Glassnode: Bitcoin's Bearish Consolidation, Major Volatility Ahead?

By: blockbeats|2025/12/12 17:30:02
0
Share
copy
Original Article Title: Anchored, But Under Strain
Original Article Authors: Chris Beamish, CryptoVizArt, Antoine Colpaert, Glassnode
Original Article Translation: AididiaoJP, Foresigt News

Bitcoin remains trapped in a fragile range, with unrealized losses increasing, long-term holders selling off, and demand staying weak. ETF and liquidity continue to be lackluster, the futures market is subdued, and options traders are pricing in short-term volatility. The market currently maintains stability, but confidence remains lacking.

Abstract

Bitcoin remains within a structurally fragile range, pressured by increasing unrealized losses, high realized losses, and significant profit-taking by long-term holders. Nevertheless, demand is anchoring the price above the true market value.

The market has failed to reclaim key thresholds, especially the short-term holder cost basis, reflecting continued selling pressure from recent high buyers and seasoned holders. If signs of seller exhaustion emerge, a retest of these levels in the near term is possible.

On-chain metrics continue to show weakness. ETF fund flows are negative, spot liquidity is thin, futures positioning shows a lack of speculative confidence, making the price more sensitive to macro catalysts.

The options market is displaying defensive positioning, with traders buying short-term implied volatility (IV) and showing a continued demand for downside protection. The volatility curve signals short-term caution, but sentiment is more balanced over longer horizons.

With the FOMC meeting as the final major catalyst of the year, implied volatility is expected to gradually decline in late December. Market direction depends on whether liquidity improves and sellers step back, or if the current time-driven bearish pressure persists.

On-chain Insights

Bitcoin entered the week still confined within a structurally fragile range, with the upper bound being the short-term holder cost basis ($102.7K) and the lower bound the true market value ($81.3K). Last week, we highlighted weakened on-chain conditions, scarce demand, and a cautious derivatives landscape, all of which echo the market conditions expected at the start of 2022.

While the price barely holds above the true market value, unrealized losses continue to expand, realized losses are on the rise, and long-term investor spending remains elevated. The critical upper bounds to reclaim are the 0.75 cost basis percentile ($95K), followed by the short-term holder cost basis. Until then, unless new macro shocks occur, the true market value remains the most likely bottoming formation area.

Glassnode: Bitcoin's Bearish Consolidation, Major Volatility Ahead?

Time Works Against Bulls

The market has remained in a mild bearish phase, reflecting the tense relationship between moderate capital inflows and ongoing sell pressure from high-position buyers. As the market hovers within a weak but bounded range, time has become a negative force, making it harder for investors to endure unrealized losses and increasing the likelihood of realizing losses.

The relative unrealized loss (30-day simple moving average) has climbed to 4.4%, previously staying below 2% for the past two years, signaling a shift in the market from a fervent stage to a phase of intensified pressure and uncertainty. This indecision currently defines the price range, and resolving this issue will require a new wave of liquidity and demand to rebuild confidence.

-- Price

--

Losses Mounting

This time-driven pressure is more pronounced in spending behavior. Despite Bitcoin's rebound from the November 22 low to around $92,700, the 30-day simple moving average of realized loss has continued to surge, reaching a daily $555 million, the highest level since the FTX collapse.

During a period of moderate price recovery, such high realized losses reflect the growing frustration of high-position buyers, who choose to surrender during market strength rather than hold through the bounce.

Resisting Reversal

The rising realized losses have further hindered the recovery, especially when they coincide with a sharp increase in realized profits among long-term investors. During the recent rebound, the 30-day simple moving average of realized profits for over 1-year holders exceeded $1 billion per day, peaking at over $1.3 billion at new all-time highs. These dual forces of high-position buyers capitulating and long-term holders taking significant profits explain why the market is still struggling to reclaim the short-term holder cost basis.

However, despite facing such significant sell pressure, the price has stabilized and even slightly risen above the true market value, indicating that persistent and patient demand is absorbing the sell-off. If sellers begin to exhaust in the short term, this potential buying pressure could drive a retest of the 0.75 quantile (around $95,000) and even the short-term holder cost basis.

On-Chain Insights

ETF Conundrum

Shifting to the spot market, the U.S. Bitcoin ETF experienced another quiet week, with a three-day average net outflow remaining negative. This continues the cooling trend that began in late November, signaling a stark contrast to the strong inflow mechanism that supported price increases earlier this year. Redemption from several major issuers has remained stable, highlighting that institutional allocators have taken a more risk-averse stance amid a broader market environment instability.

As a result, the cushion of demand in the spot market has thinned, reducing immediate buyer support and making the price more susceptible to macro catalysts and volatility shocks.

Liquidity Still Lacking

In parallel with the weak ETF flows, Bitcoin's spot relative trading volume continues to hover near the lower end of its 30-day range. Trading activity has been declining from November to December, reflecting price declines and reduced market participation. The contraction in trading volume reflects a more defensive market positioning overall, which can absorb volatility or sustain directional changes with reduced liquidity-driven fund flows.

With the spot market quieting down, attention is now turning to the upcoming FOMC meeting, which could serve as a catalyst to reinvigorate market participation based on its policy tone.

Futures Market Sluggish

Continuing the theme of low market participation, the futures market also shows limited interest in leverage, with open interest failing to substantially rebuild, and funding rates remaining near neutral levels. These dynamics highlight a derivative environment defined by caution rather than confidence.

In the perpetual contract market, funding rates this week have hovered around zero to slightly negative, underscoring the persistent unwinding of speculative long positions. Traders remain balanced or defensive, exerting directional pressure with minimal leverage.

Due to subdued derivative activity, price discovery is more oriented towards spot fund flows and macro catalysts rather than speculative expansion.

Short-Term Implied Volatility Surges

Turning to the options market, Bitcoin's subdued spot activity contrasts sharply with a sudden rise in short-term implied volatility, as traders position for larger price swings. Interpolated implied volatility (estimated IV based on a fixed Delta value rather than relying on listed strike prices) clearly reveals the pricing structure of risk across different tenors.

On the 20-Delta call options, one-week IV has increased by approximately 10 volatility points compared to last week, while longer tenors have remained relatively stable. The same pattern is also evident in the 20-Delta put options, with short-term downside IV rising while longer tenors remain calm.

Overall, traders are accumulating volatility at levels where they expect pressure, preferring to hold convexity rather than sell off before the December 10 FOMC meeting.

Downside Demand Resurgence

Accompanying the rise in short-term volatility is the resurgence of downside protection premium. The 25-delta skew, measuring the relative cost of puts versus calls at the same Delta value, has climbed to around 11% in a single period, indicating a significant increase in short-term demand for downside insurance ahead of the FOMC meeting.

The skew remains tightly clustered across tenors, ranging from 10.3% to 13.6%. This compression suggests a preference for put protection is prevalent across the entire curve, reflecting a consistent hedging bias rather than isolated short-term pressure.

Volatility Accumulation

To summarize the options market conditions, weekly fund flow data reinforces a clear pattern: traders are buying volatility rather than selling it. Bought option premium dominates the total notional flow, with puts slightly leading. This does not reflect a directional bias but a state of volatility accumulation. When traders buy options on both ends simultaneously, it signals hedging and seeking convexity behavior rather than emotion-based speculation.

Combined with rising implied volatility and a skew towards the downside, the fund flow condition indicates market participants are preparing for volatility events with a downside bias.

Post-FOMC

Looking ahead, implied volatility has started to ease off, and historically, once the final major macro event of the year is past, IV tends to further contract. With the December 10 FOMC meeting being the last significant catalyst, the market is transitioning to a low liquidity, mean-reverting environment.

After the announcement, sellers typically re-enter, accelerating IV decay into the year-end. Unless there is a significant shift in hawkish surprises or guidance, the path of least resistance points to lower implied volatility and a flatter volatility term structure, persisting into late December.

Conclusion

Bitcoin continues to trade in a structurally fragile environment, with constantly rising unrealized losses, higher realized losses, and significant profit-taking by long-term holders anchoring price action. Despite facing persistent selling pressure, demand still exhibits enough resilience to keep the price above true market averages, indicating patient buyers are still absorbing the sell-off. If signs of seller exhaustion begin to show, a push towards $95,000 in the short term to unwind short-term holder basis is still a possibility.

The off-chain situation echoes this cautious tone. ETF flows remain negative, spot liquidity is scarce, the futures market lacks speculative participation. The options market has strengthened its defensive posture, with traders accumulating volatility, buying short-term downside protection, and positioning for recent volatility events ahead of the FOMC meeting.

Overall, the market structure indicates a weak but stable range, supported by patient demand but constrained by sustained selling pressure. The short-term path depends on whether liquidity improves and whether sellers will relent, while the long-term outlook depends on whether the market can reclaim key on-chain thresholds and move beyond this time-driven, psychologically challenging phase.

Original Article Link

You may also like

Soaring 50 times, with an FDV exceeding 10 billion USD, why RaveDAO?

What exactly is RaveDAO? Why is Rave able to rise so much?

1 billion DOTs were minted out of thin air, but the hacker only made 230,000 dollars

Liquidity saved Polkadot's life.

After the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, when will the war end?

The US has taken away Iran’s most important card, but has also lost the path to ending the war

Before using Musk's "Western WeChat" X Chat, you need to understand these three questions

The X Chat will be available for download on the App Store this Friday. The media has already covered the feature list, including self-destructing messages, screenshot prevention, 481-person group chats, Grok integration, and registration without a phone number, positioning it as the "Western WeChat." However, there are three questions that have hardly been addressed in any reports.


There is a sentence on X's official help page that is still hanging there: "If malicious insiders or X itself cause encrypted conversations to be exposed through legal processes, both the sender and receiver will be completely unaware."


Question One: Is this encryption the same as Signal's encryption?


No. The difference lies in where the keys are stored.


In Signal's end-to-end encryption, the keys never leave your device. X, the court, or any external party does not hold your keys. Signal's servers have nothing to decrypt your messages; even if they were subpoenaed, they could only provide registration timestamps and last connection times, as evidenced by past subpoena records.


X Chat uses the Juicebox protocol. This solution divides the key into three parts, each stored on three servers operated by X. When recovering the key with a PIN code, the system retrieves these three shards from X's servers and recombines them. No matter how complex the PIN code is, X is the actual custodian of the key, not the user.


This is the technical background of the "help page sentence": because the key is on X's servers, X has the ability to respond to legal processes without the user's knowledge. Signal does not have this capability, not because of policy, but because it simply does not have the key.


The following illustration compares the security mechanisms of Signal, WhatsApp, Telegram, and X Chat along six dimensions. X Chat is the only one of the four where the platform holds the key and the only one without Forward Secrecy.


The significance of Forward Secrecy is that even if a key is compromised at a certain point in time, historical messages cannot be decrypted because each message has a unique key. Signal's Double Ratchet protocol automatically updates the key after each message, a mechanism lacking in X Chat.


After analyzing the X Chat architecture in June 2025, Johns Hopkins University cryptology professor Matthew Green commented, "If we judge XChat as an end-to-end encryption scheme, this seems like a pretty game-over type of vulnerability." He later added, "I would not trust this any more than I trust current unencrypted DMs."


From a September 2025 TechCrunch report to being live in April 2026, this architecture saw no changes.


In a February 9, 2026 tweet, Musk pledged to undergo rigorous security tests of X Chat before its launch on X Chat and to open source all the code.



As of the April 17 launch date, no independent third-party audit has been completed, there is no official code repository on GitHub, the App Store's privacy label reveals X Chat collects five or more categories of data including location, contact info, and search history, directly contradicting the marketing claim of "No Ads, No Trackers."


Issue 2: Does Grok know what you're messaging in private?


Not continuous monitoring, but a clear access point.


For every message on X Chat, users can long-press and select "Ask Grok." When this button is clicked, the message is delivered to Grok in plaintext, transitioning from encrypted to unencrypted at this stage.


This design is not a vulnerability but a feature. However, X Chat's privacy policy does not state whether this plaintext data will be used for Grok's model training or if Grok will store this conversation content. By actively clicking "Ask Grok," users are voluntarily removing the encryption protection of that message.


There is also a structural issue: How quickly will this button shift from an "optional feature" to a "default habit"? The higher the quality of Grok's replies, the more frequently users will rely on it, leading to an increase in the proportion of messages flowing out of encryption protection. The actual encryption strength of X Chat, in the long run, depends not only on the design of the Juicebox protocol but also on the frequency of user clicks on "Ask Grok."


Issue 3: Why is there no Android version?


X Chat's initial release only supports iOS, with the Android version simply stating "coming soon" without a timeline.


In the global smartphone market, Android holds about 73%, while iOS holds about 27% (IDC/Statista, 2025). Of WhatsApp's 3.14 billion monthly active users, 73% are on Android (according to Demand Sage). In India, WhatsApp covers 854 million users, with over 95% Android penetration. In Brazil, there are 148 million users, with 81% on Android, and in Indonesia, there are 112 million users, with 87% on Android.



WhatsApp's dominance in the global communication market is built on Android. Signal, with a monthly active user base of around 85 million, also relies mainly on privacy-conscious users in Android-dominant countries.


X Chat circumvented this battlefield, with two possible interpretations. One is technical debt; X Chat is built with Rust, and achieving cross-platform support is not easy, so prioritizing iOS may be an engineering constraint. The other is a strategic choice; with iOS holding a market share of nearly 55% in the U.S., X's core user base being in the U.S., prioritizing iOS means focusing on their core user base rather than engaging in direct competition with Android-dominated emerging markets and WhatsApp.


These two interpretations are not mutually exclusive, leading to the same result: X Chat's debut saw it willingly forfeit 73% of the global smartphone user base.


Elon Musk's "Super App"


This matter has been described by some: X Chat, along with X Money and Grok, forms a trifecta creating a closed-loop data system parallel to the existing infrastructure, similar in concept to the WeChat ecosystem. This assessment is not new, but with X Chat's launch, it's worth revisiting the schematic.



X Chat generates communication metadata, including information on who is talking to whom, for how long, and how frequently. This data flows into X's identity system. Part of the message content goes through the Ask Grok feature and enters Grok's processing chain. Financial transactions are handled by X Money: external public testing was completed in March, opening to the public in April, enabling fiat peer-to-peer transfers via Visa Direct. A senior Fireblocks executive confirmed plans for cryptocurrency payments to go live by the end of the year, holding money transmitter licenses in over 40 U.S. states currently.


Every WeChat feature operates within China's regulatory framework. Musk's system operates within Western regulatory frameworks, but he also serves as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). This is not a WeChat replica; it is a reenactment of the same logic under different political conditions.


The difference is that WeChat has never explicitly claimed to be "end-to-end encrypted" on its main interface, whereas X Chat does. "End-to-end encryption" in user perception means that no one, not even the platform, can see your messages. X Chat's architectural design does not meet this user expectation, but it uses this term.


X Chat consolidates the three data lines of "who this person is, who they are talking to, and where their money comes from and goes to" in one company's hands.


The help page sentence has never been just technical instructions.


Parse Noise's newly launched Beta version, how to "on-chain" this heat?

Noise is planning to launch its mainnet on Base in the coming months, at which point the platform will be open to everyone and support real-money trading.

Is Lobster a Thing of the Past? Unpacking the Hermes Agent Tools that Supercharge Your Throughput to 100x

The longer you use it, the smarter it gets, what makes Hermes, where developers have migrated to, special?

Popular coins

Latest Crypto News

Read more