so on.
Phyrex.Ni
The data discussed earlier pertains to Bitcoin, and there have been significant changes in the funding situation of cryptocurrencies themselves recently. Although there was a clear buying sentiment from investors when $BTC was between $60,000 and $70,000, the recent capital flow indicates that a large amount of money has left the cryptocurrency market. After all, apart from Bitcoin, other cryptocurrencies, including $ETH, have already entered a bear market based on the data.
However, since Bitcoin reached $70,000 and now approaches $80,000, the amount of capital in the market has not only stopped decreasing but has actually been gradually increasing. Especially in the past week, we can see that the main capital in the market has shifted from net outflow to net inflow.
Although it is uncertain how long this inflow can be sustained, if the incoming funds can continue to be guaranteed, it will easily drive the price of Bitcoin to continue rising. After all, data has shown that more and more BTC is flowing towards long-term and high-net-worth investors.
Here are a few common misconceptions (❌):
1. The price of U has been continuously falling, indicating that we are still in a bear market because no one is buying U. ❌
Currently, the exchange rate of the US dollar to the Chinese yuan is indeed decreasing, and one of the reasons for this decline is monetary policy. Without delving into those complexities, USDT itself represents the US dollar. Therefore, when the exchange rate of the US dollar to the Chinese yuan is continuously decreasing, it is very normal for the exchange rate of USDT to CNY in OTC to also decrease.
The current exchange rate is 6.83, so it is normal for the OTC USDT to CNY exchange rate to be around this level, and a large transaction at 6.8 is also very normal.
Of course, unless there is an extreme market situation that requires a large amount of margin replenishment, which would temporarily push up the OTC price of USDT to CNY, but that would only be short-term.
2. Long-term holders not exiting the market won't drive up prices ❌
Currently, there are over 14.77 million long-term holders who have not moved their holdings for more than 155 days. What does this mean? The total number of Bitcoin that has been mined so far is 20.02 million, which means that 73.78% of the existing circulating supply of bitcoin:native has not participated in trading in the last five months.
Even during the lowest point of the last cycle in 2021, this number did not drop below 11.5 million, and in 2018's lowest point, it was still 8.57 million. Looking at the long term, the amount of Bitcoin held long-term has been consistently increasing. Even at the historical high of BTC at $124,000 during this cycle, the amount of long-term held BTC exceeded 14.67 million.
In fact, the more BTC that is held long-term, the less BTC is circulating in the market, which reduces the pressure to drive up prices.
3. The reason prices aren't rising now is due to institutions or whales dumping ❌
From a data perspective, in recent years, there has been a consistent rise in long-term holders and high-net-worth investors (holding more than 10 BTC) together, especially since high-net-worth investors have historically held the most Bitcoin. Therefore, we can conclude that more bitcoin:native is being transferred to long-term and high-net-worth investors.
This is often said as, money is going into the hands of those who are not short of it.
Moreover, this group of high-net-worth investors overlaps with long-term holders of Bitcoin. Therefore, when the long-term held BTC is continuously rising, it proves that the BTC held by long-term holders is greater than the BTC participating in trading. When the BTC price cannot continuously break through, it is very likely not due to high-net-worth investors dumping, but rather a large number of short-term investors trading.
This data can be seen in the daily URPD data, where a large amount of trading is almost entirely from BTC that participated in trading in the last week.
I will continue to add more.
Phyrex.Ni
In less than three months, long-term holders have increased their holdings of Bitcoin by over 330,000 coins.
Many friends have privately messaged me asking if the previous $BTC price around $60,000 was the bottom, and if we have already passed the last dip.
From my personal perspective, the last dip definitely hasn't happened yet, but whether it will happen is uncertain. In my definition, the last dip corresponds to a significant drop similar to an "economic recession," but currently, I haven't seen that. Even when the price fell to $60,000, the U.S. economy did not show any obvious signs of recession.
So, it's hard to say if this is the bottom, but I've been saying in my daily updates that Bitcoin below $70,000 is very attractive for investors.
From the data of Bitcoin that has not moved for over 155 days, we can see that in the past year, when Bitcoin's price was below $70,000, long-term holders significantly increased their BTC holdings, with over 330,000 Bitcoins bought by long-term holders during this period.
Correspondingly, the BTC supply on exchanges has been continuously decreasing, which also indicates:
1. Low prices not only do not make long-term holders capitulate, but instead encourage them to increase their holdings.
2. Prices below $70,000 have become a bottom-buying expectation for many investors.
3. Currently, the long-term held BTC is nearly 1.477 million, just under 60,000 Bitcoins away from the historical peak.
4. The vast majority of BTC holders are not interested in the short-term price movements of Bitcoin.
5. More and more investors are losing interest in short-term trading of Bitcoin (as evidenced by the decrease in exchange supply).
Therefore, it's hard for me to say that Bitcoin is currently in the bottom range, but it can be seen that investors are at least very interested in costs below $70,000. Even now, with BTC approaching $80,000, investor buying has not noticeably slowed down.
😂😂 A brief explanation:
First: Glassnode defines long-term holders as those who have not moved their Bitcoin for 155 days. So, from the most basic data perspective, an increase in long-term holders indicates that the amount of Bitcoin not participating in trading is increasing.
In other words, when the amount of long-held Bitcoin increases, it often signifies that this group of bitcoin:native holders has little interest in short-term trading. Of course, one might think that these investors are "stuck." However, this explanation of being "stuck" is actually incorrect.
For example, are the holders who sold at $69,000 in the last cycle currently at a loss or a profit? After all, the long-held Bitcoin has exceeded 14.77 million coins, which indicates that over 70% of Bitcoin holders are long-term holders.
Are 70% of long-term holders actively stuck? Clearly not.
From the data, long-term holders currently have over 10 million coins in profit, meaning that over 67.7% of Bitcoin among long-term holders is profitable.
Looking at it now, it is indeed true that investors from 155 days ago are stuck, but what about those from 2 or 3 periods of 155 days ago? The reason long-term holders are long-term holders is that they do not let short-term price fluctuations dominate their decisions.
Second: and most importantly, which many people overlook, the increase in Bitcoin held by long-term holders indicates that this group of investors has not sold their bitcoin:native recently, or that the amount of BTC sold by long-term holders is far less than the Bitcoin that remains unchanged.
In simple terms, the increase in long-held Bitcoin represents a long-term hold, and they are not selling in the near term (the amount sold recently is less than that of long-term holders).
Moreover, some people do not look closely; the chart provides two data points, and there is also the exchange inventory. The reason it is said that investors are very interested in Bitcoin priced between $60,000 and $80,000 is that the inventory on exchanges has significantly decreased in this range.
So at the very least, the long-held Bitcoin is continuously increasing, indicating that more holders are holding Bitcoin rather than trading it.
日月小楚
In this article, let's talk about a common mistake in on-chain data analysis, which is regarding long-term holders.
You might think that the chart shows that long-term holders have been increasing over the past few months.
But that's wrong!!
The definition of long-term holders: Glassnode defines those who hold for 5 to 6 months as long-term holders (approximately this number, I can't remember the exact figure).
So, it's not about increasing holdings; those who bought BTC earlier and are holding it without selling will naturally become long-term holders.
Now, 5 to 6 months ago was around the peak of BTC, when a lot of chips were trapped.
So, the strategy is to do nothing, and now, with the passage of time, they have become long-term holders.
The impact of the UAE's exit from OPEC and OPEC+ on oil prices
Brother Wu @qinbafrank has already explained the impact of the UAE's exit from OPEC and OPEC+. I see that some friends in the comments are worried about whether oil prices will continue to rise as a result.
But in fact, from a long-term perspective, the UAE's exit from OPEC+ is not the core reason for rising oil prices; rather, it is likely to suppress oil prices.
Today, both WTI and Brent have surpassed $100, which is essentially not because of the UAE's exit, but because the market is trading on the risks of disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz.
In other words, the core of the current rise in oil prices is:
Transport disruptions + geopolitical risks + supply uncertainties.
It is not because the oil on the market will decrease after the UAE exits OPEC+. On the contrary, the core of the UAE's exit is not to reduce oil production, but to avoid being restricted by OPEC+'s production quotas.
Previously, although the UAE had the capacity to increase production and exports, it could not casually raise output due to the OPEC+ production reduction framework. Now, if it exits OPEC+, this restriction will be lifted, and the UAE will actually have greater room for increasing production.
So in the short term, oil prices may continue to maintain high volatility due to the situation in the Strait of Hormuz, Iran, and maritime risks, and may even continue to rise.
But in the medium to long term, if the Strait of Hormuz becomes clear again and the geopolitical risk premium starts to decline, then the UAE's exit from OPEC+ will actually become a factor pushing oil prices down.
Because the market ultimately trades on supply and demand relationships.
If the UAE increases production, global oil supply will increase. If Saudi Arabia is also forced to adjust its strategy to maintain market share, then OPEC+'s ability to control prices will further decline.
In the most extreme case, oil-producing countries will re-enter the game of whether to protect prices or market share.
If everyone chooses to protect prices, then oil prices can remain high. But if some countries start to grab market share, oil prices will be significantly suppressed.
For the current situation, if the issues in the Strait of Hormuz are not resolved soon, oil prices will still carry a risk premium. But if the Strait of Hormuz gradually recovers and the UAE begins to release production capacity, then a drop in oil prices is inevitable; it's just a matter of time.
So my judgment is: the UAE's exit from OPEC+ is not the main reason for rising oil prices in the short term, but in the medium to long term, it is a potential bearish factor for oil prices.
This is my personal opinion; I still recommend shorting WTI at high prices.