Continue reading for an in-depth analysis across all four parts of our Q1 2025 series, spanning Bitcoin, Ethereum, Stablecoins, and Exchanges & Derivatives.
This report unpacks how macroeconomic shifts, policy changes, and market behaviors that defined the digital asset landscape in Q1.

Introduction

Welcome to Amberdata’s Q1 2025 Market Report—a quarter defined by remarkable volatility, regulatory milestones, and significant institutional activity across the crypto landscape. The first months of 2025 were characterized by sharp price corrections and rapid sentiment shifts, driven largely by macroeconomic pressures, regulatory developments, and notable security incidents. From Bitcoin’s record-breaking highs followed by pronounced pullbacks, to Ethereum’s technological advancements amidst ecosystem turbulence, this period underscored the complexity and rapid evolution inherent to digital asset markets.

At Amberdata, we aim to illuminate these intricate market dynamics by delivering comprehensive analytics across critical metrics—including ownership concentration, transaction behaviors, stablecoin liquidity, and derivatives activity. By integrating on-chain insights with off-chain market intelligence, our platform empowers institutions, traders, and analysts to navigate the crypto ecosystem with clarity and confidence. Whether assessing shifts in Bitcoin ETF flows, tracking Ethereum’s staking yields, or evaluating stablecoin issuance trends, Amberdata’s tools provide the depth and precision required for informed decision-making.

Since the start of 2025, the cryptocurrency markets navigated intense fluctuations shaped by global economic factors, regulatory interventions, and institutional positioning. Bitcoin and Ethereum experienced significant volatility, marked by price peaks, steep declines, and periods of consolidation, each reacting sensitively to news events such as the inauguration of a crypto-supportive U.S. administration and major security breaches at leading exchanges. On-chain data revealed nuanced investor behaviors, from strategic whale accumulations during market dips to reactive selling pressures triggered by external uncertainties.

Institutional participation evolved notably during this period, demonstrated clearly through ETF fund flows and open interest fluctuations across major derivatives exchanges. Simultaneously, retail investors exhibited heightened responsiveness to volatility, impacting address activity and asset liquidity dynamics. In this report, we dissect these developments through a detailed examination of Bitcoin and Ethereum's ownership structures, stablecoin market dynamics, and derivatives trading trends. Our analysis offers actionable insights into how key metrics—such as Gini coefficients, UTXO distributions, stablecoin velocity, and exchange-based funding rates—reflect broader market sentiments and potential forward-looking opportunities.

In a quarter characterized by both strategic opportunities and heightened risk, comprehensive data remains an indispensable asset for informed market participation. Through Amberdata’s analytics, we offer an essential lens to navigate and understand the multifaceted dynamics that defined early 2025’s crypto market landscape.

The Importance of Comprehensive Data

Comprehensive, real-time data is essential for effectively navigating the crypto market, particularly given its volatility and rapid evolution. Insights into Bitcoin and Ethereum metrics, such as UTXO age distributions, holder accumulation patterns, and open interest trends, help investors and traders accurately assess market sentiment and underlying network strength. Additionally, stablecoin activity—including issuance trends, transaction volumes, and velocity metrics—can provide early signals about liquidity shifts and investor risk appetite.

Exchange-specific data, such as spot and derivatives volumes, funding rates, and long-short ratios, further enrich this analytical framework, offering crucial visibility into market positioning and potential leverage risks. Amberdata equips institutions and traders with these critical insights, enabling precise risk management and informed investment decisions. For more detailed research and analysis, visit our research blog. To explore how Amberdata can support your market strategies, contact us or request a demo.

Bitcoin

Introduction 

The first quarter of 2025 was marked by significant volatility driven by macroeconomic conditions, regulatory developments, and major security incidents, highlighting once again the crucial insights provided by analyzing on-chain metrics to explain Bitcoin volatility.Bitcoin reached a historic peak near $109,000 following the inauguration of U.S. President Donald Trump but quickly corrected amid investor anxiety about delayed Federal Reserve rate cuts, briefly falling below $90,000. February's market sentiment suffered a severe setback when Bybit experienced a $1.5 billion security breach, accelerating Bitcoin's decline into the high $70,000 range by March and April, intensified further by fears surrounding new U.S. tariffs. Institutional activity remained robust despite volatility. MicroStrategy notably increased its holdings by purchasing around 11,000 BTC (approximately $1.1 billion), reaching a total of nearly 461,000 BTC. ETF dynamics highlighted mixed investor sentiment: January saw strong inflows totaling around $4.5 billion, whereas February and March recorded notable outflows, including BlackRock reducing its Bitcoin holdings by 4,873 BTC in April alone. Concurrently, mid-tier holders (100–1000 BTC) expanded their share of total supply from 22.9% to 23.07%, underscoring sustained institutional confidence amidst broader market turbulence.

News and Major Events

Q1 2025 was characterized by significant volatility and key developments within Bitcoin’s ecosystem, influenced strongly by macroeconomic dynamics and pivotal institutional decisions. Starting from late-2024 highs exceeding $100,000, Bitcoin experienced substantial corrections and strategic shifts shaped by network milestones, regulatory announcements, and major institutional moves.

January began with an important network milestone: on January 3, Bitcoin’s network hash rate achieved a new all-time high, coinciding notably with Bitcoin’s 16th genesis anniversary. This increase underscored sustained confidence from miners and growing investment into network security. Market volatility soon followed; on January 13, Bitcoin briefly dipped below $90,000 due to market concerns that the Federal Reserve might delay anticipated interest rate cuts, thus triggering broader risk-off sentiment.

However, optimism quickly returned around mid-month. On January 20, Bitcoin surged dramatically, setting a new all-time high near $109,000 immediately after the inauguration of U.S. President Donald J. Trump. Investor sentiment turned bullish, driven by expectations of favorable crypto regulations under the new administration. Institutional confidence was further validated when, on January 21, MicroStrategy disclosed a substantial purchase of approximately 11,000 BTC (valued at $1.1 billion), bringing their total Bitcoin holdings close to 461,000 BTC. January ended positively, with U.S. Bitcoin ETFs experiencing near-record net inflows totaling roughly $4.5 billion, reflecting strong institutional appetite.

February’s optimism was abruptly disrupted by a significant security event. On February 21, the Dubai-based cryptocurrency exchange Bybit suffered a major security breach resulting in losses totaling around $1.5 billion in digital assets. This hack severely damaged investor confidence, triggering a swift market sell-off. Consequently, Bitcoin’s price fell sharply, retreating again below the critical $90,000 mark by February 25, reaching lows around $84,000 (as low as $78,000 in March and April), exacerbated by macroeconomic uncertainty stemming from escalating trade tensions due to President Trump’s new tariff threats.

In March, Bitcoin regained momentum due to significant regulatory and institutional support in the United States. On March 6, President Trump signed an unprecedented executive order establishing a U.S. “Strategic Bitcoin Reserve,” mandating that Bitcoin seized in federal criminal investigations be held long-term rather than liquidated, effectively recognizing Bitcoin as a strategic asset at the national policy level. Shortly thereafter, on March 7, the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) announced updated regulatory guidance explicitly authorizing federally chartered banks to custody cryptocurrencies and facilitate stablecoin transactions, further bolstering Bitcoin’s legitimacy and potential for institutional integration.

However, market anxiety briefly resurfaced on March 11, when the Mt. Gox rehabilitation trustee moved approximately $900 million worth of Bitcoin, prompting speculation of imminent repayments to creditors and fears of potential market flooding. These concerns were mitigated soon after, as trustee repayments were confirmed delayed until October 2025. The month concluded positively, with Bitcoin mining difficulty reaching another all-time high on March 30, indicating robust network health and sustained miner confidence despite market fluctuations.

In April, regulatory optimism surged again. On April 9, the U.S. Senate confirmed Paul S. Atkins as Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Known for his crypto-friendly stance, Atkins' appointment raised expectations of accelerated approvals for Bitcoin spot ETFs and greater regulatory clarity, signaling favorable conditions for institutional investors amid ongoing volatility.

Wallet Tracked BTC ETF Cumulative Totals

From January to April 2025, cumulative Bitcoin ETF holdings showed mixed yet insightful trends, reflecting investor sentiment amid market volatility and macroeconomic factors. BlackRock continued to dominate, holding approximately 580,430 BTC by April 2025, despite a slight decline from its peak holdings of 588,024 BTC in January. Fidelity, however, saw a significant drop, with holdings decreasing from 19,280 BTC in January 2024 to just 5,290 BTC by April 2025, highlighting investor reallocations likely due to performance concerns and shifts toward more dominant providers such as BlackRock and 21Shares.

Grayscale Mini, introduced mid-2024, rapidly gained traction, accumulating 40,392 BTC by April 2025, underlining strong retail and institutional interest in smaller, more flexible ETF structures. Meanwhile, established firms like Invesco and VanEck experienced volatility; Invesco’s holdings declined from 7,965 BTC in January to 4,941 BTC by April, indicating investor caution following Bitcoin’s significant market correction from nearly $98,000 down to the $70,000-$85,000 range. VanEck’s stability near 14,077 BTC by April suggests persistent institutional confidence, despite broader market turbulence.

Macro dynamics significantly influenced ETF flows. The market downturn between February and April 2025—driven by regulatory uncertainty, miner selling pressure, and broader risk-off sentiment—led to net outflows from several providers. Notably, Franklin Templeton and WisdomTree experienced steady declines, with WisdomTree’s holdings dropping sharply from 11,587 BTC in December 2024 to 1,548 BTC in April 2025, reflecting retail investor exits amid heightened volatility and competitive pressures from larger ETFs. Valkyrie similarly shrank from peaks around 7,591 BTC in early 2024 to about 2,991 BTC by April 2025.

Overall, these cumulative ETF trends underscore a critical shift in market structure: dominance consolidating around major players like BlackRock and Grayscale, alongside heightened sensitivity among smaller funds to market conditions and investor sentiment. Institutional traders and brokerages must monitor these shifts closely, as sustained ETF outflows or inflows significantly influence Bitcoin’s price trajectory. ETF dynamics, especially inflows to dominant providers or shifts driven by macroeconomic news—such as interest rate movements, regulatory updates, or broader financial market stress—are crucial indicators of broader market sentiment and future price stability.

Wallet Tracked BTC ETF Month on Month Changes

Meanwhile, cumulative net flows into Bitcoin ETFs showcased notable shifts, capturing the evolving market dynamics amid Bitcoin's substantial price volatility. January initially indicated resilience, with aggregate inflows of around 38,200 BTC across major providers like BlackRock, Bitwise, and 21Shares. However, investor sentiment sharply reversed by February, primarily driven by macroeconomic headwinds, regulatory uncertainties, and the sharp market correction from the $98,000 peak to lows near $70,000–$85,000. February alone saw significant net outflows, including 4,136 BTC withdrawn from 21Shares and 2,785 BTC exiting BlackRock, underlining growing investor caution and portfolio de-risking.

March was a stabilization month, characterized by more moderate flows as the market attempted a cautious recovery. BlackRock stabilized with minimal change, adding a marginal 64 BTC, indicating institutional investors paused to reassess. Bitwise continued its steady net outflow pattern, losing an additional 720 BTC, reflecting a continued rotation from mid-sized ETF providers towards dominant and perceived safer alternatives. Notably, Grayscale Mini capitalized on this uncertainty, adding 823 BTC, signaling its growing appeal among smaller institutional and retail investors looking for flexible entry points.

April saw renewed selling pressure, particularly evident at BlackRock, which experienced outflows of 4,873 BTC, its largest monthly reduction in recent history, coinciding with ongoing fears of sustained market volatility, intensified by macro events such as tighter monetary policy signals from global central banks. Fidelity, surprisingly, reversed its trend by adding 1,375 BTC, suggesting selective investor appetite returning to historically strong financial brands after months of heavy withdrawals. Contrastingly, mid-tier ETFs like Valkyrie and VanEck faced persistent net outflows of 26 BTC and 198 BTC, respectively, highlighting continued market polarization.

Overall, cumulative ETF totals from January to April 2025 reflect heightened sensitivity of institutional capital flows to broader market conditions, macroeconomic news, and Bitcoin's price action. The divergence between larger institutional-backed ETFs and smaller or retail-focused ETFs emphasizes ongoing consolidation within the ETF market structure, as risk-averse capital continues gravitating towards stability or exits the space altogether amid persistent uncertainty. Traders and institutions should closely monitor these nuanced capital flow trends as early indicators of market sentiment, especially as regulatory developments and macroeconomic factors remain significant drivers of Bitcoin investment strategies.

Gini Coefficient

From January to April 2025, Bitcoin’s Gini coefficient—a measure of wealth concentration within the network—showed modest upward momentum, rising from 0.4675 in January to roughly 0.4677 by April. While this indicates only a slight increase in concentration, it’s notable following the similarly mild but consistent rise from late 2024. In Q4 2024, the coefficient edged upward from 0.4657 in December to 0.4667, coinciding with Bitcoin’s historic surge above $100,000, spurred by bullish macro catalysts including the U.S. election outcome, Fed policy shifts, and major spot ETF inflows. This suggests whale activity increased slightly as larger holders potentially took strategic positions ahead of anticipated macroeconomic and policy-driven price moves.

For institutional traders and market makers, the subtle but consistent rise into early 2025 suggests continued accumulation by whales—possibly anticipating Bitcoin’s volatility amid early-year geopolitical tensions and trade uncertainties sparked by the Trump administration's tariffs. The relatively stable Gini coefficient also indicates broader distribution patterns remain largely intact; retail investors and smaller institutional holders continue playing a key role in market liquidity, mitigating extreme concentration risk. While profit-taking occurred, institutions (notably MicroStrategy and BlackRock’s ETF) largely held or incrementally added positions, reflecting conviction rather than speculation.

Overall, while modestly higher concentration could marginally amplify short-term volatility, especially amid the macro-driven uncertainty of early 2025, Bitcoin’s ownership structure remains relatively balanced compared to historic peaks. For both retail and institutional participants, this stable ownership landscape provides comfort that while whale movements deserve monitoring, they are not yet indicative of market imbalance or excessive manipulation risk.

BTC Holders vs Supply by Bucket

From January to April 2025, Bitcoin supply held by addresses owning between 100–1000 BTC saw continued growth, rising from approximately 22.9% to 23.07%. This upward trend builds on notable accumulation observed in Q4 2024, when these mid-tier investors increased their share from 20.8% in October to 22.5% in December. This segment—comprising hedge funds, family offices, smaller institutions, and affluent individual investors—has consistently absorbed Bitcoin supply, signaling ongoing confidence despite recent market turbulence.

This increased accumulation coincides notably with Bitcoin’s pullback from record highs above $100,000 down to the $70k–$85k range following heightened geopolitical tensions and uncertainty around U.S. trade policy under the Trump administration. The steady buying by mid-sized holders suggests strategic positioning rather than panic-selling, potentially stabilizing prices and preventing deeper declines. For institutions and brokerages, this signals resilience in underlying demand, reducing fears of protracted bear sentiment despite short-term volatility.

Conversely, larger holders (>10,000 BTC), typically major institutional entities and exchanges, reduced their relative holdings slightly from 15.0% to around 14.7% in early 2025. Their modest redistribution of supply could reflect tactical rebalancing in response to regulatory uncertainties or macroeconomic headwinds. Overall, the ongoing strength in mid-tier accumulation likely indicates a continued maturation and diversification of Bitcoin ownership, underpinning price support levels and providing traders a reassuring sign of long-term investor confidence even amid recent volatility.

BTC Holders Month on Month Change by Bucket

The month-over-month change in holder counts by bucket measures how many addresses within specific Bitcoin balance ranges (e.g., 0–0.001 BTC, 1–10 BTC, or 100–1000 BTC) have increased or decreased. This metric provides critical insight into investor behavior—such as accumulation, consolidation, or retail exits—especially around periods of price volatility.

From January to April 2025, smaller address buckets (0–0.001 and 0.001–0.01 BTC) displayed significant fluctuations, reflecting retail investor uncertainty during the recent crash to the $70–$85k range. For instance, the 0–0.001 BTC segment surged by 180,558 addresses in March, possibly indicating new retail entrants attempting to buy the dip. Conversely, the 0.01–0.1 BTC bucket experienced consistent net losses, particularly a notable drop of 8,909 addresses in April, suggesting consolidation of funds or cautious exits.

Institutional-sized holders (100–1000 BTC) remained steady and slightly positive, continuing their net accumulation observed from Q4 2024. Notably, they added 923 addresses in December during peak volatility and maintained modest but positive growth into early 2025 (+191 in January and +152 in February). This pattern implies institutions and high-net-worth investors utilized the downturn strategically, likely anticipating recovery or viewing the crash as a long-term buying opportunity.

These shifts highlight a bifurcated market response: retail traders exhibited more volatile, reactionary behavior, while institutions showed steadier, opportunistic accumulation. For brokerages, market makers, and institutions, this indicates sustained institutional support at lower price levels, reducing downside risk and suggesting that despite short-term volatility, underlying market resilience remains intact.

BTC Supply Month on Month Change by Bucket

Month-over-month changes in BTC supply held per bucket indicate shifts in actual Bitcoin balances within different investor groups. This metric provides direct insight into accumulation or distribution behavior, especially useful during periods of heightened market volatility, as seen in early 2025 following Bitcoin's correction from record highs above $100k down to the $70k–$85k range.

From January to April 2025, larger institutional-sized holders showed pronounced activity. The 100–1000 BTC bucket exhibited robust net accumulation in January (+93,060 BTC) and February (+62,651 BTC), aligning with the price correction and suggesting institutional buying on weakness. However, March saw significant distribution (-35,379 BTC), potentially indicating profit-taking or cautious repositioning amid continued price uncertainty. In April, accumulation resumed modestly (+9,350 BTC), signaling stabilizing institutional confidence.

Conversely, the largest whales (10,000+ BTC) steadily reduced holdings, notably shedding 52,443 BTC in January and another 5,537 BTC in March, before modestly adding 6,122 BTC in April. This highlights caution or rebalancing among the largest holders amid market turbulence.

Smaller retail buckets (0.1–1 and 1–10 BTC) showed mixed behavior. After significant selling pressure in January (-3,717 BTC and -9,992 BTC respectively), likely panic-induced during the initial crash, these groups briefly returned as buyers in February (+1,547 BTC and +6,765 BTC), possibly betting on short-term rebounds. By April, however, retail buckets showed renewed uncertainty, with the 1–10 BTC bucket notably selling again (-4,249 BTC).

Overall, early 2025 saw institutional and high-net-worth investors strategically accumulating amid price weakness, while retail investors exhibited uncertainty and volatility, highlighting the differing risk appetites across market segments. These dynamics suggest that institutional support remains firm at lower prices, potentially limiting further downside risk.

BTC UTXO Count Distribution by Age Bucket

From January to April 2025, the UTXO Age Distribution, which tracks how long Bitcoin remains unspent, reveals important shifts in holding behaviors. UTXOs represent unspent transaction outputs, essentially "held" Bitcoin fragmets; their age distribution indicates investor conviction, market sentiment, and liquidity availability.

The most significant trend was the notable rise in longer-term age buckets, particularly the "Over 8 Years" category, which rose from approximately 25.1 million to 26.4 million UTXOs—a nearly 1.3 million increase (~5%). This underscores very long-term holders, often large institutions or original adopters, increasing their conviction or remaining completely passive during market downturns. Similarly, the "5–8 Years" bucket saw moderate growth from 59.2 million to 59.5 million UTXOs, reflecting that early investors, possibly institutional funds or high-net-worth holders, remained steady despite price volatility and the recent price dip to the $70–85k range.

Conversely, shorter-term buckets, notably the "18–24 Months" and "1–3 Months" categories, saw sharp declines: from about 25 million to 17.4 million UTXOs (30% decline), and from 18.6 million to 11.4 million UTXOs (38% decline), respectively. This aligns closely with retail investor exits and mid-term speculative traders reducing exposure amid falling prices in Q1. These trends intensified notably in March, coinciding with market uncertainty triggered by macroeconomic conditions and significant selling pressure. However, a stabilization began by late March into April, with reductions in shorter-term categories slowing as prices began stabilizing.

BTC UTXO Value Distribution by Age Bucket

From February through March 2025, the UTXO Value Distribution by Age Bucket highlights significant shifts in how Bitcoin wealth is held across different timeframes measured in BTC. Most notably, the “Over 8 Years” bucket grew substantially, increasing from 4.33 million BTC in early February to 4.48 million BTC by the end of March. This increase of roughly 150,000 BTC (3.5%) underscores deep conviction among long-term investors, likely including institutional holdings or original adopters, indicating continued accumulation or inactivity despite the price decline into the $70–85k range.

In contrast, younger UTXO categories witnessed notable outflows. The “1 Month–3 Months” bucket saw one of the steepest declines, shrinking dramatically from approximately 2.79 million BTC in mid-February down to around 1.35 million BTC by the end of March, nearly halving (a decline of about 51%). Similarly, the “3 Months–6 Months” bucket first rose sharply due to initial panic selling, peaking at 2.95 million BTC mid-March before declining to around 2.83 million BTC by month's end, indicating redistribution as the market stabilized.

Short-term buckets, such as “1 Day–1 Week” and “Under 1 Day,” fluctuated sharply, reflecting heightened volatility and active trading, peaking during significant market events in March, like macroeconomic uncertainty and regulatory news.

For institutional traders, market makers, and brokerages, these shifts suggest tightening liquidity in mid-term holdings, as many investors exited or repositioned amid market instability. The growth in very long-term holdings indicates substantial institutional or high-net-worth conviction, potentially limiting circulating supply and amplifying price sensitivity. This data emphasizes the critical importance of understanding UTXO dynamics to anticipate liquidity and price reactions in response to future market catalysts.

BTC Liquid and Highly Liquid Balances

From January to April 2025, there was a pronounced shift in Bitcoin liquidity dynamics, marked by a significant rise in liquid balances—Bitcoin holdings more likely to be moved or traded in the near term. Liquid balances surged from roughly 536,000 BTC in early January to approximately 586,753 BTC by mid-April, an increase of nearly 50,000 BTC (around 9%). Highly liquid balances, indicative of holdings readily available on exchanges for immediate trading, also increased notably from about 93,000 BTC in early January to over 88,200 BTC by April, though with a smaller net rise due to mid-period fluctuations.

This rise in liquid and highly liquid BTC coincided directly with Bitcoin’s price correction from all-time highs above $100k down to the $70–85k range, suggesting growing selling pressure and profit-taking behavior. Institutional traders and brokerages would recognize this liquidity shift as evidence of weakening short-term holder confidence, aligning with the broader decline in market sentiment during the period. For market makers, elevated liquid balances indicate increased trading activity, volatility potential, and opportunities arising from heightened buying and selling pressures.

Given the steady illiquid supply (remaining stable near 19.4 million BTC), the market retains a large base of long-term holders reluctant to sell even during volatility. However, the increasing availability of liquid coins highlights a cautious or bearish short-term outlook. Should prices continue declining, especially below mid-2024 support levels, liquidity might further escalate, possibly leading to deeper corrections reminiscent of June–July 2024 lows, prompting institutions to brace for additional market volatility.

BTC NUPL and Supply Percentage in Profit

Net Unrealized Profit/Loss (NUPL) measures the overall unrealized profitability of Bitcoin holders, providing insight into market sentiment—higher values indicate optimism, while lower values reflect caution or fear. Supply in Profit Percentage indicates the proportion of circulating Bitcoin held at a profit compared to purchase prices, directly revealing investor confidence and resilience.

From January to April 2025, amid Bitcoin’s sharp price decline from peaks above $100k down to the $70k–$85k range, NUPL and supply-in-profit percentages reflected weakening investor sentiment. NUPL dropped from 0.602 (86% supply in profit) in late January—indicating strong optimism—to below 0.45 by mid-April (63% supply in profit). This decline highlights that many holders who accumulated during the run-up now find their positions under pressure, leading to rising caution and risk aversion across market participants, especially among retail investors.

The current April levels (NUPL ~0.44–0.48) remain notably above the lows of June-July 2024, when NUPL bottomed below 0.35 with supply-in-profit around 55–60%. However, given current downward momentum, a revisit to these lower levels remains plausible, particularly if macroeconomic conditions or regulatory uncertainties persist. For institutional traders, brokerages, and market makers, such declines imply potentially heightened volatility and increased trading volumes as holders reposition or exit positions.

The risk remains that sentiment could deteriorate further, reaching or surpassing Q3 2023 lows if prices continue falling sharply. Such a scenario would trigger broader selling pressure, possibly causing increased liquidations or forced selling from leveraged retail and institutional holders alike, emphasizing caution and readiness for elevated market turbulence in the short term.

BTC New, Passive and Active Addresses

From January to March 2025, Bitcoin network activity, represented by new and active addresses, showed a clear declining trend. The 30-day moving average for new addresses dropped from around 324,000 in mid-January to a low of approximately 310,000 by mid-March, reflecting reduced network participation amid price instability. Similarly, the 30-day moving average of passive addresses (longer-term holders) initially fell from approximately 509,000 in January to around 484,000 in late February. This activity slowdown coincided directly with the market downturn and significant price correction, highlighting caution and decreased transaction volume among traders and institutions during a period of uncertainty.

However, from mid-March into April, a notable recovery emerged. New address activity rebounded sharply, with the moving average climbing back from around 310,000 to over 316,000 by mid-April. Passive addresses followed suit, rising back to nearly 509,000 by early April, indicating renewed confidence and re-engagement of investors amid stabilizing prices. This turnaround coincided with the market finding support after its substantial correction, as prices stabilized within the $70–85k range. The rebound in network activity aligns closely with renewed institutional and retail interest, driven by potential accumulation at lower price points after the crash.

Compared to the robust network activity in Q4 2024, when new addresses peaked consistently above 325,000, early 2025 clearly saw caution-driven retrenchment followed by cautious optimism. The recovery in address activity during late March and April points to improving sentiment and suggests traders, brokerages, and market makers anticipate a potential market bottom, creating opportunities for renewed accumulation and trading strategies. Institutions and traders should watch closely for sustained increases in new and active addresses as a bullish confirmation signal for the next market cycle.

BTC New Inputs vs New Outputs

Between January and March 2025, the Bitcoin network saw a notable decline in transaction-related activity, reflected clearly by declining moving averages of new inputs (addresses spending coins) and new outputs (fresh addresses receiving coins). The 30-day moving average of new inputs dropped steadily from approximately 324,000 in mid-January to a low around 311,000 by early March. Similarly, the 30-day moving average for new outputs followed this trend, falling from 339,000 in January to approximately 312,000 in March. This decline mirrored cautious market sentiment and reduced transactional activity in response to the substantial market downturn, as Bitcoin prices pulled back into the $70–85k range, driven by macro uncertainty and profit-taking after previous highs.

However, from mid-to-late March into April, activity began to slightly rebound notably. The 30-day average of new inputs rose from a low near 311,000 in March to around 316,000 by mid-April. New outputs exhibited an even stronger recovery, increasing from 312,000 to about 316,000 during the same period. This slight increase in transactional activity likely indicates a shift in market sentiment, with traders and institutions re-entering positions and engaging actively after prices stabilized. The timing coincides closely with the market regaining some stability following the sharp corrections earlier in Q1, signaling renewed confidence from both retail and institutional traders.

Compared to the more robust transaction activity of Q4 2024—when new outputs frequently averaged above 338,000—early 2025 was significantly more subdued. Nevertheless, the slow rebound in both new inputs and outputs in April suggests the network is beginning to recover. This uptick could be interpreted as an indicator of improving liquidity, trader re-engagement, and potentially increased volatility ahead as participation returns to healthier levels.

BTC Price vs Stock to Flow

From January to April 2025, Bitcoin’s Stock-to-Flow (S2F) metric signaled a shift in market expectations and sentiment. The S2F ratio measures scarcity by comparing existing Bitcoin supply (stock) to newly mined Bitcoin (flow), historically correlating closely with price movements and investor behavior. Over this period, the S2F ratio rose steadily from approximately 97.57 in late January to over 117.5 by mid-April—an increase of about 20%. This notable rise indicates growing scarcity relative to new supply, which typically underscores bullish sentiment.

However, despite this increase in scarcity, Bitcoin’s price fell sharply from peaks around $104,700 at the end of January to a low of roughly $76,500 by early April. This divergence from S2F expectations suggests significant selling pressure due to external market forces, including regulatory uncertainty, macroeconomic instability, and a broader crypto-market correction. The moving average (MA50) trend highlights this downward momentum clearly, declining steadily from nearly $99,300 in early February to below $85,400 by mid-April.

For institutional traders, brokerages, and market makers, this divergence presents both a warning and an opportunity. While long-term scarcity and a rising S2F ratio typically suggest bullish pressure, market dynamics during Q1 2025 underscored the need to interpret S2F in context with real-time events, such as heightened regulatory scrutiny or macroeconomic shocks that can drive price volatility. Moving forward, the steadily rising S2F remains a critical long-term bullish indicator, implying potential for significant upward price pressure once external market conditions stabilize.

BTC Price vs Yardstick

From January through April 2025, Bitcoin's Yardstick indicator—a measure assessing Bitcoin's price relative to its historical average price—experienced significant fluctuations, reflecting market volatility and shifting investor sentiment. Initially, the Yardstick peaked notably around 3.06 on January 31, coinciding with Bitcoin’s high price. This high value indicated that Bitcoin was significantly above its long-term average valuation, signaling potential overheating and caution for traders and institutions alike.

However, by February, the Yardstick sharply declined, ranging between 0.44 and 2.48, mirroring the substantial drop in Bitcoin's price from over $100,000 to the mid-$90,000s, and subsequently to the lower $80,000s and upper $70,000s in March and April. Notably, the Yardstick even turned negative by early April (as low as -0.58 on April 4), indicating that Bitcoin had become undervalued relative to historical averages, marking a reversal in market sentiment toward extreme bearishness.

For institutional traders, retail traders, and market-making entities, this volatility in the Yardstick highlights critical trading opportunities and risks. The extreme high at the end of January signaled potential profit-taking and risk management opportunities, while the negative Yardstick values in early April suggested potentially attractive entry points following the price correction to the $70,000–$85,000 range. Moving forward, investors should closely monitor Yardstick values, as a return toward historical norms could indicate stabilization and recovery, whereas prolonged negative readings may point to sustained bearish sentiment influenced by broader market conditions or regulatory factors.

BTC Price vs Puell Multiple

From January to April 2025, Bitcoin's Puell Multiple demonstrated notable volatility, reflecting changing miner profitability relative to historical trends. The Puell Multiple compares daily coin issuance (in USD terms) to its 365-day moving average, helping institutional traders, market makers, and brokerages gauge mining economics and potential market tops or bottoms. Values significantly above 1 suggest miners are highly profitable and incentivized to sell, potentially signaling a market peak; below 1 may indicate undervaluation or miner stress.

Early in this period (late February), the Puell Multiple rose to 1.10–1.21, coinciding with high price levels around $95,000–$98,000. However, the subsequent sharp Bitcoin price drop to the $70,000–$85,000 range lowered the multiple notably, with readings dipping consistently below or around 1.0 through March, such as 0.86 on March 11 and 0.85 on April 9. These figures highlight reduced miner profitability, likely forcing less capitalized miners to sell reserves to cover costs, contributing to downward price pressure during this period.

Comparing Q4 2024 to early 2025, the Puell Multiple's sustained fluctuation between 0.85 and 1.25 signals heightened uncertainty in miner sentiment and profitability, potentially affecting miner-led selling pressures. Institutional and retail traders should closely monitor periods when the Puell Multiple consistently exceeds 1.2, indicating increased selling incentives for miners, and conversely, levels below 0.9, suggesting accumulation phases or market stabilization opportunities post-correction. The observed drop aligns closely with recent market corrections, underlining the tool's relevance for timely market insights.

BTC Price vs Reserve Risk

From January to April 2025, Bitcoin's Reserve Risk Ratio demonstrated a clear downward trend, highlighting growing confidence among long-term holders despite recent price volatility. The Reserve Risk Ratio is calculated by dividing the Bitcoin price by the "HODL Bank," a measure representing cumulative unspent holding duration (or "coin-days") for all Bitcoin holders. Coin-days measure how long coins remain unspent; each day a Bitcoin remains idle, it accrues one coin-day. When coins are spent (sold), these accumulated coin-days are "destroyed." A rising HODL Bank indicates holders' increasing reluctance to sell, signaling strong market conviction.

In late February, the Reserve Risk Ratio averaged around 0.00132, reflecting relative equilibrium. However, after the sharp correction that saw prices tumble from $98,000 down into the $70,000-$85,000 range by early March, the ratio declined consistently, reaching 0.00108 by late March and early April, illustrating reduced selling pressure among holders despite lower prices. This trend indicates strong holder conviction that the downturn may be temporary or an opportunity to accumulate, particularly after Bitcoin’s recent volatility triggered by macroeconomic uncertainties and institutional positioning.

For institutional traders, brokerages, and market makers, this downward trend signals reduced risk of holder-led selling pressure, potentially setting the stage for price stabilization or recovery. Retail investors observing this ratio’s decline may interpret the present as a period of accumulation or relatively low-risk entry points. Closely monitoring Reserve Risk in conjunction with news events—such as regulatory developments or institutional adoption—can provide further clarity on long-term holder sentiment and future price direction.

BTC Market Cap vs Realized Cap and MVRV

From January to April 2025, Bitcoin’s Market Cap versus Realized Cap (MVRV) experienced notable fluctuations, reflecting significant shifts in market sentiment and valuation relative to historical cost basis. The Market Cap represents the current market valuation of Bitcoin, whereas Realized Cap tracks the aggregate value of all coins at their last transacted price. MVRV, their ratio, indicates market profitability—higher values suggest the market may be overvalued, while lower values point toward undervaluation.

At the start of this period, Bitcoin's market cap peaked around $1.95 trillion on February 21, with an MVRV of 2.27, signaling that Bitcoin’s price was significantly above the average acquisition cost, indicating overheated market conditions. However, the ensuing sharp correction in prices—Bitcoin's drop into the $70,000–$85,000 range—pulled market cap down sharply, hitting lows near $1.52 trillion by April 9, reducing MVRV to 1.75. This decline shows a substantial reduction in market exuberance, aligning with events such as heightened regulatory scrutiny and profit-taking by institutions.

Comparing this period with Q4 2024, MVRV fell notably from previously higher levels, suggesting increased caution among institutional investors, traders, and market makers. The decline implies potential value opportunities, as the market moved closer to its realized cap—historically a more stable valuation reference point. Institutions and brokerages should view lower MVRV values as indicators of potentially favorable entry points, while retail traders could interpret rising MVRV values above 2.0 as signals for profit-taking or risk management actions.

BTC Market Stress - Capitulation and Miner Supply Spent

Between January and April 2025, Miner Capitulation Index and Miner Supply Spent highlighted critical shifts in Bitcoin miners' behavior, signaling varying degrees of selling pressure and confidence in the market.

The Miner Capitulation Index measures the extent to which Bitcoin miners are selling their holdings relative to historical averages, with a higher reading indicating increased selling pressure. Specifically, the index is calculated as the ratio between current miner outflows (coins sent from miner wallets to exchanges) and the historical average miner outflows over a defined baseline period. Notably, the Miner Capitulation Index rose significantly from a moderate average of approximately 0.76 in late February to elevated peaks ranging between 1.3 and 1.56 from late March to early April. This sharp rise aligns closely with Bitcoin’s price drop from around $98,000 down to the $78,000–$85,000 range. The surge in the index indicates that miners, faced with tightening profit margins and higher operational pressures, increased their selling activity to cover costs and sustain profitability.

Complementing this, the Miner Supply Spent ratio, indicating how much of miners' earned Bitcoin is being sold versus held, dropped noticeably from levels consistently above 1.05 in late February (indicating net selling of accumulated BTC), to below 0.67 during late March—this dramatic drop coincided with extreme outflow spikes, peaking at around 798 BTC/day on March 25. Such a combination implies miners rapidly liquidated older inventory in response to market distress, possibly influenced by broader economic uncertainty or regulatory fears.

For institutional traders, brokerages, and market makers, these metrics are critical indicators. Elevated Miner Capitulation readings combined with sharp spikes in miner outflows indicate market stress, typically suggesting short-term bearishness. However, as the Miner Supply Spent recovers post-capitulation, it signals miners regaining confidence and stabilizing market conditions, potentially marking opportunities for strategic re-entry and accumulation for informed investors.

BTC Miner Outflows and Position Index

Between January and April 2025, Miner Outflows and the Miner Position Index (MPI) highlighted significant changes in Bitcoin miners' selling behaviors, reflecting shifting sentiment and market conditions.

Miner Outflows, representing the daily volume of Bitcoin leaving miners' wallets, dramatically increased, especially from late March to early April. Average daily outflows rose notably from roughly 430 BTC/day in late February to peaks reaching nearly 800 BTC/day on March 25 and again on April 3. These sharp spikes occurred amid Bitcoin’s price correction, dropping from around $98,000 to below $85,000, indicating miners rushed to offload holdings to manage risk and secure profitability.

Complementing this, the Miner Position Index, measuring miner selling intensity relative to historical averages, also surged. Typically, MPI values above 2 signal significant selling pressure. MPI rose sharply from moderate levels near 0.25 in February to an extraordinary peak of 3.29 on March 25, underscoring extreme selling intensity. The sustained high MPI through early April confirms miners' intent to liquidate reserves aggressively during price declines.

Elevated miner outflows combined with a high MPI signal heightened short-term selling pressure, increasing downside risk. However, once these indicators stabilize and decrease, it could indicate selling exhaustion and present favorable accumulation opportunities. Monitoring these metrics closely can enhance market timing decisions, especially during periods of heightened volatility and market stress.

BTC Issuance

Between January and April 2025, Bitcoin’s issuance rate demonstrated stability, reflecting the predictable nature of its block reward schedule post-halving. Bitcoin issuance represents the number of new bitcoins mined daily as block rewards, an essential metric since it directly affects supply dynamics and miner profitability. Following the 2024 halving event, Bitcoin’s daily issuance settled consistently around 450–470 BTC/day, exhibiting minor fluctuations due to natural variations in block mining intervals rather than substantial structural changes.

From late February through early April, issuance remained notably stable, averaging about 470 BTC/day in early April from around 457 BTC/day in late February. This stability is typical post-halving, as block rewards are programmatically cut in half every four years, directly influencing the predictable scarcity narrative of Bitcoin. For institutional and retail traders alike, stable issuance confirms the anticipated supply constraints that underpin Bitcoin’s scarcity-driven valuation models.

This issuance consistency holds significant market implications. Despite Bitcoin’s price correction from approximately $98,000 in February to $78,000–$85,000 by early April, the unchanged issuance highlights miners' ongoing commitment and confidence in the network. The stable issuance also ensures predictable inflation rates, underpinning Bitcoin’s long-term appeal as a hedge against traditional inflationary assets. Investors, especially market makers and brokerages, should interpret the steady issuance post-halving as reinforcing Bitcoin’s scarcity value, supporting accumulation strategies during periods of price volatility and corrections.

Ethereum

Introduction

Ethereum’s first quarter of 2025 saw dramatic price declines and notable ecosystem developments. ETH fell sharply from approximately $4,100 in late 2024 to multi-year lows near $1,400 by April, driven by severe macroeconomic stress and intensified by the $1.5 billion Bybit hack—the largest Ethereum-related security breach to date. Despite turbulence, Ethereum’s technological advancements progressed significantly, including Arbitrum’s decentralization via the BoLD upgrade and the confirmed May 7 launch date for the critical Pectra network upgrade focused on scalability. ETF flows on Ethereum fluctuated markedly; Grayscale Mini surged dramatically in March, accumulating approximately 3.24 million ETH, then drastically reduced holdings in April by about 3.52 million ETH due to heightened investor caution. Ethereum’s Gini coefficient slightly increased to 0.6603, reflecting continued high but stabilizing concentration. Liquid staking yields fluctuated notably, with oETH’s APY peaking at 4.32%, highlighting selective investor interest despite ongoing volatility.

News and Events

The first quarter of 2025 was marked by significant developments and intense volatility specifically within Ethereum's Layer-1 and Layer-2 ecosystems. Starting from its late-2024 highs near $4,100, Ethereum's price experienced substantial corrections influenced by both technical events and ecosystem disruptions.

January brought significant advancements in Ethereum’s decentralization and scalability, primarily through its Layer-2 solutions. On January 26, the Arbitrum DAO approved the Bounded Optimistic Liveness Delay (BoLD) protocol upgrade. This major step removed centralized validator whitelists, enhancing security, decentralization, and community participation within Ethereum's most prominent Layer-2 scaling solution. Shortly afterward, on January 31, Uniswap v4 was launched, introducing advanced customizable liquidity "hooks". This important upgrade was deployed not only on Ethereum mainnet but also across several Layer-2 networks including Arbitrum, Optimism, and Base, demonstrating Ethereum's commitment to scalable decentralized finance solutions.

February proved turbulent, primarily due to the significant security breach on the Bybit exchange on February 21, where approximately $1.5 billion worth of ETH was stolen, marking the largest Ethereum-related hack to date. Despite this setback, Ethereum’s Layer-2 developments progressed notably. On February 11, Tether selected Arbitrum One as the primary Layer-2 infrastructure for its new cross-chain stablecoin solution, USDT₀. This decision further reinforced the critical role of Layer-2 networks in Ethereum’s broader scaling vision. Additionally, the Ethereum Foundation released detailed specifications of the upcoming "Pectra" network upgrade on February 14, outlining major enhancements in scalability, including account abstraction and increased data throughput capabilities for Layer-2 rollups.

In March, Ethereum encountered heightened network congestion, evidenced by gas fees briefly surging to approximately 109 Gwei on February 17 due to increased network activity and demand, underscoring the pressing need for scalability enhancements. Ethereum’s core development team responded actively, and by March 27, officially targeted early May as the mainnet activation date for the highly anticipated Pectra upgrade, reflecting confidence in addressing these scalability concerns effectively.

By April, Ethereum faced further price pressures, hitting multi-year lows around $1,400 due to broader market stress. Nevertheless, Ethereum's technological roadmap remained firmly on track. On April 3, developers confirmed May 7 as the definitive date for the Pectra upgrade activation, a critical milestone promising substantial improvements in Ethereum's Layer-1 efficiency and Layer-2 scaling capabilities.

Throughout this period, Ethereum’s technological developments were closely aligned with shifts in investor sentiment, reflected by fluctuations in staking activities and institutional behaviors. Despite ongoing challenges from security incidents and macroeconomic uncertainty, Ethereum’s core infrastructure improvements—particularly the upcoming Pectra upgrade and substantial Layer-2 advancements—position the network strategically for resilience and future growth.

Wallet Tracked ETH ETF Cumulative Totals

Since the beginning of 2025, cumulative ETH holdings in ETFs have exhibited significant volatility, closely mirroring Ethereum’s turbulent price movements and shifting market sentiment. In January, cumulative ETH holdings experienced a sharp decline from their December highs. BlackRock's holdings notably dropped to approximately 545,250 ETH, aligning with Ethereum’s pullback from its December peak of around $4,100 toward the $2,900 range. This decrease indicated increased institutional caution amid renewed macroeconomic uncertainties, including a more hawkish Federal Reserve stance and diminishing investor risk appetite.

February 2025 saw increased turbulence due to the catastrophic Bybit hack, where roughly $1.5 billion worth of ETH was stolen. This event deeply impacted investor confidence, triggering volatility in ETF flows. Despite broader market sentiment remaining bearish, BlackRock substantially increased its exposure by approximately 480,219 ETH, bringing its total holdings to around 1,025,469 ETH, suggesting opportunistic institutional buying amid price weakness. Conversely, Fidelity saw modest outflows, while Grayscale reduced its ETH exposure by approximately 216,906 ETH, reflecting ongoing market panic and widespread risk aversion.

ETF inflows briefly rebounded in March as Ethereum attempted a short-lived price recovery from sub-$2,000 lows. This period saw substantial speculative activity, with Grayscale Mini's holdings surging dramatically by roughly 3.24 million ETH to reach a peak of about 3.71 million ETH. BlackRock also sharply increased its ETH allocation by approximately 751,168 ETH to reach approximately 1.77 million ETH. These inflows indicated renewed institutional optimism, albeit tempered by ongoing macroeconomic concerns, including U.S.–China trade tensions and lingering apprehension from February’s security breach.

However, by April, ETF holdings sharply retraced, reflecting Ethereum’s severe price decline to multi-year lows near $1,400, driven by broader market distress following new U.S. import tariffs. Grayscale Mini notably reduced its holdings dramatically by approximately 3.52 million ETH, down to about 194,732 ETH. BlackRock also significantly cut back its exposure by approximately 862,144 ETH, reducing its holdings to around 914,493 ETH. This substantial reduction highlighted severe institutional risk-off behavior, underscoring persistent uncertainty regarding Ethereum's near-term stability amid continuing macroeconomic shocks.

Wallet Tracked ETH ETF Month on Month Changes

In 2025, monthly changes in ETH ETF holdings closely followed Ethereum's price volatility and macroeconomic conditions.

January began with significant declines in ETF holdings, reflecting Ethereum’s sharp price drop from near $4,000 down to around $2,900. Major funds including 21Shares (-14,663 ETH), Bitwise (-481,916 ETH), BlackRock (-605,561 ETH), and Fidelity (-203,761 ETH) reduced their ETH positions significantly, indicating institutional caution triggered by market fears of a hawkish Federal Reserve and profit-taking after previous gains.

In February, ETF activity became mixed amidst further market turmoil. Despite Ethereum's ongoing weakness around $2,500 and the severe Bybit hack on February 21, BlackRock added 480,220 ETH, aggressively buying the dip. However, others remained cautious: Fidelity (-12,007 ETH), Bitwise (-102,601 ETH), and Grayscale (-216,906 ETH) reduced holdings. The Bybit hack significantly affected investor confidence, causing hesitation and uncertainty among institutions.

March saw a sharp turnaround in ETF inflows, corresponding with Ethereum’s temporary recovery above $2,000. The standout was Grayscale Mini, which dramatically increased its holdings by 3.24 million ETH. BlackRock also added significantly (+751,168 ETH), and Franklin Templeton (+106,773 ETH) notably reversed earlier reductions. This positive inflow suggested renewed optimism among institutions, likely betting on an oversold bounce and improved macro sentiment.

However, optimism vanished quickly in April, driven by Ethereum’s plunge below $1,500 following news of sweeping U.S. import tariffs and renewed recession fears. Grayscale Mini sharply reduced holdings, losing 3.52 million ETH, erasing the previous month's gains. BlackRock (-862,144 ETH) also made substantial cuts. VanEck (-47,260 ETH) joined the selling, confirming widespread risk aversion among institutions. By mid-April, ETF holdings mirrored Ethereum’s multi-year lows, highlighting persistent market sensitivity to macroeconomic and security-related shocks.

ETH Liquid Staking 30 Day APY

From late February through mid-April 2025, the 30-day Annual Percentage Yield (APY) for Ethereum-based liquid staking assets displayed significant variations, reflecting shifting investor preferences and market conditions. Ethereum's native staking APY remained relatively stable, hovering around 3.0%, indicating consistent baseline staking returns despite Ethereum’s price volatility.

Among liquid staking derivatives (LSDs), distinct trends emerged. oETH saw the most pronounced fluctuations, with APY increasing sharply from around 3.02% in late February to a peak above 4.32% by late March, likely reflecting increased demand or protocol incentives attracting investors amid bearish price action. By mid-April, however, APY moderated back towards 3.14%, suggesting normalization as market volatility decreased.

lsETH similarly demonstrated an upward trajectory from approximately 3.05% to a notable peak of about 3.95% in early April. This rise aligns with investor preference for platforms potentially offering better incentives or improved liquidity amid turbulent market conditions.

Other major staking assets such as cbETH, stETH, and swETH displayed relatively steadier APYs. For example, stETH increased modestly from around 2.87% to just above 2.76% in mid-March before experiencing a brief decline. This stability could imply steady institutional or retail staking confidence in these larger platforms, despite volatile ETH prices.

Meanwhile, wbETH and swETH experienced more volatility in yields during March, indicating fluctuating demand for wrapped or alternative LSD forms likely driven by liquidity shifts or incentive adjustments by competing protocols.

For market participants, the variations in APY suggest clear implications. Assets showing higher APY volatility, such as oETH and lsETH, indicate short-term opportunities or higher speculative activity. In contrast, the stability of assets like stETH and cbETH suggests continued confidence from conservative, long-term investors. These insights can guide strategic staking decisions, enabling investors to balance risk tolerance and yield optimization amidst dynamic market conditions.

ETH Gini Coefficient

Ethereum's Gini coefficient, reflecting wealth concentration, showed a steady increase from early 2023 (0.6007) through late 2024 (0.6553), signaling rising centralization of ETH holdings. However, a notable flattening emerged in early 2025, with the Gini moving only slightly from 0.6573 in January to 0.6603 by April. This suggests ETH ownership became less concentrated or that wealth accumulation among major holders slowed significantly during Ethereum's sharp price corrections and market turmoil in Q1 2025.

This flattening trend coincides with substantial market instability driven by the Bybit hack, economic fears from U.S. tariffs, and broad institutional ETF sell-offs. As prices plunged nearly 64% from December highs, large holders likely diversified or reduced ETH positions to manage risk, distributing holdings more evenly across market participants. Additionally, retail and smaller institutional buyers may have taken advantage of lower ETH prices, incrementally redistributing ownership away from historically concentrated wallets.

If this trend continues, Ethereum's decreasing concentration could improve the weaker decentralization optics, potentially boosting long-term confidence. However, persistent macroeconomic uncertainty could still reverse these gains if major holders again consolidate ETH holdings at lower price levels.

ETH Holders vs Supply by Bucket

In 2025, Ethereum's ownership landscape showed continued concentration, with notable shifts among holder groups. While the percentage of holders with 10,000+ ETH decreased from approximately 0.00077% in January to 0.00071% by April, their share of total ETH supply increased marginally, from 74.63% to 74.97%. This inverse trend indicates that although fewer ultra-large holders remained, those who did accumulated more ETH amid the market turbulence, likely taking advantage of lower prices during the February Bybit hack and subsequent macroeconomic pressures.

Meanwhile, mid-sized holders (100–1,000 ETH and 1,000–10,000 ETH) saw their holder percentages decline consistently from January to April (from 0.0259% to 0.0248% and 0.00368% to 0.00365%, respectively). Correspondingly, their share of total ETH supply also decreased slightly, suggesting these groups likely reduced their positions or redistributed holdings amid uncertainty, contributing to increasing dominance by the largest holders.

Smaller investors (0.1–1 ETH and 1–10 ETH) also experienced declines in their share of holders, indicating potential retail investor caution or liquidation of holdings due to price volatility. Their combined share of total ETH supply fell marginally, reflecting diminished participation during market downturns.

Overall, the data suggests Ethereum’s supply continues to concentrate among the largest wallets, despite fewer holders in this elite category. This trend aligns with the flattening Gini coefficient observed, pointing to slowing but persistent accumulation at the top. Market implications include heightened vulnerability to selling pressure from large holders and potential challenges to decentralization optics.

ETH Holders Month on Month Change by Bucket

From January to April 2025, Ethereum holder counts showed interesting month-to-month trends, highlighting changing investor sentiment.

January saw retail accumulation, with the smallest bucket (0.1–1 ETH) adding 29,358 new holders, possibly attracted by the lower prices following December’s peak. However, mid-sized holders (1–10 ETH and 10–100 ETH) continued reducing positions (-11,368 and -3,036 holders, respectively), indicating caution among moderate investors despite a minor increase (+111 holders) in larger holders (1,000–10,000 ETH).

February marked a positive shift as retail enthusiasm strengthened further (+23,221 holders, 0.1–1 ETH bucket), supported by renewed buying from small to medium-sized holders (+3,312 holders, 1–10 ETH). Meanwhile, larger groups also increased slightly (+74 holders in 1,000–10,000 ETH), suggesting some institutional or high-net-worth investors saw value at lower prices despite recent market turbulence.

March displayed continued retail optimism with small holders (0.1–1 ETH and 1–10 ETH) growing notably (+27,075 and +5,538 holders). However, mid-range investors (10–100 ETH) still reduced exposure (-996 holders), reflecting persistent uncertainty amid macroeconomic tensions and lingering effects from the February hack. The largest holders (10,000+ ETH) also sharply decreased (-38 holders), highlighting strategic selling among whales as Ethereum’s price remained under pressure.

In April, sentiment turned sharply negative among small retail investors, with a dramatic drop in the 0.1–1 ETH bucket (-47,153 holders), coinciding with Ethereum’s price collapsing toward multi-year lows ($1,400). However, medium-sized holders showed resilience, slightly increasing positions (1–10 ETH up +3,203 holders, 10–100 ETH up +571 holders). The largest investors (1,000–10,000 ETH) continued cautious accumulation (+120 holders), potentially signaling strategic positioning at low prices despite the uncertain macro environment.

ETH Supply Month on Month Change by Bucket

In 2025, the distribution of ETH supply across holder buckets revealed dynamic shifts that closely mirrored Ethereum's dramatic price movements and evolving market sentiment.

Early in the year, January saw sharp declines in holdings among mid-sized investor groups (1–10 ETH, 10–100 ETH, and 100–1000 ETH), reflecting widespread caution after Ethereum’s rapid descent from nearly $4,100 to below $3,000. Notably, the largest holders (10,000+ ETH) significantly accumulated (+1.26 million ETH), suggesting deep-pocketed investors viewed the drop as an opportunity to increase stakes amid widespread panic selling.

February provided mixed signals. Medium-sized investors (1–10 ETH, +8,108 ETH; 100–1000 ETH, +75,947 ETH) moderately re-entered, likely responding to price stabilization around $2,500. However, smaller institutions (10–100 ETH bucket) continued to trim holdings, reflecting lingering anxiety after the devastating Bybit hack in late February. Despite the uncertainty, the largest ETH holders (10,000+ ETH) maintained a cautious stance, adding nearly 1 million ETH, possibly capitalizing on depressed valuations.

In March, trends shifted again. Smaller and medium-sized retail investors (0.1–1 ETH, 1–10 ETH) cautiously added positions, signaling renewed optimism as Ethereum briefly rebounded above $2,000. Conversely, medium-to-large investors (10–100 ETH, 100–1000 ETH) reduced exposure, possibly locking in short-term gains or minimizing further downside risks amid persistent macroeconomic tensions. Significantly, institutional-level holders (10,000+ ETH) aggressively increased holdings by approximately 1.37 million ETH, a strong indicator that institutional confidence was tentatively returning despite the broader caution.

By April, Ethereum's plunge toward $1,400 following the announcement of significant U.S. import tariffs triggered mixed responses. Smaller retail groups (0.1–1 ETH) reduced positions (-6,798 ETH), reflecting panic-driven selling. Medium-sized retail holders (1–10 ETH, +9,850 ETH) and moderate institutional investors (1,000–10,000 ETH, +162,120 ETH) took advantage of lower prices, suggesting selective confidence at these depressed levels. The largest holders, however, sharply reduced accumulation to only about 500,000 ETH, indicating growing caution among the whales amid deteriorating macroeconomic conditions.

ETH Liquid and Highly Liquid Balances

Between late February and mid-April 2025, Ethereum's supply dynamics across liquidity buckets mirrored significant market volatility and macroeconomic uncertainties. "Highly liquid" ETH supply showed initial stability near 14 million ETH through late February into early March, rising slightly to approximately 14.48 million ETH on March 18 during Ethereum’s brief stabilization around $2,000. This increase indicated short-term readiness among holders to trade, likely due to traders positioning for potential market rebounds amid Ethereum’s sharp price fluctuations.

However, as macroeconomic headwinds intensified, notably following the announcement of U.S. tariffs in early April, "highly liquid" ETH gradually declined from around 14.23 million ETH in late March to approximately 14.07 million ETH by mid-April. This reduction suggests growing caution, with holders pulling ETH away from exchanges and liquid wallets into safer, long-term storage due to deepening bearish sentiment.

The "liquid" category, meanwhile, showed consistent declines from approximately 20.4 million ETH in late February down to roughly 19.1 million ETH by early April. This steady decrease aligns with Ethereum's falling prices and heightened market fear, as investors steadily reduced actively traded holdings, possibly reallocating to less risky positions or moving assets off exchanges in response to broader market turmoil.

Conversely, "illiquid" Ethereum supply rose substantially over this period—from roughly 109.8 million ETH in late February to about 112.6 million ETH in mid-April. This growing illiquidity signals increased long-term accumulation and a strategic shift toward holding positions amid price downturns and macroeconomic stress. It underscores holders' caution about market risks, prioritizing security over immediate liquidity as Ethereum hovered near multi-year lows around $1,400.

ETH Market Cap vs Realized Cap and MVRV

From January to April 2025, Ethereum’s market capitalization, realized capitalization, and the Market Value to Realized Value (MVRV) ratio highlighted major shifts in market sentiment amid substantial price volatility.

Market capitalization represents Ethereum’s current price multiplied by total circulating supply, reflecting real-time market sentiment. Realized capitalization measures the average cost basis of all circulating ETH—essentially, the aggregate price paid historically by investors. The MVRV ratio (market cap divided by realized cap) indicates if investors are generally in profit (>1) or loss (<1), signaling market tops or bottoms.

In January, Ethereum's market cap declined steadily from $441 billion to $397 billion, paralleling a price drop from $3,660 to $3,300. Realized cap rose marginally, suggesting investors still held at relatively high average costs. The declining MVRV from 1.38 to around 1.22 revealed diminishing investor profitability, marking weakening market sentiment likely triggered by Fed hawkishness and profit-taking after ETH's Q4 2024 peak.

February saw ETH fall sharply below $2,700, pulling market cap down to $283 billion, briefly below the realized cap ($330 billion), causing MVRV to dip below 1 (0.99), a strong bearish signal typically associated with market distress—exacerbated by the Bybit hack ($1.5 billion stolen ETH).

March and April intensified bearish conditions. Market cap fell drastically to a low of $176 billion by April 8 as ETH prices plummeted to $1,460. Realized cap declined slowly, showing minimal investor selling despite losses, reflecting hope for recovery. By mid-April, the MVRV reached a severe low (~0.58), indicating extreme undervaluation and market capitulation, highlighting potential oversold conditions that could eventually attract value buyers.

ETH Price vs NUPL

Between late February and mid-April 2025, Ethereum’s price movements and the Net Unrealized Profit/Loss (NUPL) metric demonstrated deepening bearish sentiment and increasing investor capitulation.

NUPL measures the market's overall profitability by calculating the difference between market cap and realized cap, divided by market cap. Positive values indicate net unrealized profits (investor optimism), while negative values suggest net unrealized losses (investor pessimism or capitulation).

Starting late February, Ethereum’s price dropped from around $2,550 to about $2,210 by month's end. NUPL fell from near-neutral levels (-0.07) into deeper negative territory (-0.24), indicating growing unrealized losses and rising pessimism.

March saw conditions worsen significantly. By mid-month, Ethereum had fallen to approximately $1,880, and NUPL reached -0.45, signaling substantial investor losses and heightened fear. A temporary bounce to roughly $2,080 in late March saw NUPL briefly improve (-0.31), but confidence remained fragile, and prices quickly resumed their downward trend.

April intensified investor distress further. Prices plunged sharply, hitting a low near $1,460 by April 8, driving NUPL to an extreme low of -0.86. This dramatic drop signaled severe market capitulation—investors were realizing heavy losses amid panic selling following news of macroeconomic stress and regulatory concerns. While brief rebounds occurred—such as a recovery to approximately $1,670 (NUPL improving slightly to -0.62)—sentiment remained deeply negative.

By mid-April, Ethereum’s persistent negative NUPL below -0.70 indicated extreme undervaluation, with the market firmly in capitulation territory, highlighting conditions potentially favorable for long-term accumulation despite widespread bearishness.

ETH Price vs PiCycle

From late February to mid-April 2025, Ethereum’s price dynamics analyzed alongside the Pi Cycle indicator and key moving averages (30-day and 200-day) showed substantial bearish momentum and extreme market pessimism.

The Pi Cycle indicator combines two long-term moving averages to identify potential market tops and bottoms. When ETH price significantly deviates below the Pi Cycle line, it suggests substantial undervaluation and bearish sentiment; the wider the gap, the deeper the pessimism.

In late February, Ethereum's price declined sharply from around $2,550 to approximately $2,210 by month's end. Meanwhile, the Pi Cycle value hovered steadily around $6,190, revealing a deepening gap and highlighting growing undervaluation and bearish investor sentiment. Additionally, ETH consistently traded below both its 30-day moving average ($2,930), further signaling sustained bearish momentum.

Throughout March, ETH's price continued deteriorating, hitting a low near $1,880 by mid-month, significantly beneath declining short-term (30-day MA ~$2,400) and long-term averages (200-day MA ~$2,890). By late March, ETH briefly rebounded to around $2,080, but this was short-lived, failing to challenge key resistance levels. The Pi Cycle steadily declined but remained high (near $6,000), underscoring a continued state of deep undervaluation.

April brought intensified bearish conditions, with ETH prices plunging further to around $1,460 by April 8, far below the Pi Cycle indicator ($2,830). This massive divergence highlighted extreme market distress and potential capitulation, suggesting ETH was highly oversold, potentially attracting long-term value investors despite pervasive short-term pessimism.

ETH New, Passive and Active Addresses

From January through mid-April 2025, Ethereum’s on-chain address activity reflected significant shifts in investor behavior, correlating closely with its volatile price movements and deteriorating market conditions. The 30-day moving average (MA) of total active Ethereum addresses dropped notably from approximately 508,000 in late February to a low of around 446,000 by early April. This decline coincided directly with Ethereum’s price collapse from roughly $2,550 to below $1,460. The reduction in active addresses signifies lowered network engagement, mirroring investor caution and diminished transactional activity amid bearish sentiment.

Meanwhile, new address creation (30-day MA) showed resilience, increasing slightly from around 116,000 addresses per day in late February to approximately 119,000 by mid-April, despite sharply declining prices. This counterintuitive rise suggests the market turmoil attracted speculative new entrants or value-focused buyers taking advantage of price weakness. However, sustained growth in new addresses amid falling prices should be cautiously interpreted, as it might also reflect short-term speculative interest rather than long-term accumulation.

Conversely, passive addresses—those holding ETH without actively transacting—steadily decreased from around 297,000 to approximately 283,000 (30-day MA) by mid-April. This trend points toward heightened selling pressure, indicating the activation or liquidation of previously dormant holdings. Such behavior typically corresponds to market capitulation and increased investor anxiety during periods of extreme downside volatility.

For market participants, these insights have important implications. The decline in active addresses signals weakened overall market health and suggests caution regarding short-term price expectations. At the same time, rising new addresses indicate potential accumulation interest at depressed prices, possibly hinting at the formation of a market floor. Lastly, decreasing passive addresses highlight ongoing capitulation pressures, reinforcing the need for vigilance but also suggesting possible exhaustion of selling activity that could eventually lead to stabilization.

ETH New Inputs vs New Outputs

From late February to mid-April 2025, Ethereum's transaction dynamics, captured by the 30-day moving averages of new sending and receiving addresses, reflected important shifts in investor sentiment amidst significant market volatility. The average daily count of new sending addresses increased notably, rising from approximately 109,400 in late February to about 115,200 by mid-April. This growth indicates a steady rise in users initiating transactions, likely due to increased selling pressure or asset repositioning amid declining prices.

Similarly, new receiving addresses displayed a clear upward trajectory, growing from roughly 116,000 addresses daily in late February to nearly 118,800 by mid-April. This consistent increase suggests continued buying activity or new accumulation, despite falling Ethereum prices—from around $2,550 down to below $1,460 during the period. The parallel increase in both new sending and receiving addresses indicates heightened transactional activity and network engagement driven by market distress, where some investors liquidated positions while others sought opportunities at lower valuations.

For market participants, these patterns have critical implications. The rise in sending addresses underscores ongoing selling pressures or asset transfers amid bearish market conditions, signaling potential caution for short-term price expectations. Conversely, the simultaneous rise in new receiving addresses reflects increased participation from investors viewing price declines as an attractive entry point. This could be indicative of speculative buying or longer-term accumulation strategies emerging amidst market turmoil, suggesting a potentially approaching equilibrium or market bottom.

Stablecoins

Introduction

As measured on the Ethereum Network, stablecoins demonstrated resilience and adaptability amid shifting regulatory environments and market volatility. Tether (USDT), despite regulatory pressures like Europe’s MiCA legislation, slightly reduced its market cap from approximately $77.2 billion to around $74.4 billion. Conversely, USDC on the Ethereum Network saw significant growth, rising from about $34.5 billion to nearly $39.7 billion, bolstered by regulatory compliance and increased traditional finance integrations. PayPal’s PYUSD notably expanded rapidly, increasing from approximately $399 million to around $775 million, driven by growing institutional and retail adoption. Decentralized stablecoins such as MakerDAO’s DAI modestly declined from $3.55 billion to roughly $3.18 billion, reflecting cautious investor sentiment amid ongoing DeFi evolution. Stablecoin transfers varied significantly; FDUSD recorded notably large average transactions (~$2 million each), highlighting institutional-scale use cases. These dynamics underscored investor preferences shifting toward regulated, transparently backed stablecoins amidst persistent market uncertainty.

News and events

From January through mid-April 2025, the stablecoin landscape experienced significant developments, shaped by impactful regulatory changes, high-profile integrations, and notable incidents affecting market confidence and adoption.

Early in 2025, stablecoins received strong backing from the highest levels of U.S. government. On January 23, 2025, the newly inaugurated U.S. President issued an executive order explicitly promoting stablecoins as a legitimate and essential component of global financial infrastructure. Crucially, this order halted federal efforts towards developing a U.S. central bank digital currency (CBDC), directing instead that regulatory agencies actively support lawful, fiat-backed stablecoins. The order marked a dramatic shift toward a more crypto-friendly stance, significantly boosting market confidence in stablecoins as institutional-grade financial instruments.

Shortly after, on January 30, 2025, Tether (USDT), the world's largest stablecoin, expanded onto the Bitcoin blockchain through integration with the Bitcoin and Lightning Networks. Enabled by Lightning Labs’ innovative Taproot Assets protocol, USDT became available for direct issuance on Bitcoin's base layer, allowing near-instantaneous and cost-efficient transfers. This technical advancement opened new possibilities for stablecoin usage in Bitcoin-based payments and remittances, expanding Tether’s already substantial market presence beyond Ethereum, Tron, and other smart contract platforms.

However, confidence in stablecoin-related financial services experienced a notable setback in February. On February 24, 2025, the Hong Kong-based stablecoin neobank Infini was subjected to a major on-chain exploit. A hacker managed to drain approximately $49.5 million worth of stablecoin deposits, severely undermining user trust. Although major stablecoins themselves did not depeg, this incident highlighted persistent vulnerabilities within decentralized finance (DeFi) and stablecoin yield-generation platforms, prompting heightened caution among users and investors regarding platform-specific risks.

Regulatory pressures intensified significantly in March, particularly affecting European markets. On March 3, 2025, Binance, the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange, announced plans to delist multiple prominent stablecoins—including Tether (USDT), TrueUSD (TUSD), Pax Dollar (USDP), Dai (DAI), and First Digital USD (FDUSD)—in response to the EU's new Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation. Binance instructed European users to convert holdings into MiCA-compliant stablecoins, notably Circle’s USDC. This rapid regulatory adjustment provoked substantial market shifts, creating volatility and reinforcing the growing preference among institutions and traders for regulatory-aligned stablecoins.

Later that month, stablecoin markets received significant attention when former U.S. President Donald Trump’s crypto-focused enterprise, World Liberty Financial, announced plans on March 25, 2025, to launch a new fiat-backed stablecoin named USD1. Backed by over $550 million in capital raised through token sales, USD1 would be fully reserved with cash, U.S. Treasuries, and cash equivalents. The introduction of USD1 underscored the growing institutional appetite and competition in the stablecoin market, especially in a regulatory environment increasingly favorable to fiat-backed stablecoins.

Legislative support for stablecoins advanced further in the U.S. with the introduction of the Stablecoin Act on March 26, 2025. This bill proposed clear federal oversight for payment stablecoins, notably including provisions allowing stablecoin issuers to pay interest—previously restricted due to banking concerns. Market participants viewed this development positively, anticipating that regulatory clarity would further legitimize and expand the stablecoin sector.

In parallel, stablecoin issuer Circle secured a significant institutional milestone. On March 27, 2025, Circle entered a partnership with the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE)—operator of the New York Stock Exchange—to integrate its USDC and a new yield-focused stablecoin, US Yield Coin (USYC), into traditional financial market infrastructure. This collaboration indicated a pivotal step toward broader mainstream acceptance, reinforcing stablecoins as critical tools for settlement and trading within legacy financial markets.

Despite these advances, market confidence faced a serious test on March 31, 2025, when First Digital USD (FDUSD) sharply depegged amid rumors regarding its issuer’s solvency. FDUSD fell to approximately $0.76 before partially recovering to $0.97. Triggered by concerns over asset liquidity and public allegations by influential market figures, the incident underscored the continued risks associated with transparency and reserves management in fiat-backed stablecoins, prompting traders to shift toward more established and transparent stablecoins.

Ethereum Network Stablecoin Market Capitalization

From January to April 2025, the stablecoin market on Ethereum showed significant movements reflecting broader industry trends and regulatory shifts. Tether (USDT) remains dominant, though its market cap slightly decreased from $77.2B to $74.4B, likely due to regulatory pressures, particularly Europe's MiCA rules pushing some EU exchanges toward delisting USDT. Conversely, USDC continued its strong growth, increasing from $34.5B to nearly $39.7B, boosted by Circle's proactive compliance with international regulations and integrations into traditional finance, such as Visa and Mastercard payment systems.

Decentralized stablecoins saw mixed results. MakerDAO’s DAI experienced a modest decline, down from $3.55B to $3.18B, amid its ongoing transition to USDS (Sky Protocol), signaling some uncertainty as MakerDAO heavily integrates real-world assets to stabilize yield. Liquity's LUSD also declined slightly from $59M to $44M, highlighting limited adoption despite its resilience during regulatory uncertainties.

Newer stablecoins experienced notable volatility. PayPal's PYUSD surged dramatically, increasing from $399M to $775M in just three months, reflecting accelerated adoption through PayPal’s global network and improved multi-chain accessibility. FDUSD, however, fluctuated widely, peaking at $2.3B in March before sharply declining to $1.4B by April, suggesting possible liquidity shifts or regulatory uncertainty impacting demand.

Binance's BUSD continued its phased exit, effectively becoming irrelevant with market cap shrinking below $58M due to sustained regulatory pressures. For traders and DeFi institutions, these trends emphasize the importance of regulatory clarity and issuer transparency. USDC's growth and PYUSD’s emergence signal growing institutional confidence in regulated, transparent stablecoins, while volatility in decentralized alternatives and smaller issuers suggests ongoing risk factors. Traders should closely monitor stablecoin reserves and regulatory developments as they directly impact liquidity conditions and overall market stability.

Stablecoin Issuance

From January to April 2025, stablecoin issuance—representing newly minted or redeemed tokens—provides crucial signals about market sentiment and adoption patterns. Positive issuance typically implies increasing demand or expanding use-cases, while negative issuance signals redemptions, reflecting decreased confidence or regulatory concerns.

In early 2025, USDC showed significant volatility in issuance, fluctuating notably with a net redemption of $100 million in February but rebounding strongly with new issuance of $248 million in March and $85 million in April. This pattern reflects Circle's ongoing integration with traditional finance and aggressive global compliance, positioning USDC as a reliable on-chain dollar amid regulatory uncertainties.

DAI issuance remained turbulent, with substantial redemptions (-$38 million) in February, a strong recovery ($41 million issued) in March, and modest redemption (-$6.6 million) in April. This volatility is linked to MakerDAO’s transition to its rebranded stablecoin, USDS, and strategic adjustments to its high-yield DAI Savings Rate (DSR). The fluctuating issuance underlines cautious investor sentiment amidst structural changes.

PYUSD, PayPal’s stablecoin, saw robust issuance through early 2025, issuing nearly $38 million in January alone, reflecting accelerating adoption within PayPal’s vast user base. However, issuance slowed notably in subsequent months, hinting that initial demand from new user onboarding might plateau without broader ecosystem integration.

In contrast, decentralized LUSD displayed minor negative issuance, indicating limited adoption outside niche DeFi users seeking censorship resistance. BUSD and FDUSD had consistent negative issuance, aligning with Binance’s strategic withdrawal from BUSD due to regulatory actions and reflecting FDUSD’s market uncertainty.

For institutions and DeFi traders, these issuance trends suggest continued dominance of centrally issued stablecoins (USDC, PYUSD) which are aligning proactively with global regulations and mainstream finance. Decentralized stablecoins (DAI, LUSD) remain important but face uncertainty in adoption and usage patterns, highlighting the need for ongoing risk assessment in decentralized finance strategies.

Stablecoin Monthly Total Transferred

In early 2025, stablecoin transfer volumes on Ethereum exhibited a clear upward trend, suggesting increased market activity and a revival of confidence in crypto trading and DeFi. However, the levels have yet to revisit the record peaks of July-August 2024, indicating a cautious market recovery rather than outright exuberance.

USDC maintained its market leadership, with March 2025 volumes reaching nearly $585 billion—a robust increase from $467 billion in January, yet still significantly below the $762 billion peak seen in July 2024. This steady rise suggests strong adoption driven by Circle’s proactive regulatory alignment and growing institutional integrations, positioning USDC as a preferred stablecoin for major players.

Similarly, USDT transfer volumes showed recovery momentum, reaching approximately $274 billion in March after a lower January ($273 billion), though still beneath its July 2024 high ($589 billion). This steady, albeit subdued recovery could reflect traders’ cautious approach due to Tether’s regulatory pressures, especially from Europe’s MiCA framework.

DAI’s volume rebounded sharply, from $169 billion in January to $352 billion in March, demonstrating renewed DeFi activity, supported by MakerDAO's rebranding to USDS and ongoing integrations with real-world assets. Yet, even these improved levels lag significantly behind the nearly $957 billion high recorded in August 2024, highlighting lingering investor caution amid governance and structural changes.

PYUSD showed remarkable growth, rising from approximately $1.7 billion transferred in January to $3.7 billion by March, underscoring PayPal's expanding user adoption, particularly within its payment ecosystem. Smaller stablecoins like FDUSD and LUSD saw incremental gains but remained niche players, reflecting continued market concentration among major regulated stablecoins.

Overall, stablecoin transfers indicate cautious optimism in crypto markets—traders and institutions are gradually returning, with regulatory clarity and TradFi integrations influencing preference toward compliance-friendly stablecoins, critical for sustained DeFi growth and stability in the broader crypto ecosystem.

Stablecoin Average Transfer Amount Over Q1

In Q1 2025, the average stablecoin transfer amounts on Ethereum showed significant variation, highlighting distinct usage patterns across the market.

FDUSD exhibited the highest average transfer size, around $2 million per transaction, suggesting that this newer stablecoin is primarily utilized by larger institutional players or for significant financial operations, reflecting less retail involvement but potentially higher-value trades or treasury management use-cases.

DAI also had a notably large average transaction size at approximately $812,000. This substantial figure points to DAI’s continued importance within DeFi, particularly among protocols and large-scale yield farmers, driven by MakerDAO's recent strategic shift (rebranding to USDS) and real-world asset integrations.

By contrast, market leaders USDC ($97,900) and USDT ($41,700) had smaller average transfer amounts despite vastly higher total volumes. These lower averages indicate extensive retail participation, frequent trading activity, and broader adoption among smaller institutions, exchanges, and payment platforms. USDT’s slightly smaller average compared to USDC aligns with its role as a preferred stablecoin in emerging markets, where it serves as a more accessible USD substitute for everyday transactions.

PYUSD and USDP averaged around $44,500 and $46,400 respectively, reflecting niche yet growing corporate and fintech adoption, especially within PayPal’s expanding user base. Smaller stablecoins like LUSD ($16,600), MIM ($19,400), and FEI ($10,900) demonstrated moderate average transaction sizes, likely due to targeted niche uses—LUSD’s decentralized collateral-backed model and MIM’s stablecoin leverage in DeFi ecosystems.

Overall, these average transfer sizes provide valuable insights for traders and institutions: USDC and USDT remain go-to stablecoins for liquidity and broader market participation, while FDUSD and DAI signal institutional or high-value transactional activity, each serving specialized roles within the evolving crypto and DeFi landscape.

Stablecoin Daily Average Number of Senders and Receivers by Asset

The average number of senders and receivers per stablecoin in Q1 2025 reveals significant disparities in adoption and usage patterns across different stablecoins on Ethereum.

USDT and USDC lead by a wide margin, with USDT averaging approximately 66,050 users and USDC around 28,414 users, indicating these stablecoins are deeply integrated into exchanges, DeFi platforms, and retail wallets. The sheer number of users implies broad-based, retail-driven activity and frequent use for smaller trades and transactions.

DAI, averaging ~1,697 users, maintains significant usage but on a smaller scale, likely reflecting its more specialized role in DeFi (such as yield farming and decentralized lending). PayPal’s PYUSD averages around 432 users, highlighting solid adoption growth given its recent entry, but still far from the mass scale of USDT or USDC.

Smaller stablecoins, like TUSD (~64 users) and USDP (~59 users), see limited yet consistent usage, potentially due to specific exchange partnerships or niche applications. LUSD (~71 users) maintains niche appeal in decentralized finance given its fully ETH-backed collateralization, while stablecoins such as FDUSD (~29 users), MIM (~22 users), BUSD (~107 users, declining due to regulatory issues), FEI (~9 users), and HUSD (~2 users) show notably lower engagement, indicative of limited market confidence or declining issuance and support.

For traders and institutional investors, these figures signal that USDT and USDC continue to dominate, providing essential liquidity and market depth. The data also highlights opportunities: the growth potential in stablecoins like PYUSD and DAI, and specialized roles for decentralized stablecoins like LUSD, which offer alternatives during market volatility or regulatory pressures. Overall, this landscape underscores Ethereum’s stablecoin ecosystem’s diverse yet heavily concentrated user activity.

Stablecoin Velocity

Stablecoin velocity measures how frequently each stablecoin changes hands within a given period, reflecting market activity and user engagement. Higher velocity indicates active trading, liquidity provision, or frequent usage in transactions, whereas lower velocity implies more coins are held stationary as reserves or collateral.

In Q1 2025, velocity for PYUSD, USDC, and USDT all increased, but notably, PYUSD showed the highest growth rate—velocity nearly doubled from approximately 3.28e-12 in early January to around 5.28e-12 by late February, signaling greater usage in trading and payment transactions, possibly driven by PayPal's expanding integrations and cross-chain initiatives. USDC and USDT also exhibited rising velocities, although at a slower pace. USDC increased from about 3.45e-12 to 5.50e-12, while USDT rose from 1.97e-12 to 3.38e-12, highlighting steady demand in DeFi protocols, institutional settlements, and retail usage.

The relatively lower velocity of USDT, despite its larger market cap, suggests more users hold it as long-term reserves or collateral compared to PYUSD and USDC, which appear increasingly favored for active transactions and liquidity pools. This evolving dynamic implies potential growth areas for PYUSD and USDC in payments and DeFi, whereas USDT remains the preferred stablecoin for reserves. For traders and institutions, increasing velocity is bullish for market liquidity, reducing slippage and enhancing trading conditions across Ethereum’s DeFi ecosystem.

Exchanges and Derivatives

Introduction

Exchanges experienced heightened volatility in Q1 2025, with spot trading volumes sharply declining after peaking during early February’s market turmoil. Binance’s daily trading volume peaked near $68.1 billion on February 3 but fell significantly to around $16.7 billion by March 31, indicating diminished speculative activity amid persistent market worries. Derivatives-focused Bybit reached daily volumes of approximately $24.3 billion before its severe $1.5 billion security breach, which dramatically reduced investor confidence. Futures and perpetual contract volumes surged notably, with Bitcoin daily volumes briefly surpassing $81 billion and Ethereum around $36 billion during February’s volatility spikes, highlighting intense leveraged positioning. Ethereum perpetual contracts on OKX saw extreme negative funding rates, reaching -0.0355%, indicating heightened bearish sentiment. Long-short ratios indicated extreme bullish positioning on Binance’s SOL contracts (peaking at 6.03), reflecting subsequent deleveraging risks. Overall, open interest peaked significantly on institutional platforms such as CME (~$23.8 billion), underscoring deep institutional engagement amid volatile market conditions.

News and events

From January to mid-April 2025, the cryptocurrency market experienced significant volatility and notable events, profoundly affecting exchanges and derivatives markets globally. Centralized exchanges (CEXs), decentralized exchanges (DEXs), and derivatives platforms encountered regulatory shifts, major security breaches, and strategic acquisitions, reshaping the market landscape.

In late January, Phemex Exchange suffered a severe security breach where hackers stole between $70 to $85 million from hot wallets. The incident, suspected to be orchestrated by North Korea’s Lazarus Group, prompted Phemex to halt withdrawals temporarily and triggered broader concerns around hot wallet vulnerabilities across exchanges.

Regulatory developments during this period significantly influenced exchanges. On January 30, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved Bitwise’s combined Bitcoin and Ethereum ETF. This landmark decision enhanced institutional participation, increasing trading volumes and interest in crypto derivatives. Shortly thereafter, on February 3, a historic market crash triggered by geopolitical uncertainties caused widespread liquidations totaling $2.2 billion within 24 hours. Bitcoin and Ethereum futures experienced liquidations of approximately $409 million and $600 million, respectively, highlighting derivative markets' sensitivity to macroeconomic and policy developments.

The regulatory environment continued to evolve, notably benefiting decentralized exchanges. On February 19, the SEC dropped its appeal against a court ruling overturning the controversial "Dealer Rule," which had threatened DeFi liquidity providers and decentralized market makers. This decision removed significant regulatory uncertainty, bolstering confidence in decentralized financial infrastructure.

Coinbase, a leading centralized exchange, saw a pivotal regulatory win on February 21 when the SEC officially dismissed its lawsuit alleging operation of an unregistered securities exchange. The dismissal signaled a more lenient regulatory approach under the new U.S. administration, positively impacting Coinbase’s market position.

However, February also brought unprecedented challenges. Bybit, a prominent derivatives-focused exchange, suffered the largest crypto hack in history, losing approximately $1.5 billion, primarily in Ethereum. This catastrophic event, attributed to sophisticated North Korean hackers, significantly impacted investor confidence and accelerated demands for enhanced exchange security standards industry-wide.

Regulatory scrutiny intensified further on February 24 when OKX exchange pled guilty in the United States to violating anti-money laundering laws, resulting in a $505 million fine. This case emphasized regulators' increasing vigilance towards offshore exchanges serving U.S. clientele, prompting exchanges globally to reassess compliance measures.

In late February, the SEC clarified its stance on "meme coins," stating that tokens without traditional securities characteristics, such as Dogecoin and Shiba Inu, would no longer be classified as securities. This regulatory relief was beneficial for exchanges listing these tokens, driving increased trading volumes and engagement from retail investors.

Strategic moves in March included Kraken’s acquisition of NinjaTrader, a regulated U.S. futures brokerage, for $1.5 billion. This significant merger bridged traditional financial derivatives with cryptocurrency trading, enhancing Kraken’s competitive positioning in regulated derivatives markets.

On March 28, the U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) significantly eased its previous restrictive stance, allowing banks to freely engage with cryptocurrency services without prior regulatory approval. This regulatory pivot facilitated greater partnerships between banks and crypto exchanges, improving fiat on-ramp accessibility and custody services.

Despite these advancements, Q1 2025 marked the worst quarter ever recorded for crypto hacks, with losses totaling approximately $1.63 billion, primarily due to the massive Bybit breach. This underscored ongoing vulnerabilities and intensified industry-wide efforts towards enhanced security practices and decentralized custody solutions.

Finally, operational challenges surfaced again on April 15, when AWS infrastructure failures briefly disrupted Binance and KuCoin operations, highlighting continued dependencies on centralized infrastructure providers and prompting renewed discussions on operational resilience and redundancy in crypto markets.

Spot Exchange Daily Traded Volume

Stablecoin trading volumes across major cryptocurrency exchanges have exhibited a clear downward trend from January through April 2025, signaling evolving market sentiment and potentially shifting trading behaviors. For instance, Binance, the market leader by trading volume, recorded peak daily volumes around $68.1 billion on February 3, before declining significantly in March and early April, often averaging between $10-30 billion per day. Specifically, Binance's volume dropped to approximately $16.7 billion on March 31, notably lower than January’s peak of around $20.3 billion on January 31.

Similarly, Coinbase followed a comparable trajectory, with a high of $14.4 billion on February 3, gradually declining to around $5.5 billion on March 10 and further down to $2.5 billion by April 16, underscoring a considerable reduction in U.S. market trading activity. Smaller U.S.-oriented platforms like Binance.US saw volumes drop sharply from $28.6 million on February 2 to around $7.1 million by March 31 and $4.6 million by April 16, suggesting a pullback particularly among smaller retail investors amid regulatory uncertainties.

In derivatives-heavy exchanges like Bybit, daily trading reached $24.3 billion on February 3, indicative of speculative activity during high-volatility periods, but volumes halved to roughly $4.9 billion by March 3 and stabilized further around $2-3 billion in early April. Similarly, OKX and HTX (Huobi)—exchanges traditionally popular with Asian retail traders—also experienced declines, with OKX’s volume dropping from $13.7 billion on February 3 to $2.2 billion by March 31, and modestly recovering to $3.4 billion by April 13.

Exchanges favored by institutional traders, such as Bitfinex and Kraken, reflected similar patterns. Bitfinex, after seeing volumes of $1.4 billion on February 3, fell dramatically to $199 million by March 31, and then stabilized around $146 million by April 16. Kraken, from a high of $4.3 billion on February 3, also declined notably to about $1.08 billion by March 31 and only partially recovered to $1.13 billion by April 16.

This widespread decline in trading activity from January and February to March and April 2025 reflects reduced speculative interest, regulatory caution, and possibly lower volatility, prompting traders—especially retail—to adopt a cautious stance, focusing less on active trading and more on longer-term holding strategies. Institutions may also be reassessing exposure, awaiting clearer market signals or regulatory guidance.

Exchange Top 10 Traded Tokens vs USD

Trading volumes of crypto assets versus USD on exchanges have notably declined from their early 2025 peaks, indicating shifts in market dynamics and trader behavior. Bitcoin (BTC/USD) trading dominated early activity, reaching $5 billion on February 3, before sharply declining to around $1.9 billion by March 31, then partially recovering to about $3.4 billion in early April. Ethereum (ETH/USD) mirrored this pattern, peaking at $3 billion on February 3 and falling significantly to $881 million by March 31, followed by moderate improvement to roughly $1.2 billion by early April.

Mid-sized altcoins, including XRP/USD and SOL/USD, saw similar volatility-driven volume spikes in February—XRP/USD volumes surged dramatically to $3.5 billion on February 3—but later fell sharply, stabilizing below $1 billion per day through March and April. Solana (SOL/USD) displayed resilience, maintaining steadier volumes, peaking around $1 billion in early February and stabilizing near $400 million by early April.

Smaller market-cap assets like Dogecoin (DOGE/USD) and Cardano (ADA/USD) experienced more drastic declines, underscoring reduced retail engagement. DOGE/USD volumes fell from highs near $590 million in early February to approximately $68 million by late March, remaining muted thereafter. ADA/USD notably surged in March—peaking anomalously at $631 million on March 2—possibly reflecting short-lived speculative activity, before quickly falling back below $100 million per day by mid-April.

These shifts suggest traders and institutions have grown more cautious amid persistent market uncertainty, regulatory developments, and reduced volatility compared to the highs of early 2025. Lower BTC and ETH volumes imply institutional players are waiting for clearer signals, while diminishing interest in smaller altcoins highlights a shift away from speculative risk-taking. Traders should anticipate ongoing caution, potentially favoring stablecoin-paired trading or awaiting renewed volatility as an entry trigger, while institutions might remain sidelined, awaiting regulatory clarity or stronger market catalysts.

Futures and Perpetual Volume by Exchange for Major Assets

Futures and perpetual volumes experienced significant fluctuations in the first quarter of 2025, echoing prior patterns observed in previous periods. March was particularly notable, with multiple days showcasing substantial volume surges across major exchanges. Early in the month, specifically around March 7, Binance recorded approximately $87.2 billion in daily volume, complemented by significant activity on OKEx ($40.3 billion), Bybit ($35.3 billion), and Bitget ($35.5 billion). Kraken and Deribit also demonstrated notable upticks, reaching around $1.7 billion and $2.5 billion respectively, underscoring strong directional trading activity and heightened market participation.

However, volatility remained pronounced, with sharp day-to-day declines following these peaks. For example, on March 8, Binance volumes sharply corrected to around $24.3 billion, with other major platforms such as OKEx and Bybit similarly falling to $11.9 billion and $8.5 billion, respectively. This stark fluctuation indicates traders’ cautious sentiment and quick adjustment in leverage positions amid changing market conditions.

Mid-March volumes presented another considerable uptick, with March 10 and March 11 reflecting sustained activity—Binance approached nearly $80 billion again, supported by substantial volumes from OKEx and Bybit, each exceeding $30 billion. These spikes represent periods of intensified leverage, significant capital inflows, and robust market liquidity.

Toward the latter half of March, activity generally moderated, yet occasional significant inflows persisted. On March 28, Deribit saw increased activity, reaching approximately $1.8 billion, accompanied by Binance volumes rebounding to roughly $46.6 billion. This episodic resurgence points to persistent investor appetite, particularly when specific crypto or macroeconomic events align to drive trader interest.

Overall, Q1 2025 exhibited clear episodes of leveraged inflows and active trading, primarily concentrated around Binance, OKEx, Bybit, and Bitget, which consistently dominated exchange volume. Secondary exchanges such as Kraken, Deribit, and Bitmex contributed substantially but remained comparatively smaller. This periodic surge and subsequent pullback pattern underscores the necessity for traders to adopt disciplined risk management and strategic position sizing to navigate periods of elevated volatility and rapidly changing liquidity conditions.

Futures and Perpetual Volume by Asset for Major Assets

Asset volumes in the first quarter of 2025 showcased significant volatility, reflecting diverse investor sentiment and strategic positioning across major digital assets. Bitcoin (BTC) remained dominant, peaking notably around March 7 with approximately $121.7 billion in trading volume, indicating aggressive leveraged positioning and active risk-taking by market participants. Ethereum (ETH) mirrored BTC’s trends closely but at lower absolute volumes, reaching a peak near $40.3 billion on the same date, suggesting a strong correlation between BTC and ETH trading behaviors, likely driven by macroeconomic developments and regulatory news.

The altcoin market also exhibited distinct trading patterns driven by specific catalysts. XRP, for example, reached a significant peak of approximately $14.7 billion on March 19, likely influenced by regulatory clarity or significant project developments prompting concentrated buying interest. Solana (SOL) displayed particularly volatile yet sustained interest, frequently surpassing $10 billion in daily volumes, culminating in a notable $19.8 billion peak on April 7. SOL’s persistent high volumes highlight its importance within decentralized finance (DeFi) and NFT sectors, attracting both speculative and institutional capital.

Trading activity in Dogecoin (DOGE) and Cardano (ADA) was characterized by consistent multi-billion-dollar volumes, suggesting steady investor engagement and periodic inflows aligned with broader market sentiment shifts. Notably, DOGE volumes peaked around $7 billion on April 7, aligning with SOL's surge, likely reflecting broader retail-driven market dynamics or meme-asset speculation cycles. Smaller, strategically significant assets like TON and OP demonstrated intermittent but sharp volume increases, indicative of opportunistic trading strategies or specific ecosystem developments attracting targeted investor interest.

Secondary market assets, including Litecoin (LTC), Avalanche (AVAX), and Chainlink (LINK), experienced periodic trading volume spikes, often correlating with targeted ecosystem updates or positive news catalysts. These selective surges underline traders' sensitivity to project-specific advancements rather than broader market moves alone. Overall, the Q1 2025 asset volume patterns underline the necessity for traders and institutional investors to closely monitor macroeconomic indicators, regulatory developments, and project-specific news to strategically navigate this high-volatility environment and manage risk effectively.

Open Interest by Exchange

In Q1 2025, the distribution of open interest (OI) across cryptocurrency exchanges provided valuable insights into evolving market structure and trader behavior. Binance remained the predominant venue for retail and broader market participants, reaching a substantial peak of approximately $15.1 billion on January 19, driven by heightened bullish sentiment. CME, representing institutional interest, similarly peaked around $23.8 billion in late January, underscoring significant institutional participation during Bitcoin's ascent to nearly $105,000.

Bybit, favored by more aggressive retail traders, initially tracked Binance's growth trajectory, achieving an OI high of approximately $11.6 billion by mid-January, before sharply contracting to below $8 billion by early February amid the severe price correction. This pronounced decline highlights the susceptibility of retail-heavy platforms to sudden deleveraging events.

Bitmex and Deribit, both historically influential platforms catering respectively to perpetual contracts and crypto-options, displayed consistent but comparatively moderate OI levels. Bitmex maintained stable OI in the range of $320-$350 million through January and February, reflecting a niche yet persistent trader base. Deribit’s OI trended similarly, peaking around $1.7 billion in late January, indicative of sustained options market engagement, before declining slightly as volatility receded.

Huobi and OKEx presented parallel trends, with OI peaking at roughly $2.7 billion and $4.8 billion respectively in late January, signifying active trader participation primarily from the Asian markets. Both exchanges subsequently experienced moderated activity amid February's market downturn, reflecting region-specific shifts in risk tolerance.

Kraken recorded relatively modest open interest, maintaining stability around $300 million in January before declining below $200 million in February, suggesting cautious, predominantly spot-oriented trading behaviors rather than aggressive futures speculation.

Overall, the differentiated trajectories of these exchanges highlight the importance for institutional desks and sophisticated traders of monitoring OI distribution to identify liquidity shifts, market sentiment, and risk concentrations across global crypto markets.

Open Interest by Asset

In Q1 2025, major cryptocurrencies experienced significant price fluctuations accompanied by notable shifts in Open Interest (OI), providing insight into evolving investor sentiment and speculative behavior.

Bitcoin (BTC) entered Q1 around $101,470 but underwent a substantial correction, declining steadily to roughly $76,330 by early April. This significant decrease was mirrored in the Open Interest, which fell markedly from a January peak of approximately $35.66 billion to about $22.61 billion by mid-April. The correlation between price and OI decline highlights reduced market leverage and cautious investor sentiment amid volatility. However, BTC prices rebounded toward the end of April to approximately $93,580, accompanied by an OI recovery to $24.94 billion, suggesting renewed but cautious speculative interest.

Ethereum (ETH) similarly faced downward price pressure, commencing Q1 near $3,300 before sharply declining to approximately $1,470 by early April. Correspondingly, ETH's OI contracted significantly, decreasing from around $11.66 billion in January to about $5.22 billion by mid-April. This notable drop underscores heightened caution among traders amid ETH’s dramatic price swings. A slight recovery was observed by the end of April as ETH prices increased to approximately $1,760, with OI slightly recovering to $5.93 billion, indicating cautious re-entry by market participants.

Solana (SOL) saw pronounced volatility, with prices sharply declining from roughly $256 at the start of the year to about $106 in early April, reflecting weaker market sentiment. OI for SOL dropped from around $2.86 billion in January to $1.20 billion by early April, signaling reduced speculative positioning. A modest recovery in late April to approximately $149 coincided with a rebound in OI to $1.54 billion, indicating cautious optimism returning to SOL markets.

XRP's price volatility was notable, beginning Q1 around $3.10, falling sharply to about $1.80 in early April, before stabilizing around $2.20 by the month's end. XRP’s OI mirrored this volatility, decreasing dramatically from a high of $2.35 billion in January to approximately $0.98 billion mid-April, later showing signs of cautious re-engagement at around $1.12 billion.

Other notable assets, such as DOGE and LTC, also experienced substantial shifts in Open Interest. DOGE's OI peaked significantly in December at approximately $3.29 billion but sharply declined to around $0.61 billion by late April, reflecting a marked decrease in speculative interest alongside price declines. Litecoin (LTC), conversely, saw OI fluctuations that mirrored its volatile pricing, peaking at around $0.41 billion in early December before contracting to approximately $0.19 billion by April. These trends indicate broader market caution and highlight ongoing investor sensitivity to market volatility.

Overall, while April's moderate OI recovery across BTC, ETH, SOL, XRP, and other major assets indicates renewed but tentative speculative interest, significantly lower levels compared to early 2025 suggest ongoing investor caution in an uncertain market environment.

BTC Realized Funding Rates

In Q1 2025, Bitcoin (BTC) funding rates displayed notable volatility and divergence across exchanges, signaling fluctuating market sentiment amid BTC's price swings between ~$74K and ~$99.5K. Funding rates are periodic payments exchanged between traders in perpetual futures contracts, designed to maintain alignment between perpetual contract prices and underlying spot prices. Positive funding indicates bullish sentiment, with longs paying shorts, whereas negative funding suggests bearish sentiment, with shorts paying longs.

The quarter started with relatively stable, moderately positive funding rates averaging around 0.01% daily, indicating bullish momentum as BTC neared its all-time highs. Notably, Deribit's BTC-USDC perpetual contracts saw occasional spikes, reaching as high as 0.0341% on January 20, aligning with BTC's approach to resistance around $98K.

February's sharp price correction to a low of $78,248 triggered considerable disruption in funding rates, notably driving negative rates on multiple exchanges. Bybit's BTCUSDT and Binance's BTCUSDC contracts briefly dipped into negative territory around -0.0177% and -0.0041%, respectively, reflecting bearish sentiment and aggressive short positions. Interestingly, on February 22, Bybit BTCUSDT experienced an exceptionally high funding spike of 0.0514%, marking a sharp reversal as shorts faced liquidation amid BTC's rebound.

March was characterized by lower volatility in funding, mirroring BTC's consolidation phase. Rates hovered mostly near neutral, reflecting cautious investor sentiment. However, April's renewed bullishness saw consistent positive funding rates returning, stabilizing around 0.005%–0.01%, reinforcing optimism as BTC surged back toward $94.5K. These shifts in funding dynamics, ranging from -0.0177% to highs of 0.0514%, underscore traders' shifting risk tolerance and highlight critical turning points for BTC price action.

ETH Realized Funding Rates

In Q1 2025, Ethereum (ETH) exhibited pronounced volatility in funding rates, reflecting heightened trader sensitivity and shifting market dynamics amid sharp price movements. Funding rates, representing periodic payments between traders in perpetual futures contracts to maintain alignment with underlying spot prices, provided crucial signals for market sentiment. January opened strongly bullish, with funding consistently positive around 0.01% daily, occasionally surging significantly higher—Deribit's ETH-USDC perpetual contracts reached a notable peak of 0.0297% on January 20.

However, February’s downturn was severe, driven by macroeconomic uncertainty and increased regulatory pressures on staking, causing ETH funding rates to collapse into deep negative territory. Most dramatically, OKEX’s ETH-USDC contracts plunged to lows of -0.0355% on February 4, underscoring extreme bearishness and heavy short positioning. March saw ETH stabilize, with funding oscillating near neutrality (-0.005% to 0.005%), reflecting cautious consolidation as Ethereum held critical support around $1,600.

April’s modest recovery saw funding rates return gently positive, averaging 0.003%–0.01%, signaling cautious optimism as ETH approached resistance near $1,800. Overall, ETH’s extreme funding range from -0.0355% to 0.0297% in Q1 highlights intense trader uncertainty and sensitivity, significantly outpacing Bitcoin’s volatility during the same period.

SOL Realized Funding Rates

Solana’s funding rate behavior in Q1 2025 provides key insight into trader positioning and sentiment amid high-beta volatility. Early January opened with stable, mildly positive rates across most venues (e.g., Binance, Bybit, and OKX all near +0.01%), consistent with SOL’s rally from ~$100 to $150+. However, the late-January to February drawdown—where SOL dropped ~30% from its ~$190 peak to ~$130—was accompanied by increasingly negative funding rates, indicating rising short pressure and forced unwind risk.

On February 4, Binance SOLUSDC plunged to -5.98%, Bybit SOLPERP hit -3.74%, and OKX SOL-USDT registered an extreme -13.04%—marking a capitulation phase as traders aggressively shorted amid declining price action. Deribit and Huobi followed suit with persistently negative rates through mid-February, reinforcing the bearish shift.

March was marked by whipsaw positioning and mixed funding signals. As SOL tested ~$100 support, funding rates remained volatile. OKX saw prints below -2.5% around March 30–31, coinciding with a local price bottom. While short interest remained elevated, negative rates began to moderate as price stabilized.

April, however, brought a clear shift. Funding turned decisively positive after April 5, with Deribit and OKX peaking above +1.5% mid-month. As SOL surged back through $150, funding confirmed that long positioning was once again dominant.

The trend in rates mirrors SOL’s broader technical trajectory: high-leverage shorts in February, stabilization in March, and bullish conviction returning in April.

XRP Realized Funding Rates

XRP’s funding rates in Q1 2025 traced a complex path, echoing the asset’s turbulent yet bullish trajectory. In January, consistent positive funding across Binance, Bybit, and OKX (e.g., +0.01% across the board) reflected optimistic positioning as XRP rallied to $2.30. Deribit and OKX even recorded bursts above +2%, signaling leveraged long interest as XRP tested multi-year highs.

February saw sentiment diverge. While XRP remained one of the better performers among majors, its sharp drop from ~$2.30 to ~$1.80 triggered funding rate volatility. On February 20, Binance XRPUSDC plunged to -1.72%, while Deribit fell to -1.53%, reflecting reactive short positioning. However, notable resilience was seen—Bybit XRPPERP and Huobi maintained steady funding near +0.01%, suggesting dip buyers remained active.

March was more dynamic. As XRP dipped to ~$1.60 and then rebounded sharply to retest $2.30, funding rates fluctuated. OKX and Deribit consistently printed below zero mid-month, with March 30 showing Deribit at -4.6% and OKX at -3.8%. This period likely marked peak fear and shorting—a contrarian signal ahead of XRP’s sharp recovery.

By April, sentiment turned constructive. Deribit, Bybit, and Binance funding flipped positive after April 5. OKX posted a standout +2.0% on April 5–6, coinciding with XRP’s move back toward $2.25. Funding data confirms traders are rotating back into long exposure, positioning for a breakout above $2.35.

Long-Short Ratios on Binance

Binance’s long/short ratios for Q1 2025 offer key signals on leveraged sentiment, revealing shifting risk appetite across BTC, ETH, SOL, and XRP.

BTC remained relatively balanced throughout Q1, with its ratio oscillating between 1.0 and 2.9. Notably, spikes above 2.5 in late February (2.94 on Feb 26) and mid-March (2.92 on Mar 11) suggest moments of excessive bullish crowding—often followed by retracements. More recently, BTC’s ratio has dropped sharply to 0.60 by April 23, indicating a tilt toward shorts or rising hedging demand. This setup could signal squeeze potential if price stabilizes above key support.

ETH displayed persistent long-heavy bias, frequently ranging between 3.5 and 5.5. Peaks like 5.51 (Mar 4) and 5.09 (Mar 11) reflect strong dip-buying conviction, possibly driven by optimism around ETH infrastructure or ETF catalysts. However, the drop to 1.73 on Apr 23 hints at profit-taking or fading confidence—warranting caution from overly bullish traders.

SOL showed the most extreme bullish sentiment. Ratios consistently exceeded 4.0 during February and March, hitting a cycle high of 6.03 on Mar 9. This aggressive long skew may have exacerbated volatility and liquidation risk. The sharp drop to 1.35 by Apr 23 reflects sentiment normalization—potentially clearing the path for more sustainable positioning.

XRP stood out for its relative stability. Ratios hovered between 2.0 and 3.3, suggesting steady long interest without the extremes seen in SOL. This resilience, alongside improving price action, may reflect growing institutional involvement or speculative confidence in regulatory clarity.

Overall, traders should monitor ratio spikes and dips as tactical signals—whether to fade exuberance, anticipate squeezes, or align with trend strength.

Long-Short Ratios on Bybit

Bybit’s long/short ratios in Q1 2025 present a more restrained sentiment landscape compared to Binance, offering key insights into trader positioning across BTC, ETH, SOL, and XRP.

BTC maintained a relatively neutral stance on Bybit, fluctuating between 1.05 and 1.41 through March and April. Unlike Binance, which saw peaks over 2.9 (e.g., Feb 27), Bybit’s positioning remained conservative—suggesting that Bybit traders leaned less into leverage during volatile windows. The recent decline to 1.05 on April 23 highlights growing caution, possibly signaling hedging or sideline behavior as BTC approaches key resistance levels.

ETH was also more muted on Bybit, with ratios holding steady between 1.4 and 1.56. This is in stark contrast to Binance’s more aggressive 4.0–5.5 range seen through much of March. The tighter band at Bybit implies less speculative froth and suggests that traders there were more measured in chasing upside, which could reduce liquidation risk in pullbacks.

SOL presented an interesting case: while Binance saw extreme ratios above 6.0 in March, Bybit SOLUSDT remained near 1.4–1.5 throughout the quarter. This more tempered optimism may reflect risk-aware behavior or simply lower altcoin leverage utilization on Bybit.

XRP remained consistent on both platforms but slightly lower on Bybit (1.3–1.5 range vs. Binance’s 2.0–3.3). This consistency, without crowding, aligns with XRP’s solid price structure and likely reflects institutional-style flow.

In summary, Binance traders showed more aggressive long bias, especially in ETH and SOL, while Bybit positioning appeared more balanced and cautious. For savvy market participants, these discrepancies can inform cross-exchange strategies, helping identify where sentiment may be overextended—or where it’s just getting started.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the first quarter of 2025 was characterized by significant volatility across the cryptocurrency markets, driven by macroeconomic uncertainties, regulatory developments, and notable security incidents. Bitcoin experienced dramatic swings, reaching a historic peak near $109,000 before correcting sharply below $90,000, highlighting the critical role of on-chain analytics in navigating such volatility. Institutional adoption remained resilient, as evidenced by MicroStrategy’s substantial increase in BTC holdings and mixed ETF flows, illustrating investor sensitivity to macroeconomic events and security breaches such as the significant Bybit hack.

Ethereum faced similar challenges, experiencing sharp declines from highs near $4,100 to multi-year lows around $1,400. Despite price turbulence exacerbated by the $1.5 billion Bybit security breach, Ethereum continued to advance technologically, with significant progress in scalability upgrades like Arbitrum's decentralization via BoLD and the upcoming Pectra upgrade. Fluctuations in ETF flows, particularly with Grayscale Mini and BlackRock, underscored the intense investor caution and selective optimism in response to Ethereum’s evolving ecosystem.

Stablecoins demonstrated remarkable adaptability amid shifting regulatory environments. Tether (USDT) maintained dominance despite European regulatory pressures, while USDC significantly expanded its market capitalization through proactive regulatory alignment and integration with traditional financial systems. The rapid growth of PayPal’s PYUSD highlighted increasing institutional and retail adoption, whereas decentralized stablecoins like DAI faced modest declines amid ongoing DeFi evolution.

Exchange dynamics were notably volatile, marked by significant shifts in spot and derivatives trading volumes due to regulatory impacts and major security breaches. Binance and Bybit notably experienced volume contractions, reflecting decreased speculative activity and heightened investor caution. However, institutional engagement through platforms like CME remained robust, emphasizing sustained deep market participation amid volatility.

If you're looking to enhance your market strategies, gain clarity through comprehensive analytics, or leverage detailed insights for informed decision-making, don't hesitate to contact us. Additionally, we invite institutional investors, brokers, and traders interested in our advanced analytical tools to book a personalized demo to experience firsthand how Amberdata can empower your crypto investment strategies and operational efficiencies.

Further Research and Insights

Explore extensive blockchain analytics and market research by Michael Marshall, Head of Research at Amberdata, on our comprehensive research blog. Michael brings deep expertise across a diverse range of critical topics, delivering detailed analyses on market volatility, decentralized finance (DeFi), and actionable trading strategies tailored for institutional and retail investors alike. Below is a selection of featured pieces, highlighting the variety of insights you can discover:

Dive into Bitcoin volatility with the foundational On-chain Metrics BTC Volatility Part 1, introducing essential indicators such as liquidity patterns, mining influence, and investor behaviors. Further deepen your understanding with Part 2, exploring on-chain activity from miners and institutional traders during significant market events.

Examine Ethereum’s dynamic relationship with stablecoins in our DeFi Activity Stablecoins series, beginning with an overview of their liquidity impacts and risk implications.  Part 2 provides a deeper statistical analysis, uncovering how stablecoin lending affects Ethereum’s intraday volatility, illustrating their dual roles in market stability and systemic risk.

For those interested in advanced trading strategies, our comprehensive Crypto Pairs Trading series starts by explaining cointegration and its advantages over simple correlation in Part 1. Part 2 and Part 3 offer essential statistical validations and practical trading strategy guidelines. Conclude with Part 4, reviewing empirical results and strategy performance evaluations.

Finally, understand market liquidity and volatility drivers through practical applications, like our Orderbook Analysis, which examines real-world impacts on cryptocurrency trading during major macroeconomic disruptions.

These topics represent just a snapshot of the extensive insights available. Visit our blog to uncover more data-driven research and market analyses.