現貨比特幣交易所交易基金的推出，為加密貨幣市場揭開新時代序幕——資料點更多，市場結構正在快速轉變。當BlackRock、Fidelity等傳統金融巨頭推出比特幣ETF，不僅為機構資金打開大門，也帶來大批全新指標供交易員剖析。
忽然間，創建單位流、授權參與者（AP）套利差價、資產保證金延遲等概念湧現，並成為交易日常用語。這些指標與傳統鏈上資料並列——但許多ETF驅動的新數據，對了解比特幣的價格“貝塔”（即與大市相關的波動）更具啟示性，有時甚至比老牌指標如NVT或MVRV更有參考價值。
為何這種轉變如此重要？說白了，是因為比特幣的投資者結構和市場機制在進化。現貨ETF提供受監管的證券化管道來購買BTC，並在短時間內吸引數十億美元。例如，美國現貨比特幣ETF上線18個月內，共錄得約500億美元的淨流入——等同於700,000枚BTC（由BlackRock的iShares Bitcoin Trust等基金持有）。這代表一個半年間，市場流通比特幣供應有3–5%被ETF“鎖定”。這麼多比特幣納入ETF託管，難怪交易員紛紛關注那些追蹤基金動向和影響力的新指標。
與此同時，資深HODLer和加密原生交易員也開始調整手法。某些傳統鏈上數據已難窺全局，例如“市值與交易額比率”（即比特幣的“市盈率”）過去若出現高位可能暗示高估，但如今可能只是因大量交易量已轉移至ETF或其他工具，並非真正泡沫。同理，市值與實現價值比率（MVRV），昔日能準確捕捉頂部與底部，現在則要放在機構資金大舉進出背景下理解。簡言之，舊指標仍有參考價值，但新指標可作佐證，甚至在ETF主導下成為主流參考。
以下是後ETF時代，每位加密市場觀察者都不可或缺的10大重點指標列表。我們將解構每個指標的意義、現時重要性，以及怎樣協助交易員理解比特幣市場。從ETF股份創建流與套利缺口的細節，到鏈上及去中心化交易所供應變化的細緻訊號，這些都是現代比特幣交易員必看的數據。而實際上，BlackRock自家比特幣產品組合很多時候像“礦坑金絲雀”，經常印證甚至質疑這些指標對市場健康的解讀。馬上深入探索。
1. 創建單位流：追蹤ETF資金流入流出
後ETF時代備受矚目的指標之一，是所謂的創建單位流——即比特幣進出ETF的淨流量。每當現貨比特幣ETF獲得新資金，並非憑空創造比特幣，而是由AP（授權參與者）遞交現金（或比特幣）予基金發行人，發行人則將等價BTC納入ETF持倉。這個創建（creation）通常以標準化批次進行，每批創建單位代表一大組ETF股份（多數按一單位5或10 BTC計，視乎基金設定）。反方向則稱作贖回（redemption），即投資者贖回資金時BTC從基金移除，現金或加密貨幣返還AP。觀察創建與贖回活動，交易員能直接洞悉透過這些基金進出的比特幣需求與供應。
為何如此關鍵？這是體現「機構情緒與資金規模」的直觀指標。大量且持續的創建流，意味著大額資金經ETF湧入比特幣——這對市場需求是強烈利好。相反，如出現大額贖回，則意味有資金撤出，若市場接收不了，會對價格構成下行壓力。例如美國現貨比特幣ETF於2024年1月啟動時，首日因積壓的需求爆發而出現創建高峰，合共錄得7.21億美元流入，Bitwise、Fidelity及BlackRock領跑。這些基金購入大量比特幣以支持新發行股份——實質體現市場買盤。有分析指出，這突顯了SEC多年封殺後積壓許久的需求。
長遠來說，創建單位流已成為市況走勢的溫度計。2024–2025年牛市期間，ETF多週連續流入。例如，有一次美國現貨BTC ETF連續15個交易日錄得淨流入，期間比特幣價格不斷創新高，顯示大戶（多為機構、財務顧問及基金）正積極布局。反觀首次明顯轉向則被視為警號：到了2024年12月，隨著聯儲局議息後比特幣跌穿六位數，ETF單日爆出最大流出紀錄：一天流出6.719億美元。換句話說，AP贖回大量股份，ETF需把逾6500枚BTC重新投放市場。這種大規模贖回打斷了15日連勝紀錄，說明市場情緒從積極轉向避險。
值得留意的是，創建／贖回量有時會“失真”，不是每宗ETF股份創建都反映單純“買入並長持”。不少年份為套利導向（稍後詳述）：如對沖基金利用價差創建或贖回股份，而非真正下注比特幣。Real Vision執行長Raoul Pal估算，新ETF淨流入中約三分之二來自套利對沖基金，而非散戶長線資金。“這反映ETF的主要流量都是套利者，零售還未成為主角，”Pal如是說。實際上，部分創建單位流是快錢交易員利用ETF股份與比特幣間差價獲利，而非退休金等無條件買入比特幣持倉者。現時交易員分析創建流量時，會考慮這層背景。不過，即使套利驅動亦代表有間接需求，因為只有市場有人追捧ETF才會出現套利空間。
日後請密切關注大型ETF的每日／每週創建和贖回數據。很多ETF發行商每日公布股份總數或管理資產（AUM）更新，可換算為該基金的BTC持倉。如創建單位大幅跳升（AUM激增），等同巨鯨掃貨——大量比特幣從交易所流向ETF冷錢包；反之，如出現大量贖回，則如同大戶沽貨。在ETF時代，這種流量不但能左右市場，還經常解釋了純鏈上分析師看不懂的價格變化。當大資金透過ETF進出，創建單位流就是最清楚的腳印，成為理解市場動態的必備指標。
2. AP套利差價：溢價／折價作為情緒風向球
創建流另一個息息相關的指標，是授權參與者（AP）套利差價——即ETF市場價格與其每股持有比特幣的實際價值（淨資產值，NAV）之間的價差。這聽起來生僻，但其實是反映供求失衡及ETF運作效率的重要指標。原因很簡單：理論上，現貨比特幣ETF應該緊貼基金實際持有比特幣的價格，比如每股對應 0.0001 BTC，價格就該等同 0.0001 枚比特幣的市價。若ETF市價更高，就是溢價；更低則是折價。AP（大型交易公司）會強制性地進行套利，消弭價差。例如若ETF溢價2%，AP可在市場按NAV價購買比特幣，交給ETF換取新股份，然後高價賣出新股份獲利。這樣，ETF股份供應增加，價格自然回落貼近NAV；折價時則會出現贖回（低價買ETF股份，贖回BTC再高價賣出實幣）。套利令ETF價值和實際資產價格能緊密連動。
溢價／折價的幅度及持續時間都別具意義。如ETF一直溢價，說明需求過旺，AP可能難及時供應——這雖然利好市場，但可能反映市場運作（如交易摩擦或風險限額）出現效率問題。相反，持續折價則說明賣壓大，需求不濟（過去Grayscale比特幣信託就屢見此現象）。在美國現貨ETF開打初期，散戶熱情未被AP實時滿足，曾一度出現小規模溢價。開市日當天，部分ETF短暫高於NAV，敏銳套利者因此大賺一筆。如有分析形容，“如果ETF溢價..." there will be creation flow. The AP sells the expensive ETF shares short and creates them at NAV cheaper, capturing profit”. This mechanism is exactly what we saw – heavy trading volume in the ETFs (over $4.7 billion on day one across new funds) far exceeded the net inflows, implying a lot of short-term churn and likely arbitrage in that mix.
隨住有「創建流程」，授權參與者（AP）會以高價做空ETF單位，再以淨資產值（NAV）平價創建ETF單位賺取利潤。呢個機制就正正喺我哋見到嘅效果 —— ETF嘅成交量好大（新基金成立首日超過47億美元交易量），遠遠多過實際資金淨流入，解釋到好多係短期交易同套利行為。
Over time, the premium/discount of ETFs has generally stayed small (often within ±1%), showing the arbitrage system works. But the direction of that spread is an excellent sentiment pulse. For instance, during periods of intense buying (say, Bitcoin breaking a new high), ETF prices have tended to tilt to a slight premium, reflecting eager buyers who lift the offer on ETF shares faster than APs can create new ones. Traders watch for those moments – a premium can be a leading indicator that big buy pressure is coming in. Likewise, if ETFs start to consistently trade at a discount, it might mean outflow pressure is building that could spill into the broader market. We saw a hint of this in late 2024: as Bitcoin began to slip off record highs, the one-month CME futures premium dipped below 10% annualized (down from much hotter levels) and ETFs started to trade nearer to – or slightly below – their NAV. A CoinDesk report noted this decline in premium was a sign of “waning short-term demand,” and indeed it coincided with those record daily outflows mentioned earlier. Essentially, when the easy arbitrage profits dried up (because ETF prices were no longer bid above fair value), the arbitrage-driven inflows also slowed, removing one support for continued ETF growth in the short term.
長遠嚟講，ETF通常嘅溢價或折讓幅度都好細（好多時都係±1%入面），證明套利運作大致順暢。不過，呢個價差方向其實好反映市場氣氛。舉例，當出現極熱買盤（例如Bitcoin創新高），ETF價格好多時會偏向輕微溢價，代表有買家追價速度快過AP創建新單位。交易員會留意呢啲時刻——溢價可以係大量買盤即將湧入嘅領先指標。同樣道理，如果ETF持續折讓交易，可能代表資金開始流出，有機會蔓延到更大市況。呢個情況就喺2024年尾開始出現：隨住Bitcoin衝高回落，一個月CME期貨溢價跌到低於年率化10%（之前熱好多），ETF價格都貼近甚至少少低過NAV。CoinDesk報道指，溢價減少反映「短線需求減退」，亦真係撞正之前提過嗰幾日紀錄級資金流出。基本上，套利個利潤縮水（ETF唔再高過NAV），套利資金都少咗，少咗短期推動ETF增長條腿。
Another angle to AP arbitrage spreads is how they relate to futures markets. Some hedge funds use a cash-and-carry trade: buying ETF shares (long Bitcoin exposure) while shorting Bitcoin futures, to harvest the difference in yields. When ETFs trade rich or futures trade rich, the dynamics of that trade shift. In December 2024, the CME futures premium dropping into single digits made this carry trade less attractive, which in turn meant fewer arbitrage creations of ETF shares. The result: softer demand for new ETF units and a mild cooling of inflows. It’s a fascinating feedback loop where ETF premiums, futures basis, and flows all interact.
AP套利價差仲有一個角度，就係同期貨市場連動。有啲對沖基金會玩「現貨對沖」：買ETF（相等於持有Bitcoin），同時放空Bitcoin期貨，食中間息差。無論ETF溢價高，定期貨溢價高，都會影響呢個交易組合嘅吸引力。去到2024年12月，CME期貨溢價跌落個位數，呢個組合就變得唔吸引，結果係ETF創建量少咗，新單位需求降溫，淨流入都放慢。ETF溢價、期貨基差、資金流互相影響，成個反饋循環好有趣。
For the average crypto investor, the takeaway is: keep an eye on the ETF market price vs NAV (many financial sites and ETF issuers publish real-time indicative NAVs). A consistently positive spread (premium) suggests the market is willing to pay a markup – often a bullish sign – whereas a negative spread (discount) can be a warning of brewing selling pressure or at least arbitrageurs about to step in and sell the underlying. It’s a metric that blends market sentiment with mechanical market structure. In the post-ETF world, this spread has essentially become Bitcoin’s “Wall Street fear/greed gauge” in miniature, fluctuating with demand surges and risk-off waves. And remember, when that gauge tilts too far, the APs – the anonymous giants behind the scenes – will swoop in to profit, bringing the market back in line and, in the process, affecting Bitcoin’s supply-demand balance directly.
對普通加密貨幣投資者嚟講，最實用嘅做法就係：密切留意ETF市價同NAV之間嘅差距（好多財經網站或ETF發行商都會實時報NAV）。如果淨係見到長時間溢價，代表市場願意俾Premium —— 通常係偏牛訊號；反之長時間折讓，就可能警告住有沽壓醞釀，或者有套利者準備沽貨補回正價。呢個指標同時反映市場情緒同交易結構。出ETF之後，呢個差價已經成為Bitcoin細尺度嘅「華爾街恐懼／貪婪錶」，隨住資金進出而擺來擺去。記住，當指數「走火入魔」，AP班幕後巨鯨就會入場套利，令價格歸位，直接影響Bitcoin供求平衡。
3. Vault Proof-of-Reserve Lags: Mind the Gap Between Paper and Bitcoin
One unique concern that arose with the advent of spot Bitcoin ETFs is: How do we know the ETFs actually hold the Bitcoin they’re supposed to? In the crypto community, the mantra “Don’t trust, verify” runs deep, and it gave birth to the concept of proof-of-reserves – showing cryptographic proof that a custodian actually has the assets it claims. With traditional financial players entering crypto via ETFs, an intriguing metric to watch has been the timing and transparency of ETF reserve updates, or what we might call vault PoR lags. In plain terms: when new ETF shares are created (meaning the fund should have acquired more BTC), how quickly do those BTC show up on-chain in the fund’s custodial wallets? Any significant lag could indicate the use of “IOUs” or internal settlement that hasn’t yet been finalized on the blockchain.
現貨Bitcoin ETF崛起帶來一個獨特憂慮：我哋點樣確定ETF真係持有佢聲稱嗰啲比特幣？加密界有句金科玉律：「唔好信，自己查」（Don’t trust, verify），所以有「資產儲備證明」（Proof-of-Reserves, PoR）概念——用加密學方法證明託管人持有聲稱嘅資產。傳統金融巨企入場玩ETF後，一個重要指標就係ETF儲備更新速度與透明度，即所謂「金庫PoR滯後」。簡單講：當ETF有新單位創建（代表基金應該買入多啲BTC），幾快先見到啲BTC入帳，出現在基金託管錢包呢？如果有明顯延遲，有可能ETF用「欠單」或內部結算先，未，即時落鏈。
This issue came to a head in mid-2024 when rumors swirled that Coinbase – the primary custodian for many of the new Bitcoin ETFs – might be using “paper BTC” or delayed allocation for ETF inflows. Bitcoin’s price had remained strangely flat for months despite large reported inflows into ETFs, leading some to speculate that perhaps the ETF custodians weren’t immediately buying real bitcoins on-chain for each creation, but rather issuing shares backed by promises of BTC to be delivered later. In other words, a potential lag in on-chain proof of reserve that made people uneasy. Investors and analysts began demanding on-chain verification for each ETF creation, essentially wanting Coinbase to demonstrate that when, say, 1000 BTC worth of new shares were issued, an additional 1000 BTC hit the ETF’s vault addresses in short order.
2024年中，這個問題變得好尖銳——市場開始傳聞Coinbase（好多新Bitcoin ETF嘅主力託管人）疑似用「紙本BTC」或者ETF流入分批遲配。明明ETF吸咗大筆資金，但Bitcoin價格幾個月都唔動，令人懷疑託管人未必係「新發ETF就即刻買實體BTC入鏈」。即ETF可以發單位，但後面BTC貨就遲啲先到手。即係，鏈上資產證明出現咗滯後，氣氛自然唔安心。唔少投資者、分析員開始要求ETF每次創建單位都要有鏈上證明，即係Coinbase要證明，一有新單位（譬如新發1,000 BTC對應單位），就有多1,000 BTC喺ETF金庫地址閃現。
BlackRock took these concerns seriously. In September 2024, it filed an amendment with the SEC explicitly to tighten the rules around withdrawal and settlement times for its IBIT trust. The amended language effectively mandated that any Bitcoin owed to the trust via creations must be transferred on-chain to the custodian within 12 hours of the instruction. In the filing excerpt, BlackRock specified: “Coinbase Custody shall process a withdrawal of Bitcoin from the custodial account to a public blockchain address within 12 hours of obtaining an instruction from the Client” (the client being BlackRock’s fund in this context). In simpler terms, if BlackRock says “hey Coinbase, we need 500 BTC added to our vault because we just sold new ETF shares,” Coinbase must show those coins on-chain within 12 hours. This was a direct response to the murmurs in the market and was aimed at reassuring investors that there’s no fractional reserve shenanigans happening in the ETF world.
BlackRock（黑石）好認真咁回應呢個民間憂慮。2024年9月，佢向SEC遞交修訂，明文規定IBIT信託金庫入出同結算時間。新修訂講明，以後IBIT新創單位要配入BTC，必須喺收到指示12小時內完成鏈上過戶俾託管人。批文原文：“Coinbase Custody shall process a withdrawal of Bitcoin from the custodial account to a public blockchain address within 12 hours of obtaining an instruction from the Client”（所謂Client即係BlackRock基金本身）。簡單啲，BlackRock同Coinbase講：「我要加500 BTC入金庫，因為啱啱賣咗新ETF單位」，Coinbase必須12小時內喺鏈上顯示曬啲幣。呢條款針對市場所提懷疑，目標係維持投資者信心，不會有分段託管／部分準備金情況。
Coinbase’s CEO Brian Armstrong even chimed in publicly to counter the FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt). He explained that all ETF “mints and burns” (creations and redemptions) they process are ultimately settled on-chain, but noted that institutional clients often have short-term trade financing and OTC options before final settlement. Essentially, Coinbase might temporarily extend credit or use internal liquidity so that ETF issuers can get things done quickly, but by the end of the day (“within about one business day,” as Armstrong said), the movements are reflected in their Prime Vaults on-chain. So a slight lag is “the norm for all our institutional clients,” but not an absence of settlement – just a delay.
Coinbase行政總裁Brian Armstrong都公開回應坊間FUD（即「恐慌、不確定、懷疑」）。佢話，所有ETF「鑄造與贖回」（即批發發行同回購）最終都會喺鏈上結算。不過，佢又提到機構客戶好多時會搵短期貿易融資/OTC服務（場外交易）頂住先。即，Coinbase可以暫時放數或用內部資金頂住，發行商先做交易，最終「一個工作天內」（佢原話）會反映喺Prime Vault鏈上資產。所以滯後短暫係正常機構操作，但唔係唔settle，只係慢咗啫。
Why does any of this matter for traders? Because a big delay or gap in proof-of-reserve could affect short-term supply and signal something funky in the market. If ETFs report huge inflows but we don’t see any corresponding uptick in coins moving into their known custody addresses, it could imply that the price impact of those buys might hit later (when the custodian finally purchases the BTC). That’s actionable info – it’s like knowing there’s a buy backlog that hasn’t hit the order books yet. Conversely, if an ETF were to quietly use derivatives or other means instead of buying spot BTC (the nightmare scenario of “paper Bitcoin”), that could mean the anticipated demand push on price might not materialize as expected, which is crucial to know if you’re trading on those expectations.
點解呢啲會影響交易員？因為PoR有明顯delay，短線市場供應都會變，可能反映市場有古怪。如果ETF報大額流入，但託管地址冇見幣，代表最終買盤延遲先入市。呢種訊息可以用嚟部署——即係你預知有大手買盤喺後面等緊。反過來，如果ETF偷偷玩衍生工具頂住，冇即時現貨bitcoin入貨（即「紙本Bitcoin」大災難情境），你預期嘅需求帶動都會打水漂——如果你係用呢啲資訊投機，就要更加留神。
So far, there’s no evidence of foul play – the concerns have been largely hypothetical or preemptive. And the BlackRock rule tweak of 12-hour settlement, along with others likely following suit, means the “verification lag” window is narrowing. But the fact this became an issue at all highlights how the post-ETF market demands a new kind of vigilance. Traders now sometimes monitor detailed on-chain data for ETF custodial wallets, looking at how regularly balances increase and whether those increases match declared inflows. Any unusual lag can become a talking point on crypto Twitter. In one episode, Tron founder Justin Sun (never one to shy from drama) publicly questioned Coinbase’s custodial transparency and lack of clear proof-of-reserves for the wrapped Bitcoin (cbBTC) it manages, calling it potentially “dark days for Bitcoin” if trust eroded.
到而家為止，冇實質證據話有託管假數，大多都係事前假設尐預防性憂慮。BlackRock搞咗12小時內必須完成鏈上結算之後，其他發行商可能都會跟，換言之「資產證明滯後」變少。不過，咁多風波證明ETF時代加密世界對「監察」有新標準。交易員宜家有時會追睇ETF託管鏈上錢包餘額，有冇及時增加、係唔係等於公佈流入。若有異常delay，即變成Twitter熱話。例如Tron創辦人孫宇晨（成日最愛攪事）公開質疑Coinbase託管包裝Bitcoin（cbBTC）的資產透明度，話如果信心崩潰即係Bitcoin黑暗時代開局。
The good news is that so far, the ETF providers have been proactive in preventing any trust crises. BlackRock’s insistence on prompt on-chain settlement and Coinbase’s dominant role as a trusted custodian (it handles custody for 8 of the 11 U.S. Bitcoin ETFs, and about 90% of all Bitcoin ETF assets as of late 2024) mean that a high standard is being set. The key metric to watch here is the speed and consistency of ETF reserve updates. If you’re deeply plugged in, you might even track known ETF addresses on a blockchain explorer or use Dune Analytics dashboards that update ETF holdings in real time. If those start lagging the officially reported shares by an unusual margin, it could raise either red flags or at least trading insights (e.g., maybe a big buy hasn’t hit the market yet – an opportunity to front-run once it does).
好消息係，ETF發行商表現算主動積極，努力避免信心危機。BlackRock堅持鏈上實時結算，而Coinbase託管地位（截至2024年尾，托住美國11隻Bitcoin ETF之中8隻、佔市場約九成資產）都保證標準夠高。最應監察指標就係ETF資產餘額更新速度與穩定度。如果你夠pro，仲可以用區塊鏈監視器或者Dune Analytics實時Dashboard追睇咁多ETF官方地址。如果呢啲資料同公開報表有莫名延誤，要麼就有營運危險訊號，要麼有交易線索（如大額買盤未入市，可乘勢偷步）
In summary, vault PoR lags are about keeping the ETF issuers honest and the market aware. In the post-ETF era, the crypto ethos of transparency is seeping into TradFi products. Traders who “mind the gap” – the time gap between ETF paper entries and actual Bitcoin movements – may gain an edge in understanding short-term market liquidity flows. And broadly, this metric underscores how much the game has changed: in what other market do retail investors demand to literally see the assets moving on a public ledger? Yet for Bitcoin, that’s becoming par for the course.
總括嚟講，金庫PoR滯後，係用嚟督促ETF發行商要誠實運作，令市場保持警覺。ETF時代，加密世界嘅資訊透明主義已經滲入傳統金融產品。識留意「資產短暫滯後」呢個Gap，可以更掌握短期流動性走向。撇開技術，呢個指標都反映成局大變——有啲邊個市場零售投資者會要求官方即時曬單，每個公帳戶錢包過數逐個睇？但Bitcoin世界，呢啲已經司空見慣。
4. BlackRock’s IBIT Inflows: The 800-Pound Gorilla’s Moves
It’s hard to overstate the symbolic and practical importance of BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) in this new landscape. BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, entering the Bitcoin arena was a watershed moment.
BlackRock旗下iShares Bitcoin Trust（IBIT），無論象徵意義定實際影響力，喺現今市場都舉足輕重。BlackRock作為全球最大資產管理公司，正式入局Bitcoin市場，可以話係分水嶺級別大事。And true to expectations, once IBIT launched, it rapidly became the dominant player among Bitcoin ETFs – so much so that many traders now treat IBIT’s inflow/outflow figures as a proxy for overall institutional demand. In other words, if you had to pick one product to watch as the pulse of “big money” interest in Bitcoin, IBIT would be it.
如大家所料，IBIT 一推出就迅速成為比特幣 ETF 嘅主導者——甚至而家好多交易員都當 IBIT 嘅資金流入/流出數據係機構需求嘅指標。換句話講，如果要揀一隻產品嚟觀察「大戶」對比特幣興趣嘅脈搏，IBIT 就係呢個首選。
Consider some numbers. By July 2025, about a year and a half after launch, BlackRock’s IBIT had amassed 700,000 BTC in its holdings, roughly $76 billion in assets. To put that in perspective, IBIT alone held more Bitcoin than the next two largest funds combined – Fidelity’s Wise Origin BTC fund (FBTC) and the Grayscale (now ETF) product – which held about 203,000 and 184,000 BTC respectively. IBIT’s juggernaut growth has even made it one of BlackRock’s biggest ETFs overall, crypto or otherwise. In fact, by mid-2025 IBIT was the third-largest revenue driver among BlackRock’s nearly 1,200 funds, surpassing some famous mainstream ETFs like their iShares S&P 500 fund (IVV) in AUM. That is an astonishing feat for a crypto fund and cements how central IBIT has become.
講下啲數字：去到 2025 年 7 月，即係推出大約一年半後，貝萊德（BlackRock）嘅 IBIT 已經持有 70 萬枚比特幣，資產規模大約有 760 億美元。點理解呢個規模呢？單係 IBIT 持有嘅比特幣，就多過排第二、第三大基金（Fidelity 嘅 Wise Origin BTC fund（FBTC）同 Grayscale（而家都係 ETF））加埋——佢哋分別有大約 20.3 萬同 18.4 萬枚。IBIT 增長咁勁，已經成為 BlackRock 旗下其中一隻最大型嘅 ETF，無論係加密還是傳統產品。到 2025 年年中，IBIT 喺將近 1,200 隻貝萊德基金中，已經排到收入第三高，AuM（資產管理規模）甚至超越咗市面上好出名嘅傳統 ETF，好似佢哋嘅 iShares S&P 500（IVV）。呢個對一隻加密基金嚟講真係勁誇張，亦都證明咗 IBIT 嘅核心地位。
Why does this matter for metrics? Because IBIT’s inflows and outflows have market-moving significance. When IBIT is seeing steady inflows, it means BlackRock’s APs are in the market buying up Bitcoin (or facilitating its transfer into custody) day after day. That provides a kind of background buy-pressure that can buoy prices or at least soak up selling. Indeed, ETF analysts have credited BlackRock’s product suite with effectively propping up the Bitcoin market during periods when natural crypto-native demand was weaker. As Bloomberg’s Eric Balchunas quipped in response to speculation about “paper BTC,” the reality was that long-term Bitcoin holders (the “HODLers”) were actually selling into the rally, and it was the ETFs – especially BlackRock’s – that kept absorbing those coins and “saving BTC’s price from the abyss repeatedly”. In his view, blaming ETFs for any price stagnation was misplaced; if anything, IBIT was the canary confirming the signal – showing that without those inflows, the correction might have been far worse.
點解呢啲指標咁重要？因為 IBIT 嘅資金流入同流出都會左右市場走勢。見到 IBIT 持續有資金流入，即係 BlackRock 嘅授權參與者（APs）每日都要入市買幣（或者將幣過到託管倉），咁樣就等於長期有背景買入壓力，可以拖住個價，或者起碼吸收到沽壓。其實有啲 ETF 分析員都話 BlackRock 嘅產品組合喺天然加密需求較弱時期，幫過比特幣價格托住個市。Bloomberg 嘅 Eric Balchunas 喺回應關於「紙本比特幣」嘅揣測時都話，事實上長期持有者（HODLer）係趁升市沽貨，而真係頂住浪接嗰班係 ETF（特別係 BlackRock），佢哋夾硬咁吸收晒啲幣，「幾次幫 BTC 價格拉離深淵」。佢認為，話 ETF 拖死啲價係錯怪咗人—IBIT 其實係「金絲雀」，提示大家：如果冇晒啲流入，市場調整可能仲深。
Watching IBIT’s flows can be as simple as monitoring BlackRock’s daily AUM reports or public blockchain data for their custodial accounts. For example, during the first big wave of interest, IBIT saw consistent daily growth. It reportedly did not have a single day of net outflows for many weeks on end. CoinDesk noted that by late 2024, BlackRock’s IBIT had notched weeks of continuous inflows and only recorded its “first zero” flow day after a prolonged run (meaning it finally had a day with neither inflow nor outflow, breaking its streak of positive growth). Even in the face of broader ETF outflows on that record withdrawal day, IBIT itself managed to hold flat – a testament to its relative stickiness or ongoing interest. As IBIT goes, often so goes the overall ETF market.
留意 IBIT 策略咁簡單，可以係睇 BlackRock 每日資產管理報告，又或者睇佢哋託管錢包喺區塊鏈上嘅公開地址。例如，開初市場熱潮期間，IBIT 幾乎每日都增長，據報成幾個禮拜一日都無見過資金淨流出。CoinDesk 記錄到，去到 2024 年尾，BlackRock IBIT 攞到連續好多星期資金淨流入，之後先至有第一次「零流」日數（即係終於有一日冇資金流入亦冇資金流出，打破咗之前日日增長嘅紀錄）。即使遇到歷史級大提款日，其他 ETF 一齊流走時，IBIT 都頂得住——證明呢隻基金有幾「黐身」同持續受市場關注。IBIT 嘅走勢，成日都領先左右晒成個 ETF 市場。
Another reason IBIT is a critical metric: BlackRock’s brand and distribution reach likely mean it’s capturing a lot of the new entrants into Bitcoin. Financial advisors, institutions, and even some retail via brokerage accounts often choose the most liquid, well-known fund – and IBIT fits that bill. So a surge in IBIT inflows could indicate a new wave of adopters or a big allocation from some large fund. Conversely, if IBIT ever started bleeding coins consistently, it might signal that institutional sentiment has turned negative or that competition is pulling assets away (for instance, if another issuer undercuts fees or offers something novel).
另一個 IBIT 咁關鍵嘅原因係 BlackRock 自己品牌同分銷網絡嘅滲透力，意味住佢好大機會吸引咗大量湧入幣圈嘅新資金。理財顧問、機構投資者，甚至有啲散戶透過證券行，都會揀最流通、最出名嗰隻基金——IBIT 就啱晒呢個要求。所以如果見到 IBIT 流入突然飆升，可能表示有新一批用戶入場，或者有大基金撥大份額過嚟。反過來講，如果 IBIT 開始長期流走啲幣，可能代表機構情緒轉差，或者有競爭者打價戰、推新產品抽水。
We also keep an eye on BlackRock’s product suite beyond just IBIT. The prompt talks about BlackRock’s suite being the canary – indeed, by mid-2025 BlackRock had also filed for or launched other crypto products (for example, an Ethereum Trust ETF was in the works, and multi-asset digital funds are conceivable). While those are outside our Bitcoin focus, it’s relevant to note that BlackRock’s moves often validate emerging trends. If they aggressively expand their crypto offerings, it underscores that they see sustained demand. And if IBIT’s patterns (like inflows correlating with price rises, or pauses in inflow coinciding with market tops) continue, it becomes a leading indicator in its own right.
我哋除咗關注 IBIT，仲會望埋 BlackRock 成個加密產品組合。開始時都講過，BlackRock 整個產品系列好似「金絲雀」一樣會吹號頭——事實係，到 2025 年中，BlackRock 除咗 IBIT，仲申請咗、甚至出咗其他加密產品（例如以太坊 ETF，仲有可能有多資產數碼基金）。雖然呢啲唔係比特幣主題，但 BlackRock 嘅舉動通常都係行業趨勢驗證。如果佢哋進取地擴展 crypto 產品，其實都講明睇好需求持續。而 IBIT 嘅資金流同價相關、流入停一停就見頂呢啲規律如果繼續出現，IBIT 本身就變成咗重要趨勢先兆。
To illustrate, imagine Bitcoin’s price is plateauing around a local high. On-chain activity is lukewarm, and some on-chain analysts might worry a pullback is due. But you look at IBIT’s daily report and see that, actually, the fund added another 2,000 BTC that day – a sizeable inflow. That tells you new money is still coming in, even if it’s not obvious on exchanges yet. It might make you think twice about shorting that plateau, since BlackRock’s “canary” is still singing a bullish tune. On the flip side, if Bitcoin is dipping and you also see IBIT had net outflows for several days in a row, that’s a caution flag – one of the big safety nets (institutional buy-the-dip interest) might be momentarily absent.
舉個例：假設比特幣價格橫行接近高位，鏈上活動又麻麻地，有啲鏈上分析師都可能擔心會回調。但你睇吓 IBIT 每日報告，原來基金當日增持咗 2,000 枚 BTC——入金量仲幾大。呢樣嘢反映新資金仲陸續進場，就算交易所未完全反映。見到 BlackRock 隻「金絲雀」咁唱好，你都未必敢咁快入場做淡。相反，如果比特幣跌市之際，IBIT 又連環幾日出現資金淨流出，就要小心——嗰啲核心「安全網」（即機構逢低撈貨意欲）暫時唔見咗。
In sum, BlackRock’s IBIT flows are now a core market health metric. They encapsulate the broader theme of institutional adoption. When traders say “institutional bid” or “institutional selling,” they increasingly can point to IBIT’s numbers to back up the claim. The sheer volume of BTC under BlackRock’s management means that their inflow/outflow is nearly synonymous with institutional aggregate flow. As long as IBIT’s vaults keep swelling, bulls have a solid data point in their favor. And if that tide ever reverses, bears will smell blood. So, keep a close watch on the weekly trends – IBIT is the 800-pound gorilla, and where it moves, the jungle (i.e., the Bitcoin market) takes notice.
總括而言，BlackRock IBIT 現時已經係市場健康嘅核心指標。佢本身包涵咗機構進場呢個大主題。交易員講「機構托價」定「機構出貨」，都愈嚟愈多例子可以指住 IBIT 數據作實證。BlackRock 高達如此巨量掌握住嘅 BTC，令到佢哋嘅資金流動幾乎等同總體機構資金流。只要 IBIT 一直吸納資金，牛市人馬就多咗一個硬數據撐場。萬一有朝一日 IBIT 流出潮轉勢，淡友肯定聞到血腥味。所以，密切留意每周趨勢——IBIT 呢隻 800 磅大猩猩，佢點郁成個叢林（即比特幣市場）都會跟住變。
5. Bitcoin Held by ETFs (Supply Absorption): A New Era of Scarcity?
One of the broader, almost macro-level metrics that has emerged from the ETF wave is the total Bitcoin supply held by ETFs – and by extension, the percentage of circulating BTC that has been absorbed into these investment vehicles. This metric speaks to a fundamental shift in Bitcoin’s supply-demand equation. When coins move into an ETF, they are typically placed in cold storage with a custodian and, in many cases, effectively removed from circulating supply until someone redeems those ETF shares (which, as we’ve seen, might not happen often for long stretches). In essence, Bitcoin ETFs create a one-way street for liquidity: lots of coins can flow in during bull runs (locking up supply), but outflows tend to be stickier unless there’s a significant market downturn or arbitrage incentive to redeem.
由 ETF 熱潮帶出嚟，最具宏觀級意義嘅一個指標就係所有 ETF 持有嘅比特幣總量——換句話講，總共吸收到呢啲投資工具嘅流通 BTC 百分比。呢個指標反映緊比特幣供需結構上出現好大轉變。一般嚟講，幣過咗去 ETF，基金會擺啲幣去託管嘅冷錢包，實際上等於中長線被凍結，直至有人贖回 ETF（而正如你見到，好多時長時間都唔會有咩人贖）。換言之，比特幣 ETF 其實造成一條單行道：牛市時大量幣入去（鎖住供應），但要流出多啲就得特定情況—例如大市大跌或者有套利空間。
In the post-ETF era, watching how many BTC are locked in ETFs is like watching a new kind of “Hodl wave,” but one driven by institutional accumulation. The numbers have been climbing rapidly. By late 2024, less than a year after launch, U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs collectively held on the order of 900,000+ BTC on-chain for their investors. As mentioned earlier, by mid-2025 that figure likely breached the 1 million BTC mark, considering BlackRock’s 700k, plus hundreds of thousands more across Fidelity, Grayscale’s converted trust, and others. To put that in context, 1 million BTC is roughly 5% of the circulating Bitcoin supply (which is around 19.4 million in mid-2025). Five percent of all Bitcoin now residing inside ETFs is a dramatic development, considering this was effectively zero percent before 2024 (excluding the GBTC trust, which was a somewhat different animal). Some individual funds’ market share of supply are eye-popping – BlackRock’s IBIT alone accounts for about 3.5% of all BTC outstanding.
喺 ETF 時代之後，留意住有幾多 BTC 被困喺 ETF 裏面，就等於觀察一浪新型態嘅「Hodl wave」（死揸派浪潮），不過今次主力係機構主導。呢個總量增長好快：去到 2024 年尾，單單美國現貨比特幣 ETF 喺鏈上合共已經替投資者持有超過 90 萬枚 BTC。正如上面提過，去到 2025 年中呢個數應該已經突破 100 萬枚大關，單計 BlackRock 就 70 萬，再加 Fidelity、Grayscale 等機構合計數十萬。呢個比例點解重要？100 萬枚 BTC 佔約整體流通供應嘅 5%（2025 年中流通量大約 1,940 萬枚）。5% 全部鎖死喺 ETF，對比 2024 年前基本上得 0%（唔計 GBTC，因為玩法唔同），新局面非常誇張。甚至有啲基金單一市佔率都好嚇人—比如 BlackRock IBIT，自己一個已經持有全網約 3.5% BTC。
Why track this? Because the more Bitcoin is held in long-term vehicles, the tighter the available supply for open market trading becomes. All else equal, if demand keeps steady or rising and supply is increasingly locked up, it’s bullish for price – the classic scarcity argument. It’s analogous to the impact gold ETFs had on the gold market: once SPDR Gold Shares (GLD) launched in 2004, it quickly amassed hundreds of tons of gold in vaults. Some analysts argue that contributed to gold’s price appreciation in the 2000s by creating new demand and taking supply off the market. We may be seeing a similar dynamic with Bitcoin now. Each creation of ETF shares is coins moving from likely more liquid environments (exchanges or individual wallets) into institutional vaults that rarely release them except under redemption scenarios. This can dampen volatility on the downside (fewer coins available to dump) but also concentrate risk if those holdings ever were unleashed in a rush.
點解要追蹤呢個數？因為越多比特幣鎖死喺長線投資工具，市場流通供應就越緊。如果需求企穩甚至繼續增加，而供應越來越凍結，對價格自然有利——最經典嘅「稀缺性」邏輯。正如黃金 ETF 對金市過往衝擊：SPDR Gold Shares（GLD）2004 年一推就幾百噸黃金鎖埋倉，有分析認為對 2000 年代金價持續升值有推動力。比特幣而家就出現緊相類情況。每次新 ETF 份額鑄造，其實就等於將啲幣由流動性高嘅地方（交易所或者個人錢包）送入機構「大金庫」，而平時極少會釋放返出嚟（除咗有人贖回）。呢個現象一方面減低市況極端時間大瀉（因為冇咁多幣可拋），但一旦出現大規模贖回，風險又極度集中。
So far, the trend has been one of net accumulation. Even accounting for occasional outflows, the trajectory from January 2024 to July 2025 was up, up, up – reaching that 50 billion dollar net inflow mark and counting. However, an intriguing observation in 2025 was that price didn’t immediately moon in proportion to this accumulation. Some expected that taking a million BTC off the market would lead to a supply crunch and vertical price climb. Instead, Bitcoin’s price rise was more steady and met by periodic sell-offs. Why? Likely because long-term holders and miners used the opportunity to sell into the strength. As ETFs and other newcomers bought coins, some early adopters saw a chance to take profit or rebalance. The metric to corroborate this was coin age data – which we’ll touch on in the next section (Coin Days Destroyed spiking). In essence, the ETFs were absorbing a lot of the sell pressure from old holders, which prevented the price from overshooting too quickly. Eric Balchunas’s comment about ETFs saving the price from an abyss is one way to frame it; another is that ETFs provided liquidity for exiting whales, which in the short term muted what might have otherwise been an explosive rally. But here’s the flip side: once those weak hands or profit-takers are done, the supply is now in strong hands (the ETFs on behalf of long-term investors). That sets the stage for
到目前為止，整體趨勢都係累積更多。即使間中有流出，由 2024 年 1 月到 2025 年 7 月條線都係一路向上——全球 ETF 淨流入達 500 億美元都未停。不過，2025 年有個幾有趣現象：儲咗咁多幣，價格未係立即爆升。有啲人預期市場抽走 100 萬枚 BTC，應該出現供應緊縮，價錢垂直起飛。但現實係，比特幣上升走勢比較平穩，中間不時有波段獲利。點解？多數係因為長揸戶同礦工趁價格企穩沽出持倉。ETF 同新進資本買入啲舊幣，其實俾舊玩家機會獲利回吐或者調整倉位。支持呢個理論指標就係 coin age 數據——下一節會詳述（Coin Days Destroyed 飆升）。即係話，ETF 吸走咗好多舊有持有人的沽壓，令價唔至於太快衝爆天花板。Eric Balchunas 話 ETF 多次拯救 BTC 價格於深淵是其中一種解讀；另一個角度係，ETF 幫退場嘅大戶提供咗流動性，短期內壓抑咗市場爆發力。但相反地，當晒弱手、獲利盤完成，供應就全數去咗強手手上（即 ETF 代表住長線投資者）。呢度正正鋪排咗下...潛在的供應短缺可能會出現 —— 特別是當市場需求復甦，而由ETF持有的比特幣依然按兵不動。
因此，追蹤ETF持有總量相對於總供應量，是衡量我們在這個「供應吸收」過程走到哪一步的方法。如果ETF持幣比例見頂橫行，有機會代表吸納進入尾聲——大部分本想入場的機構已經入場，新增需求速度放緩。如果ETF持幣比例持續上升，甚至加速飆升，這或許預示着價格上升和資金流入的正反饋循環即將出現（過往牛市循環往往就是這樣發生：價格越升資金湧入越多，帶動價格再升，等等）。有分析曾推測出現這樣的情境：例如10%或以上的比特幣最終被鎖於ETF內。這帶來幾個有趣問題：到什麼時候，市場浮動籌碼（即可於交易所買賣的幣）緊絀到只要買盤一湧現，成交流動性便會大減，令波幅急升？這些問題，或許未來數年我們就會見分曉。
同時，還要留意這些ETF背後的“托管人”是誰——係多家發行商分散持有，還是高度集中？截至2024年尾，單單BlackRock已經佔有鏈上ETF資產市場份額達38%，而Coinbase Custody則負責托管近90%的所有ETF資產。意思是，有大量比特幣其實落在一間托管機構之下（雖然服務眾多客戶）。這種高度集中既有效率，但同時帶來「單點故障」風險，有部分業界人士已發出過警告。但如果單純從指標角度出發，拋開細節，ETF「鎖倉總數」這個頭寸數字，就是很直接的機構HODLing指標。
總結而言，BTC由ETF吸收供應這個指標，是用來理解其他許多市況信號的大背景。如果你見到鏈上交易量下跌或交易所儲備減少，背後未必純粹是熱情冷卻——可能只不過是BTC已經陸續遷移到ETF內部。如果波幅減弱，或許是因為大量供應已經由基金冷存儲鎖定。相反如果波幅突然飆升，可能因為這個趨勢短暫逆轉。某程度上，這可以理解為「觀察華爾街機構持有比特幣」的水桶。這水桶愈裝愈滿，遊戲規則就會全面改變。
6. Coin Days Destroyed（CDD）：老手套現還是繼續死揸？
講返經典鏈上數據，有一個指標在ETF時代後顯得特別重要——就是Coin Days Destroyed（CDD，「比特幣銷毀幣天數」）。這個指標行之有年，鏈上分析師都鍾意用它觀察長期持有者行為。點解係ETF時代要特別留意？因為有大型新買家（如ETF）湧現，給了長期HODL者一個理想的「勁量沽貨」時機——而CDD就係觀察這一幕會否出現的主要鏈上證據。
簡單介紹一下CDD：這個概念，計算每日「由比特幣移動所銷毀的幣天數」。每個比特幣，每在一個錢包中靜止一天，就積累一個「coin-day」。如果你持有1 BTC，100日完全無郁過，到第101日你連同100日未動的幣轉走，即一口氣銷毀了100個coin-days。如果你有50 BTC靜止200日轉走，就係50*200 = 10,000 coin-days銷毀。日子愈耐金額愈多，代表舊戶口大規模移動。CDD值高，意即有大量陳年BTC、通常獲「長線聰明錢」持有，開始移動——代表緊可能出現高位派貨或資金重配。
在健康牛市，其實你不想見到CDD急升大爆發；最理想狀況係大量長線HODL者選擇繼續死揸（令CDD保持中等水平），只係牛頂臨近先分段沽貨。反之，CDD大抽升往往代表派貨期——老手開始沽貨走人。熊市或底部，CDD自然較低，因為依然揸住舊幣的都是強手（只有等唔切走的「紙手」已賣出，真正HODLer沉住氣唔郁）。
自從ETF進場後，我們有咩新觀察？一開始2024年ETF大舉資金流入期間，CDD都算平穩——略有上升，但未算誇張。隨住升浪推進到2025年，比特幣不斷刷新高位（升破$70k、$80k、$90k，一路向六位數邁進），CDD終於見到異常爆升，引起分析師警報。例如2025年7月，比特幣CDD大幅激增，令市場警覺一批長期持有者開始沽出，價格有機會急挫。具體來說，月初時有一批龐大的長年不動BTC（約8萬枚2011年的幣、14年未動過）忽然轉帳，錄得歷來最大之一的CDD激增。單是這一宗事件——很可能是早期持有大戶或鯨魚搬錢——銷毀極大量coin-day，畢竟這批幣都載滿十幾年歷史。分析指這次是史上第二高CDD紀錄，僅次於2024年5月一次更大規模事件。
分析師對此絕不掉以輕心。歷史上，只要CDD超越某個門檻，往往代表市場大調整在即。CryptoQuant數據指，2022至2025年中，CDD超過2,000萬水平（某個加總值）只有五次，頭四次都撞正大型調整。2025年7月那次係第五次，引發市場對潛在大拋售的憂慮。事實上，市場懷疑這8萬枚BTC大部分最後直接賣去交易所或者轉手（可能是場外交易、有機會甚至直接給機構接貨、由ETF托管）。重點是——Coin Days Destroyed比其他指標早就亮紅燈，證明老一批BTC開始流通。
係呢度，CDD同ETF流入等指標可謂相得益彰。我們可以說係「一體兩面」：ETF數據話有大筆新資金湧入（大量新ETF份額被創造），CDD數據同時顯示大量老錢係不停兌現。兩者同時真確地發生。結果？升浪被壓抑——大買家撞正大沽家。有理由相信，「老資格聰明錢」善用BlackRock等提供的流動性套現部分倉位。而一旦這批舊供應搬家（由2011年wallet遷出），對於市場而言相當於幣的年齡重設，新主會樂意繼續死揸一段時間。
對於投資者和觀察者來說，ETF時代之下，觀察CDD更不可少。現階段究竟係長線HODLer主導（CDD低，屬牛市信號，表示睇更高價），還是他們正悄悄離場（CDD上升，風雨欲來）？2025年7月明顯屬於後者——果然隨即見到明顯價格調整，證實「歷史上每次CDD頂峰之後，價格多數急跌」的警號。
還有一點值得留意——CDD與ETF供應吸收的互動。有Bitwise分析師曾分享過一張圖，見到比特幣2020至2024年穩步上升，但每當供應調整後的CDD指標急升，價格隨之校正。ETF向某次高位（如2024年5月，BTC首次逼近$70k）提供了大量流動性，有大戶順勢派貨，造就最大CDD事件之一。
有人會認為，Coin Days Destroyed作為「真相核查」的角色越來越重要。大家歡呼機構加倉加到癲，CDD就可幫你驗證早期鯨魚有冇乘機出貨。如果冇（即ETF大舉吸幣但CDD仍然偏低），極度利好——連OG都選擇續揸，睇更大的牛市目標。如果有（CDD爆升），那麼牛市就會面臨新資金能否接得哂舊貨的壓力。
目前觀察，確實有部分派貨出現——比特幣都不是直升$200k，中間每遇舊幣消化、短線反覆先再上路。往後，ETF流入和CDD建議一起看。這是一個陰陽平衡：ETF資金大量流入 + CDD高變動 = 舊倉沽貨交棒給新主（短期升勢受限）；ETF高流入 + CDD低企 = 真正供應大減（牛勢有機會更急）。萬一ETF流出（資金淨流走）同時CDD爆升——算得上是雙重利淡組合（好在未見如此局面）。
總括而言，Coin Days Destroyed依然係理解「鑽石手」與「紙手」行為的最佳窗口。ETF時代並無改變其地位——只是加添了新劇情（如鯨魚趁ETF湧入派貨）。這個KPI正好連接老派鏈上分析與機構新資金流，確保我們唔會忘記Bitcoin舞台上的「元祖」主角，即使當華爾街正式入場。
7. Cumulative Volume Delta（CVD）背馳：訂單流「占卜」
唔係所有重要指標都圍繞長線死揸或者機構，有D主要反映短線市況。Cumulative Volume Delta（CVD，累積成交買賣差額）正係受短炒派歡迎的一個指標——特別係比較不同市場區隔的CVD背馳或「spread」。簡單講，CVD量度一段時間內淨買入同淨賣出成交量差距。計法係持續累積主動買入同主動賣出（即市價買盤vs市價賣盤）的分別。如果CVD向上，即代表買家佔主導（市價買入多過賣），向下就係沽家多。咁做有咩用？因為CVD可幫你分辨推動價格方向的真正訂單流，睇到價錢變動背後係咪真有實力資金跟進。
在比特幣ETF時代的新市場結構下，一個重要用途係——比較不同類型市場之間CVD，舉例：instance, many analysts look at Spot CVD vs Perpetual Futures CVD. If the price of BTC is rising, ideally you’d like to see both spot markets and futures markets showing net buying (CVD up) – a sign of broad conviction. But sometimes you get a divergence: imagine price grinding up slowly, but spot CVD is flat while futures CVD is rising (or vice versa). This could indicate, say, that the move is being driven by derivative traders (with leverage) while spot buyers (perhaps more “real” demand) are absent – a potentially weaker rally that might reverse if derivative traders get cold feet. Conversely, if spot CVD is surging but price isn’t moving much, it might mean there’s heavy accumulation happening on spot exchanges that hasn’t yet been reflected in a breakout – potentially a bullish pressure cooker.
例如，唔少分析師會比較現貨CVD同永續期貨CVD。如果比特幣價格向上升，理想情況當然係現貨市場同期貨市場都同步淨流入買盤（CVD向上）－呢個代表整體市場有信心。不過，有時你會見到出現背馳：想像下價格慢慢上升，但現貨CVD企硬唔郁，而期貨CVD就不斷上升（或相反）。呢個可能代表今次升浪主要係由衍生品交易員（帶槓桿）推動，而現貨買家（即“真實”需求）就冇乜參與－即係呢個升勢比較脆弱，萬一衍生品玩家縮沙可能會回調。相反，如果現貨CVD急升但價格唔郁，都可能反映現貨平台大手積累緊貨，但突破未出現－潛在一個好強牛市壓力煲。
A concrete example: In April 2025, as Bitcoin approached the hefty $95,000 resistance level, market observers noticed something peculiar. Binance’s spot CVD remained relatively flat even as price inched up toward $95K, which indicated that the upward price action was not coming from an onslaught of aggressive buyers lifting offers. Instead, it appeared passive limit orders were nudging the price – in other words, there were buyers, but they were sitting on bids and letting price drift up, rather than FOMO-ing in. Meanwhile, on every push up, sell orders met the price (CVD flat suggests sellers absorbed the buys). This kind of CVD divergence – price making higher highs while CVD (buy volume) doesn’t make higher highs – often precedes a short-term reversal. In that case, analysts warned that the market would need to “auction through significant ask liquidity at $95K” to sustain the rally. Essentially, unless we saw a wave of aggressive buying show up (which would push CVD up decisively) to eat through the sell walls at $95K, the rally could stall. Indeed, $95K proved tough to crack initially, validating the CVD divergence signal that there was hidden selling pressure despite the optimistic price movement.
具體例子：2025年4月，比特幣衝近$95,000個大阻力關口時，市場觀察者發現咗一樣搞笑嘢。Binance現貨CVD保持相對平穩，雖然價格逐步摸近$95K，呢個說明升浪唔係靠大堆主動買盤衝上去。反而似乎係被動限價單漸漸推高價格－即係有買家，不過佢哋係掛緊買盤，等價自然升，唔係瘋狂追入。同期，每次上衝都有賣盤對住（CVD平即代表買盤被賣家吸收）。呢種CVD背馳（價格破高但CVD（買量）唔同步破高）往往係短期回調前兆。果時分析員都話，市場要確實升穿$95K，必須「拍賣掉大量賣盤流動性」。即係話，除非我哋見到新一輪強勁主動買盤爆發（會推高CVD），啤爆$95K條賣牆，否則升勢隨時無力。結果$95K果關真係幾難破，証實左當時CVD背馳信號，解釋喺樂觀升勢底下其實有暗湧賣壓。
Traders are increasingly incorporating these order flow nuances. Another way to use CVD is to gauge relative strength between exchanges or regions. For example, one might track the CVD on a U.S. exchange like Coinbase versus a major Asian exchange or versus a DEX, to see which side of the world (or which type of platform) is leading the buys or sells. A TradingView community script even subtracts perp CVD from spot CVD to create a “Spot vs Perp CVD Divergence” indicator – positive values mean spot markets are more bullish (more net buying) than perps, negative means perps more bullish than spot. This can be insightful: a spot-led rally (spot CVD outpacing) is often considered more organically driven (perhaps from people converting cash to BTC), whereas a perp-led rally might be more speculative leverage (which can unwind faster).
越黎越多交易員會細緻咁研究呢啲委託流細節。CVD仲有另一個用法係比較唔同交易所或地區之間嘅相對強度。例如，可以追蹤美國Coinbase同主要亞洲交易所或者DEX嘅CVD，睇下邊邊領先買入/賣出。有啲TradingView社群腳本，甚至會用「現貨CVD減永續CVD」做出“Spot vs Perp CVD Divergence”指標－數值正即現貨夠牛（多咗淨買），數值負即期貨更牛。呢啲信息頗有睇頭：如果升市係現貨帶頭（現貨CVD拋離），代表升勢好自然、有現金湧入BTC；但如果期貨帶頭，通常槓桿炒作成分重，升得快跌得更快。
In the ETF era, one could theorize that spot markets would take on more importance because ETFs ultimately transact in spot. If, say, BlackRock’s APs are buying, they’re buying on spot exchanges or via OTC, not via perpetual futures. So one might expect spot CVD to show strength during periods of heavy ETF inflows. And in fact, some analysts did note that the character of certain price moves in 2024–2025 felt more “spot driven” – for instance, when Bitcoin broke above $70k, there were signs of stablecoin inflows and spot buying (CVD climbing) fueling it, rather than just a short squeeze on futures. This is a departure from some prior rallies (like in 2019 or 2020) where BitMEX and other futures platforms led the charge with high leverage.
進入ETF時代後，理論上現貨市場重要性應該會提高，因ETF最終都係現貨交易。例如BlackRock等ETF申購機構要買貨，佢地都要係現貨交易所或OTC 扣貨，唔係玩永續合約。所以ETF流入潮時，預期香港現貨CVD會明顯見強勢。事實亦如是，有分析員指出2024-2025某啲升浪，好明顯係現貨帶動－如比特幣突破$70k時，有穩定幣流入同現貨買盤（CVD上升）推上，而唔單止期貨爆倉。呢種情況係同以往啲升浪（例如2019、2020年由BitMEX等高槓桿期貨帶動）有少少唔同。
However, the presence of sophisticated arbitrage also means futures quickly catch up, so watching the spread between spot and futures CVD is a dynamic affair. A widening spread (where one is rising and the other falling) is a warning of divergence. Savvy traders use it to sniff out potential reversals or confirmations. For example, a bullish CVD divergence would be if price makes a low but CVD makes a higher low – indicating selling pressure is diminishing even though price hit a similar low, which could precede a bounce. And a bearish divergence is like the April 2025 scenario: price higher high, CVD lower high – buying momentum not keeping up with price, watch out below.
但因為有高階套利者，好多時期貨CVD會好快追番現貨，所以現貨同期貨CVD個差距係一個動態指標。若果兩邊一升一跌—擴闊緊—就係潛在背馳信號。精明交易員會用嚟搵出逆轉或確認。例如，牛背馳（Bullish CVD divergence）就係：價格再創低，但CVD做咗較高低點，反映賣壓減弱，可能會反彈。而熊背馳就好似2025年4月咁：價創新高CVD卻低頂—買盤跟唔上升勢，要小心。
In practice, one specific metric that traders touted was the notion of passive vs aggressive buying. Post-ETF, we saw episodes where passive buyers (think of them as patient accumulators) were driving moves without causing big spikes in CVD. This can show up as price drifting up on relatively flat CVD, meaning those buyers are sitting on the bid and letting sellers come to them, rather than crossing the spread. Some attributed this to institutional behavior – institutions often don’t chase price; they place iceberg orders, use algorithms to fill over time, etc. So an interesting new pattern is that Bitcoin can sometimes grind up on light but consistent volume (low CVD slope), which is a different signature than the retail frenzy spikes of the past. It might not set off traditional momentum alarms, but the divergence from typical patterns is notable.
實戰入面，有交易員特別睇重「被動買 vs 主動買」嘅概念。ETF時代之後，我哋有時見到市場主要係被動買家（即慢慢收集）推動，唔會有CVD大爆升。呢種會見到：價格慢慢升但CVD企硬不郁，即買家坐定定係買盤，等賣家主動沽過黎，而唔係自己追入。有啲人將呢個歸因為機構參與－機構習慣唔博追價，通常做冰山單、用自動算法慢慢拉貨。所以而家比特幣有時會「慢磨慢升」但成交量（CVD）坡度係低，唔似以前散戶瘋狂追高咁爆。佢未必會觸發傳統動能指標，但背離左舊有模式係值得留意。
To summarize, CVD and its divergences are like an X-ray of market buying vs selling pressure beneath the price action. In the post-ETF era, where large players and new venues (like decentralized exchanges or CME futures via ETFs) join the mix, having this x-ray vision helps identify who’s really in control. Is the rally supported by real buy volume? Is the dump accompanied by panicky selling volume or just lack of buyers? These questions get answered with CVD analysis. Traders who mastered on-chain in the last cycle are now learning to master order flow metrics like CVD to keep their edge.
總結，CVD同其背馳現象就好似市場買賣壓力嘅X光，照穿價位背後嘅真實力量。ETF年代，新參戰者／新場地（如DEX、CME期貨ETF）加入，order flow視覺可幫你分辨：升浪背後係咪有真買盤支持？下跌係恐慌賣壓還是只係買家唔積極？呢啲就靠CVD幫你答。上個週期已經熟讀on-chain數據嘅交易員，而家都要學識order flow工具（如CVD）先有優勢。
Keep an eye out especially for cross-market comparisons: spot vs futures, East vs West, DEX vs CEX. A divergence in CVD across those can signal when one side’s narrative might be getting ahead of itself. For instance, if DEX trading (maybe via a large on-chain swap) shows big buy CVD but centralized exchanges don’t, perhaps a DeFi whale is accumulating in a way not yet reflected in global price – an arbitrage or a signal? These are the nuanced questions the new age analyst asks. In essence, CVD spread analysis has become a key intra-day/short-term metric to explain price moves that pure volume or price charts alone might miss. It’s all about the quality of the flow, not just the quantity, and CVD is our window into that quality.
特別要留意跨市場比較：現貨vs期貨，東方vs西方，DEX vs CEX。如果CVD背馳，就可能預示一方嘅敘事跑得太快。例如，假如DEX有大手鏈上swap，見到大買盤CVD，但集中交易所未反映住，或者係DeFi大戶積累緊，未正式牽動整體價位—套利定係新信號? 呢啲精細問題都係新時代分析師要考慮。其實，CVD spread分析而家成為重要短線/即日解讀市場動向嘅工具—純volume同價圖未睇到嘅地方，全靠CVD「見質唔見量」。
8. DEX vs CEX Basis Gaps: Monitoring the DeFi-CeFi Price Disconnects
The rise of decentralized exchanges (DEXs) and on-chain trading has added another dimension to crypto markets: the possibility of temporary price discrepancies between on-chain markets and traditional centralized exchanges (CEXs). In the post-ETF world – especially as regulation and big institutions enter – watching the DEX vs CEX basis (price gaps or spreads) has become pertinent. Essentially, this metric is about checking if Bitcoin (or wrapped Bitcoin) is trading at a different price in DeFi venues versus centralized venues, and what that implies.
去中心化交易所（DEX）同鏈上交易冒起，令加密貨幣市場多咗一層維度—就是鏈上市場同傳統中心化交易所（CEX）之間會唔會出現短暫價格差。ETF時代後，特別係愈來愈多監管同大機構參與，DEX vs CEX基差（價差、點差）成為一個重要觀察指標。簡單講，呢個指標即係睇比特幣（或WBTC）喺DeFi場地價格同CEX價格有冇明顯差別，背後又代表咩。
Historically, crypto has seen regional or venue-based price gaps. Think of the famous “Kimchi Premium” in Korea years ago, where Bitcoin traded at a hefty premium on Korean exchanges compared to the rest of the world, due to capital controls and local demand. Or the Coinbase vs Binance slight premium that sometimes appears when U.S. institutional buying is hot (Coinbase prices tick a bit higher than elsewhere). DEX vs CEX gaps are a newer twist: for instance, on Ethereum-based DEXs like Uniswap or on decentralized perpetual platforms like dYdX or GMX, does the price of Bitcoin (or its derivatives) stray from the price on, say, Binance or Coinbase?
加密市場長久以來都有地域/場地價差，例如韓國幾年前有「泡菜溢價」：由於資本管制同當地需求，比特幣喺韓國平台賣得明顯貴過全球其他地區。又或者美國Coinbase偶爾會高過Binance少少，因美資機構入市。至於DEX vs CEX價差，就係新一輪潮流：例如以太坊系Uniswap等DEX，或者去中心化永續平台如dYdX、GMX之類，比特幣或衍生品價格有時會同Binance/Coinbase出現偏離。
Most of the time, arbitrageurs keep these markets tightly in sync – but when they don’t, it’s informative. A persistent gap indicates either arbitrage friction or differing demand pressures. One example: if there’s a sudden surge of buy pressure from DeFi users (say, someone is swapping a ton of USDC for WBTC on Uniswap), the DEX price of WBTC might shoot above the global average. In theory, arbitrageurs can bridge the gap – they’d buy BTC on a CEX, wrap it into WBTC, and sell the WBTC on Uniswap at the inflated price, thereby taking profit and equalizing the price. In practice, this arbitrage has costs (gas fees, time delays, liquidity limits) so minor spreads can and do occur. The magnitude and duration of those spreads are worth watching. If we see WBTC trading consistently, say, 0.5% higher on a DEX than BTC on Coinbase, it means on-chain demand is outpacing what arbitrageurs can supply – a bullish signal for near-term price (arbitrageurs will eventually push up the CEX price too by buying there). On the flip side, if a DEX or decentralized futures platform shows BTC at a discount or unusual lag, it might hint at something like liquidity issues or risk aversion in the DeFi space.
平時大多數情況套利者都會壓平呢啲市場價差，但有時壓唔到就好值得睇。持續嘅基差反映咗套利摩擦或者供求壓力唔同。例如：如果DeFi用戶突然大舉買入（有人係Uniswap大額swap USDC去WBTC），咁DEX上嘅WBTC價會即彈高過全球均價。理論上，套利者可以買BTC於CEX，再包裝做WBTC賣上Uniswap，賺呢個差價同時拉平市價。但現實有套利成本（gas費、延遲、流動性限制），所以細價差其實時常出現。至於價差有幾大/幾耐，就值得留意。如果見到WBTC長期比Coinbase高0.5%，即場內鏈上需求大過套利者供應—對短線市價有利（因套利者遲早會喺CEX度掃貨追番）。相反，如果DEX／去中心化期貨平台個BTC價有折讓，或者落後得好緊要，都可能反映DeFi板塊存在流動性問題或風險厭惡情緒。
One concrete scenario: imagine regulatory crackdowns or outages affecting centralized exchanges (not unheard of). Traders might flock to DEXs as an alternative. If, say, Binance had a temporary halt on BTC withdrawals (hypothetical scenario), we could see DEX prices diverge upward because people might be willing to pay a premium on-chain to get BTC liquidity. That gap would tell you something important: the market is willing to pay extra for censorship-resistant, always-available trading. Alternatively, during times of extreme volatility, sometimes decentralized perps like GMX have had different funding rates or price wicks compared to centralized perps, because of how their pricing or oracle systems work. Basis in futures refers to the difference between futures price and spot price. A “DEX basis” could be coined as the difference between a decentralized perp’s implied price and the actual spot price on CEX. If, for instance, a DEX perpetual is trading 5% above spot, that
其中一個具體情景：假設因監管壓力或技術事故，有中心化交易所出現停擺（唔罕見）。交易者會走到DEX避難，假如Binance暫停BTC提幣，可能會見到DEX價格抽高，因大家都肯比高價on-chain換取BTC流動性。呢個gap其實反映市場願意比溢價去獲得不受監管干擾、隨時隨地可交易嘅權利。另外，極端波動時，GMX等去中心化永續平台可能同中心化期貨平台有唔同資金費率或價格插針，因定價同預言機系統唔同。所謂期貨基差(Basis)即係期貨價和現貨價嘅差。照咁推，「DEX基差」可以指去中心化永續合約隱含價同CEX現貨價之間的距離。例如某DEX永續合約比現貨高5%，即......
（未完，請提供剩餘內容以便繼續翻譯。）indicates a lot of on-chain leverage longing relative to the main market – possibly unsustainable and due for a correction, or an arbitrage opportunity for those who can short the DEX perp and buy spot.
顯示鏈上有大量槓桿做多，相對於主流市場來講，這種情況可能唔可持續，有機會出現回調，或者為能夠做空 DEX 永續合約同時買入現貨嘅人帶嚟套利機會。
Another example: during periods of U.S. regulatory fear, U.S.-based traders might prefer using DEXs to buy Bitcoin exposure (to avoid KYC or because they moved off certain exchanges). This could create pockets of demand visible in on-chain pools. Or conversely, when U.S. ETFs were approved, maybe some offshore or DeFi traders offloaded some holdings expecting the ETFs to take over price discovery, leading to a DEX discount for a time.
又例如：喺美國監管恐慌期間，美國本土交易者可能傾向用 DEX 去買入比特幣敞口（為咗避開 KYC，或者因為佢哋已經唔喺某啲交易所），呢個會喺鏈上池出現明顯需求區域。相反，當美國 ETF 獲批時，可能有部分離岸或 DeFi 交易者預期 ETF 會主導價格發現而提早沽貨，令 DEX 上有一段時間出現折讓。
We also have the factor of wrapped Bitcoin vs native Bitcoin. WBTC (Wrapped Bitcoin on Ethereum) or similar wrapped versions on other chains need to be redeemed via custodians if there’s a discrepancy. In theory, WBTC should equal BTC in value 1:1. In practice, it generally does, but if for any reason confidence in the custodian wavers or there’s a rush, WBTC could trade at a slight discount (as seen briefly in past episodes when people feared custodial risk). Conversely, a premium on WBTC would incentivize merchants to mint more WBTC (locking real BTC and issuing WBTC), which is analogous to APs arbitraging an ETF premium. Watching that peg is essentially another DEX basis indicator.
我哋仲要考慮 Wrapped Bitcoin 同原生比特幣之間嘅因素。WBTC（喺以太坊上的 Wrapped Bitcoin）或者其他鏈上類似嘅 wrapped 版本，如出現價差，需要經託管方贖回。理論上，WBTC 價值應該同 BTC 一比一。但實際上，雖然大致相同，如果對託管方信心動搖或者出現恐慌，WBTC 可能會有少少折讓（好似之前有啲情況因擔心託管風險而出現過）。相反，如果 WBTC 有溢價，會鼓勵商家造多啲 WBTC（即鎖住真 BTC 去鑄造 WBTC），同 AP 喺 ETF 溢價時套利情況類似。觀察呢條釘住匯率，其實又係另一種 DEX 價差指標。
So how do traders use this metric? Largely as a check on market stress and cross-market demand. Under normal conditions, any DEX-CEX gap is tiny. When it’s not, it often signals an imbalance. For example, if we see sustained higher BTC prices on DEXs, it might signal capital from the crypto-native realm (perhaps profits from altcoins or DeFi yields) rotating into BTC independently of TradFi inflows. If we see lower prices, maybe something is up (perhaps a big on-chain seller, or a DeFi liquidation cascade pushing prices down locally until arbitrage steps in).
咁交易者點用呢個指標？主要就係監察市場壓力同跨市場需求。正常情況下，DEX 同 CEX（中心化交易所）價差好細。但如果出現明顯價差，往往代表市場有唔平衡。例如，如果長時間 DEX 上嘅 BTC 價格高過 CEX，可能代表有加密原生資本（例如山寨幣盈利或 DeFi 收益）獨立流入 BTC，而唔係傳統金融資金推動。如果見到價格低，可能有啲事發生中（例如有大戶喺鏈上賣出，或 DeFi 清算連鎖導致本地價格被壓低，直至套利者介入）。
One could recall a mini-event: back when a certain DeFi protocol had a glitch, one could buy BTC cheaper on its platform than on the open market for a short time; arbitrage bots eventually closed that gap, but not before quick movers benefited. These little instances underscore the importance of a holistic view of the market. The ETF era hasn’t removed the influence of the wild west of DeFi – in fact, arguably, it makes it more interesting. Big institutions arbitrage across CME, Coinbase, etc., but crypto natives arbitrage across Uniswap pools, Sushi, PancakeSwap, GMX, dYdX, and so on.
可以諗返有次細小事件：有個 DeFi 協議出咗 bug，嗰陣可以用平過市價喺佢平台買 BTC，雖然套利機械人好快就拉返價差，但快手嘅人已經賺咗一轉。呢啲細節突顯咗用整體觀角度睇市場幾重要。ETF 時代並無抹走 DeFi「狂野西部」嘅影響力——甚至可以話更加有趣。大機構喺 CME、Coinbase 做套利，原生加密玩家就喺 Uniswap、Sushi、PancakeSwap、GMX、dYdX 等等 DEX 之間做套利。
In the end, what to watch is: whenever Bitcoin makes a big move, check the DEX world. Are decentralized exchanges and lending platforms keeping pace with the price or is there a lag? If Bitcoin pumps and DEX liquidity is thin, perhaps the DEX price lags a bit lower – an arbitrage chance or a sign of disbelief among DeFi traders. Or if Bitcoin dumps and you see on-chain prices actually holding a bit better (maybe because DEX traders are slower to panic sell), that could hint at a bottom as arbitrageurs will swoop in to buy cheap coins on DEX.
總結嚟講，重點係：每逢比特幣有大波動，記住睇埋 DEX 世界。去中心化交易所同借貸平台跟唔跟得上市價？定好有延遲？如果比特幣抽升但 DEX 流通量稀，可能 DEX 價錢會慢一拍或者低少少——呢個可能係套利機會，或者係 DeFi 交易者半信半疑嘅表現。相反，如果比特幣插水時鏈上價格反而企得比較硬（可能因為 DEX 玩家冇咁快恐慌沽貨），咁就有機會見底，因為套利者會走入去低價吸納 DEX 上嘅貨。
This metric might not have a straightforward number like “Bitcoin ETFs hold X% of supply,” but rather manifests as spread percentages and anecdotal observations. Nonetheless, it’s become part of the toolkit. In the post-ETF market, we can’t ignore any sector: centralized institutional flows, on-chain HODLer flows, and yes, the DeFi flows all intermingle. The savvy trader keeps an eye on each realm and especially on the seams between them – because that’s where money can sometimes slip through the cracks, even if only briefly, and those cracks tell stories.
呢個指標未必有一個簡單數字，好似「比特幣 ETF 持有 X% 供應」咁明確，更多體現在價差百分比同經驗總結。但佢已經成為分析工具箱入面嘅一部分。ETF 時代之後，唔可以忽略任何一個市場範疇：中心化機構資金流、鏈上長線持幣流、以及 DeFi 的資金流全部混合。精明嘅交易者要同時留意各自市場，特別係佢哋之間嘅接縫位——因為有時錢就係會暫時喺裂縫中流失，而呢啲裂縫往往有故仔講。
9. Network Value to Transactions (NVT) Ratio: Rethinking the “Bitcoin P/E” in an ETF World
9. 網絡價值對交易量比率（NVT）：ETF 時代重新思考「比特幣市盈率」
Before the ETF whirlwind and institutional adoption, on-chain metrics like the NVT ratio were headline indicators for many crypto analysts. NVT, or Network Value to Transactions ratio, is often described as the Bitcoin equivalent of a price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio in stocks. It’s calculated as the market capitalization (network value) of Bitcoin divided by the daily on-chain transaction volume (usually smoothed by a moving average). The intuition: if Bitcoin’s price is very high relative to the amount of value being moved on its blockchain, it might be overvalued (like a stock with a high P/E), and if it’s low relative to on-chain usage, it might be undervalued.
喺 ETF 熱潮同機構入場之前，NVT 等鏈上指標對好多加密分析師嚟講都係主流訊號。NVT，即 網絡價值對交易量比率，經常被當成比特幣對應股票嘅市盈率（P/E Ratio）。計算方法係用比特幣市值（網絡價值）除以每日鏈上交易量（通常會用移動平均做平滑處理）。直覺好易明：如果比特幣價格相比於其鏈上流通價值高得太誇張，就有可能係高估（類似股票市盈率升得太高）；反之，如果價格低於鏈上用量，就有可能被低估。
Historically, a high NVT signaled potential froth. For instance, if prices surged but transaction volumes didn’t, NVT would spike, suggesting price outpacing fundamental usage. A low NVT could indicate capitulation or undervaluation (lots of value transfer happening relative to price). Analysts like Willy Woo popularized NVT and even refined it into an “NVT Signal” (using moving averages) to time market cycles. And indeed, NVT spikes did correlate with major tops at times, and low NVT with bottoms.
以往嚟講，NVT 高代表泡沫風險。即係價格抽升但交易量冇跟，就會見到 NVT 飆升，意味住資產價格升得快過基礎用量。NVT 低可能代表拋售、低估（即有大量價值換手但價格壓低）。Willy Woo 等分析師推廣咗 NVT，甚至進一步改良咗「NVT Signal」（用移動平均搵周期轉勢）。事實上，每當 NVT 飆高，時常對應大市頂部，NVT 低則代表市底。
However, as early as the late 2010s, people noticed NVT’s effectiveness was diminishing. One big reason: a lot of Bitcoin activity shifted off-chain or into Layer-2 solutions and exchanges. When coins sit on exchanges, they can change hands without registering on-chain. When custodians like exchanges or ETFs hold big reserves, the internal transfers don’t show up as on-chain “transactions” in the same way. So NVT started to have an upward drift – i.e., it looked like the network value was growing faster than on-chain volume, making Bitcoin perpetually look overvalued by NVT standards. In reality, it was a case of measurement: the “T” (transactions volume) in the ratio was missing more and more economic activity that moved off-chain.
但早喺 2010 年代後期，大家已經發現 NVT 嘅效用減弱咗。一大主因係：大量比特幣活動轉晒去鏈外，或者 Layer-2 解決方案同交易所。當幣喺交易所託管時，轉手並唔會登記為鏈上交易；託管商（如交易所或 ETF）持有巨額資產，內部調撥亦唔會以鏈上「交易」出現。咁 NVT 就有咗上升趨勢——即睇落網絡價值升得快過鏈上交易量，令比特幣永遠都似係被高估。實情只係統計方法有限——「T」（交易量）愈來愈睇漏咗搬晒去鏈外嘅經濟活動。
Enter 2024–2025: the Spot ETF era supercharges this effect. Now you have potentially billions of dollars of Bitcoin changing hands via ETF shares on the NYSE or other stock markets, which does not register as on-chain BTC transfer volume. An investor could sell $50 million of Bitcoin exposure by selling IBIT shares to another investor – the Bitcoin stays in custody, no on-chain transaction happens. NVT’s denominator doesn’t budge, but the price (and thus market cap) might due to that trading. Result: NVT ratio can climb higher and stay high without meaning the same thing it used to.
去到 2024–2025，現貨 ETF 時代，呢個現象更加明顯。依家可能有幾十億美元比特幣透過 ETF 喺紐約證券交易所或者其他股市轉手，完全唔會記落鏈上。「投資者 A」只要賣出 5,000 萬美元嘅 IBIT ETF 股份俾「投資者 B」——資產一直喺託管商度，根本冇鏈上交易。NVT 分母冇變，但價格（同市值）可以跟住變。結果係：NVT 可以長期高企，但意思已經唔同咗。
Analysts have explicitly noted this change. Some have introduced adjustments to NVT (like NVT Signal with longer averaging, or removing known non-economic transactions, etc.), but fundamentally, the trend has been that NVT is consistently higher in recent years due to off-chain volume growth. As one Bitcoin Magazine Pro report succinctly put it: “NVT Signal was originally useful for picking cycle tops, but due to more coins being held off-chain over time, the efficacy of NVT Signal has declined.”. Another source points out the “increasing amount of investor volume moving off-chain, especially on exchanges” has caused an upward drift in the standard NVT, requiring adjustments.
分析師都已經明確指出咗呢個變化。有啲人對 NVT 作出修正（例如用長期平均，或者剔走明顯唔具經濟意義嘅交易），但大方向都係咁：因為鏈外成交多咗，NVT 近年持續偏高。Bitcoin Magazine Pro 有份報告就咁講：「NVT Signal 本來可以捕捉周期頂，但因為越來越多比特幣轉去鏈外，被持有於交易所或託管商，NVT Signal 效果一直下滑。」另一啲來源又指出，隨住「越來越多投資者資金轉向鏈外，特別係交易所」，標準 NVT 有明顯上升偏移，需要調整。
In practical terms, if you look at a chart of NVT over the last decade, you’d see that what constituted “high” NVT in say 2015 is very different from in 2025. The baseline shifted. So, a naive interpretation like “NVT is at 150, it’s way above historical average, so Bitcoin must crash” could be misleading now – that high NVT might simply be the new normal because so much trading happens off-chain.
實際啲，如果你拉長過去十年，睇 NVT 圖表，2015 年嗰種「高」已經同 2025 年完全兩回事。基線已經移咗。即係話，「NVT 去到 150，好高過過去平均，咁比特幣就一定爆煲啦」——而家已經唔成立。因為高 NVT 可能只不過係大量交易轉咗去鏈外，新常態啫。
Does that render NVT useless? Not entirely. But it means analysts now use it with caution and often in conjunction with other metrics. Some have tried to only consider on-chain volume that seems economically relevant (filtering out self-sends, change outputs, etc.), or incorporate Layer-2 stats if possible. But with ETFs, even that doesn’t capture the whole picture. So NVT, once a darling of on-chain analysis, has kind of taken a back seat.
咁即係 NVT 廢咗冇用？都唔係。不過而家大家傾向小心啲用佢，通常會同其他指標一齊分析。有啲人試過只計有經濟意義嘅鏈上交易量（剔除自發自收、找續輸出等），有啲會加埋 Layer-2 數據，但 ETF 咗之後，連咁樣加都未必睇到成個市場全貌。所以，NVT 呢個連鎖分析寵兒，而家已經退居後座。
That said, it can still highlight extremes. If NVT absolutely explodes to unprecedented levels, it might still be a sign of extreme speculative pricing versus usage. But “usage” now might need to include proxies for off-chain volume. For example, perhaps one could create a modified NVT that adds ETF trading volume (converted to BTC) to on-chain volume. That would be an interesting blended metric – though not something widely published yet.
不過，NVT 喺極端情況下依然有用。如果 NVT 飆到史上罕見，咁都可能顯示投機遠超實際用量。但而家所謂「用量」，可能要界定埋鏈外活動。例如，有冇人研發「改良版 NVT」：將 ETF 交易量（折算做 BTC 數字）加埋落去鏈上交易量度，得出一個加權新指標？依家要普及仲未，但聽落幾過癮。
For the common crypto reader: the key takeaway is NVT ratio needs re-calibration in the post-ETF era. If you see someone on Twitter charting NVT and proclaiming doom or euphoria, check if they’ve accounted for the structural changes. As the NVT concept’s creator Willy Woo himself noted, adjustments were needed as early as 2019 when exchanges and custodians grew – and the ETF impact is the continuation of that trend.
對普通加密圈讀者而言：重點係，ETF 時代之後，NVT 指標要再校正。如果見到 Twitter 上有啲圖畫 NVT 話想爆倉或者牛到不得了，記得要睇佢有冇考慮時代變化。就連 NVT 概念創辦人 Willy Woo 自己都曾經溫馨提示，早喺 2019 年交易所及託管崛起時已經要調整——ETF 衝擊只不過係更一步延續。
One could illustrate this with a hypothetical: Suppose Bitcoin’s market cap is $2 trillion (future scenario) and on-chain volume is, say, $5 billion a day. NVT = 400. In the past, that ratio might be unheard of, and suggest Bitcoin is wildly overvalued relative to network usage. But what if, at the same time, there are $50 billion a day of Bitcoin ETF shares trading on stock exchanges, and another $20 billion in CME futures, etc.? The network is heavily used, just not in the way NVT originally measured. The “earnings” of the Bitcoin network (if we analogize transactions to earnings) are partially happening in parallel financial systems.
舉個假設例子：假設比特幣市值做到 2 萬億美金（未來情景），每日鏈上交易量得 50 億，NVT = 400。以前咁高數字會覺得非常離譜，暗示嚴重高估。但如果同一時間，股票交易所上每日有 500 億美金比特幣 ETF 股份換手，仲有 200 億喺 CME 期貨玩緊等等？即係整個網絡高度活躍，只不過唔係用番 NVT 原本定義度。用「盈利」來比喻——比特幣網絡部分「盈利」已經喺平行金融體系發生。
So how do traders adjust? Many have moved to alternative metrics like MVRV (covered next), active addresses, or various “real volume” estimates. NVT hasn’t been abandoned, but it’s usually discussed with the caveat of its limitations. There’s even an “Adjusted NVT” or NVT Golden Ratio variant that uses longer-term trends. But broadly, one can say the ETF era has somewhat outmoded NVT as a standalone gauge of valuation.
咁交易者點適應？好多已經轉用其他指標，好似 MVRV（下一節會講）、活躍地址、各種「真實成交量」推算等。NVT 冇被完全棄用，不過一般都會聲明有侷限。仲有「修正 NVT」、「黃金比例 NVT」等新變種，專攻長周期衡量。不過，總體來講，ETF 時代確實令 NVT 作為單獨估值參考有少少落後。
In summary, Network Value to Transactions ratio is no longer the simple yardstick it once was for Bitcoin’s valuation. It’s a reminder that as the ecosystem changes, so must our metrics. The high NVT readings of recent times don’t automatically spell disaster – they partly reflect evolution: more value
總結，網絡價值對交易量比率（NVT）已經唔再係比特幣估值嘅簡單尺。生態進化，分析指標都要跟住變。近年 NVT 咁高，未必係災難前兆——更大程度只係反映行業發展：有更多價值已經唔只留在線上。transfer happening off the base layer. In a way, high NVT might even be a feature of maturation, not a bug; it means the network can carry a large market value on relatively fewer on-chain transactions because those transactions often represent batched or off-chain aggregated value (e.g., an ETF creation of 1000 BTC might show up as a single on-chain tx, but that 1000 BTC might serve thousands of investors in smaller pieces off-chain). So, take NVT with a grain of salt. It’s still worth watching extremes or trends, but interpret it in the context of all these new developments.
底層以外發生嘅轉帳。某程度上，NVT高甚至可能係一個成熟嘅「特色」而唔係「漏洞」；呢代表住個網絡可以用相對較少嘅鏈上交易承載住龐大市值，因為嗰啲交易好多時都係代表緊一啲批量或者鏈外聚合嘅價值（好似一個ETF創建1000 BTC，可能只會以一單鏈上交易出現，但實際上嗰1000 BTC可能會以細份量喺鏈外服務成千上萬個投資者）。所以，睇NVT指標時要保留一分質疑。雖然極端數值或趨勢值得留意，但要放喺各種新發展嘅大環境嚟解讀。
10. Market Value to Realized Value (MVRV) Ratio: New Light on a Trusted Cycle Indicator
Another stalwart of Bitcoin analysis that warrants a fresh look post-ETF is the MVRV ratio – Market Value to Realized Value. If NVT was the “P/E of Bitcoin,” MVRV is something like the “price vs book value” of Bitcoin, or perhaps more accurately an indicator of average holder profit. It’s calculated by dividing Bitcoin’s market cap (market value) by its realized cap (the total value of all coins based on the price when they last moved). Realized value is like an aggregate cost basis of the network; it adds up, for each coin, the price at the time it last transacted. Thus, MVRV > 1 means the market is above the average cost basis (holders in profit on average), MVRV < 1 means below cost basis (holders at a loss on average).
比特幣分析當中另一個值得喺ETF時代重新審視嘅指標，就係MVRV比率——即市值對實現價值比。如果話NVT好似「比特幣嘅市盈率」，MVRV就類似「市價對帳面價值」，又或者更貼切啲，係一個反映平均持幣人利潤嘅指標。MVRV就係由比特幣市值（當前市場價值）除以實現市值（所有比特幣根據最後一次轉帳時的價格計出嘅總值）計算出嚟。實現價值有啲似全網絡嘅持倉成本平均值，每枚幣的最後成交價格都會納入計算。因此，MVRV大過1即市場價高於平均成本（大部分持有人有利潤），細過1即低於成本（平均計持有人蝕緊）。
Historically, MVRV has been excellent at identifying extremes. Past bull market peaks often saw MVRV ratios of 3, 4, or even higher – meaning the average holder’s coins had tripled or quadrupled in value since they last moved (lots of latent profit, usually a sign of euphoria). Conversely, deep bear lows saw MVRV dip below 1, even down to 0.5–0.7 in brutal times – meaning the market price was 30–50% below the average holder’s cost basis, which tends to mark capitulation and undervaluation. It’s intuitive: when MVRV is very high, a lot of profit is sitting on the table, which often precedes holders taking that profit (selling) and thus a correction. When MVRV is very low, most are at a loss, selling pressure gets exhausted, and an upturn follows.
傳統上，MVRV係好出色識別極端市況。過往牛市頂峰時，MVRV成3、4甚至更高——即係平均持幣人自上次移動以嚟，手上比特幣升值咗三、四倍（大量潛在利潤，往往代表狂熱）。相反，熊市谷底時，MVRV會跌穿1，嚴重時甚至見0.5–0.7——即市場價比平均成本低三至五成，通常係投降同極度低估期。好易理解：MVRV好高時，好多利潤仲未變現，通常係持有者會套現（沽出）前兆，然後就會有調整；若MVRV好低時，大家都蝕錢，沽壓耗盡、自動會有反彈。
Now, how does the ETF era affect MVRV? At first glance, not as directly as NVT, because MVRV is derived from on-chain cost basis data, which still updates whenever coins move on-chain. But consider: with ETFs absorbing supply, many coins did move (from sellers to ETF custodians), updating their realized value to current prices. This means realized cap jumped as ETFs bought coins from long-term holders (those coins, dormant since, say, $20k, now moved at $60k, thus realized value increased significantly). When realized cap rises closer to market cap, the MVRV ratio goes down. So paradoxically, even as price went up, the act of old coins moving to new buyers can keep MVRV from shooting as high because realized cap (denominator) also increases.
咁ETF時代對MVRV有咩影響？表面睇，好似冇NVT咁直接，因為MVRV係根據鏈上成本數據，幣一郁就會更新。但諗深一層：ETF吸納供應時，的確有好多幣由賣家流向ETF託管人，啲幣移動就會將佢嘅實現價值提升至當時價格。即係話，ETF向長期持有人買入，令本來停留咗好耐（例如$20,000買入）嘅幣，在$60,000水平移動，整體實現市值（Realized Cap）大幅升。當實現市值接近市場市值，MVRV就會跌。所以，好得意，雖然價格升，但舊幣移送新主手令MVRV未必會衝得咁高，因為實現市值（分母）都升咗。
In other words, the heavy redistribution of coins in 2024–2025 to new buyers (often via ETFs) likely moderated the MVRV peaks. The market cap hit new all-time highs, but realized cap also hit all-time highs as a lot of previously dormant coins were “repriced” in new hands. This could be one reason why, by mid-2025, some noted that MVRV wasn’t as high as one might expect given the price levels. For instance, a source in June 2025 pointed out MVRV Z-score (a related metric) was in a moderate range, around 2.4, and had not reached the extremes of previous tops which often went above 5 or 7. This persistent lower range, despite a strong price rally, suggests that the continuous realized value updating (due to coins moving) kept the ratio subdued. Essentially, the presence of eager buyers (ETFs and others) allowed old coins to be realized (sold) before we got into dangerously high MVRV territory. That could mean a more prolonged, stair-stepping bull market rather than a blow-off top – at least that’s one interpretation.
換句話講，2024–2025年大量比特幣（多數係經ETF）轉手俾新買家，有機會壓抑咗MVRV頂部。市值創新高，同時因為大批舊幣「重定價格」後流入新手，實現市值都創新高。或因此去到2025年中，唔少人留意到MVRV並無跟價位想像咁高。例如，2025年6月有數據指出，MVRV Z-score（相關指標）係2.4左右，未去到舊時嘅極端位（好多時超過5或7）。即使大升市但指標維持中間偏低，反映咗實現價值不停更新（因幣有移動），令比率唔易爆升。事實上，有大量新買家（ETF等）肯接貨，令舊幣早早實現盈利（賣出），未至於進入咁高危嘅MVRV區。換言之，牛市可能更持久，似樓梯級升市而唔係一嘢爆頂——起碼有咁解讀。
However, MVRV is still very useful, especially if things swing the other way. Imagine a scenario where price corrects sharply but people aren’t selling much (so realized cap stays high from the prior redistribution). Market value could drop below realized value again, sending MVRV below 1. That could signal a generational buying opportunity, as it has in past bears. Whether ETFs being in the mix would change that calculus is an open question: if such a drop happened, would ETFs experience outflows (coins moving out, lowering realized cap again)? Possibly, but perhaps not proportionally – some institutional holders might just hold through dips, keeping realized cap elevated.
不過，MVRV一樣好有參考價值，尤其市況若果調轉。例如一個情景，價格大跌但大家都無咩沽貨（實現市值因之前分配而企高），市值反而跌低過實現市值，MVRV又會唔夠1。呢種情況喺過往熊市都係大賺時機。至於ETF參與會唔會改變呢個現象仲未知——要係發生大跌，ETF會唔會走資（幣流出，實現市值再跌）？有可能，但未必成比例——有啲機構投資者可能會長揸唔沽，實現市值維持高位。
One might also ask: do ETF-held coins count in realized cap? Yes, because when they were transferred to the custodian, that’s an on-chain movement that established a new cost basis. Once in custody, if they don’t move on-chain, realized cap doesn’t change for them. So if ETFs hold long-term, those coins have a realized price equal to their buy-in. If the market dumps below that level, those coins (and their holders) are at an unrealized loss – which historically not many long-term holders tolerate indefinitely (some will capitulate). But if the holders are institutions with long horizons, maybe they will tolerate it, meaning realized cap stays high and MVRV might drop deeply. That could mark bottoms differently than before – maybe sharper, maybe requiring a different threshold.
亦有人問：ETF託管嘅幣計唔計實現市值？計，因為轉入託管人時就係一次鏈上移動，會產生新成本價。放入倉唔郁，就唔會再更新。若ETF長揸，啲幣實現價就等於買入價。若市價跌穿呢個位，啲幣（同持有人）就處於未實現虧損狀態——傳統上，好少長揸戶會永遠忍受啲蝕，通常有啲會投降賣走。不過如果持有人係有長線視野嘅機構，可能會頂得住，咁實現市值就唔跌，MVRV可以跌得更低。即係話，底部可能會同以往唔同——又或者需要唔同閾值。
Another subtle point: Realized cap now includes a lot of coins that moved at fairly high prices (the ETF purchase points). This could raise the floor of MVRV in a bear because a greater portion of supply has a high cost basis. In older cycles, a huge chunk of supply had very low cost basis (early adopters) so in bears, market cap could drop near to realized cap. Now, with realized cap higher (closer to market cap), perhaps MVRV doesn’t drop as far below 1 in future bears. It’s speculative, but plausible.
另一個要留意嘅位：實現市值而家有大批係高價移動（即ETF買入價）嘅幣。熊市時，更多流通比特幣成本價高，可能令MVRV底托上移。早幾輪牛熊，早期幣主成本極低，熊市市值可以貼埋實現市值落去。依家實現市值高企，貼近市值，未來熊市時MVRV未必再跌穿1咁多。雖然言之尚早，但值得注意。
Regardless, as a metric to watch, MVRV remains one of the top indicators for macro sentiment and cycle stage. It’s just that one must interpret it knowing that a lot of coin redistribution (like what we saw) keeps it more “reset.” In mid-2025, even as Bitcoin flirted with $100k, MVRV Z-score indicated we weren’t at an outrageous extreme by historical standards. That gave some bulls confidence that the cycle hadn’t peaked – there was “still juice left” as one commentary put it. And indeed, if long-term holders already sold a lot to ETFs, who’s left to sell en masse? Perhaps fewer than in past cycles – which could mean a higher ultimate peak or a less severe drawdown.
總之，MVRV永遠都係重要大市氣氛及周期指標之一。只不過要明白，經歷咗大量幣再分配之後（好似近年見到咁），比率會「重設」得頻密。2025年中，即使Bitcoin接近$100,000，MVRV Z-score都顯示無去到歷史極端水平。呢樣俾咗啲牛派信心，覺得周期未見頂——正如有評論話「仲有油」。事實上，如果長線持有都已賣畀ETF，到底仲有邊啲人會集體大沽？可能比往年少，所以有機會見到更高頂，或者回調唔會太深。
On the flip side, if we ever saw MVRV creeping up to those historically extreme levels again (say the ratio > 3.5 or 4, Z-score in red zone), it would still be a strong warning that the market is overheated. At that point, perhaps ETF inflows would slow and everyone left is in profit – a precarious spot. We’d then watch if ETF flows reverse (like in late 2024 slightly) and if long-term holders (those who didn’t sell yet) finally start capitulating their profit.
相反，如果日後又見到MVRV爬升到歷史極端（好似>3.5或4，Z-score入紅區），仍然係市場過熱嘅大警號。到時也許ETF資金流入放緩，各方幾乎全線賺錢——個市就比較危險。我哋要睇ETF會唔會開始流出（如2024年底出現過），又睇睇未沽貨嘅長線持有人會唔會終於出貨。
In summary, MVRV hasn’t been invalidated by the ETF era, but it’s been tempered. It’s like a reliable thermometer that now reads a bit differently because the patient’s condition changed. It’s still absolutely worth keeping in the top metrics to watch – to identify when the market is overstretched or when it’s deeply undervalued. The key is context. Combine MVRV with the metrics above: If MVRV is high and we see ETF inflows stagnating and CDD spiking, that’s a clear danger zone. If MVRV is low and we see ETFs still stacking and CDD is minimal (strong hands holding), that’s a screaming buy sign historically.
總括而言，ETF年代冇令MVRV失效，只係指標被「調整」咗啲。佢好似一支可靠溫度計，而家患者身體狀況唔同，讀數有啲新意思。依然絕對值得列入關鍵觀察指標，用嚟判斷市況過熱或極度低估。關鍵係要識得睇環境：如果MVRV高，同時ETF流入停滯、CDD飆升，就要小心危險地帶；如果MVRV低，而ETF仲一路掃貨、CDD極低（即強手揸緊），歷史上都係大笨象入市信號。
Ultimately, the combination of NVT and MVRV – the old on-chain guard – with the new ETF and market structure metrics gives the fullest picture. MVRV continues to serve as a bridge between on-chain data and investor behavior, even as the investor base now includes the suits on Wall Street alongside the cypherpunks.
最後，NVT加埋MVRV——呢啲核心鏈上指標——配合ETF同新市場結構數據，先至攞到最立體全貌。MVRV繼續擔當住鏈上數據同投資者行為之間嘅橋樑，儘管近年投資者由cypherpunk以至華爾街西裝友統統齊集。
Final thoughts
The Bitcoin market has always been a story of evolution – from cypherpunk experiment to speculative mania, from retail-driven rallies to mining capitulations. Now, in this post-ETF era, we’re witnessing another evolutionary leap: the fusion of traditional finance dynamics with Bitcoin’s native, transparent blockchain data. With that comes a new toolkit for understanding what drives price and sentiment.
比特幣市場一直都係進化嘅故事——由神秘極客實驗到全民炒作狂潮，由散戶帶動升浪到礦工投降。而家ETF出現後又進入新一頁：傳統金融模式同比特幣原生、公開透明嘅區塊鏈數據開始融合。呢個新生態亦帶嚟咗新工具，用嚟理解驅動價格同情緒嘅真正力量。
The top 10 metrics we’ve explored form a holistic dashboard for the modern Bitcoin observer:
- ETF creation and redemption flows reveal the tidal forces of institutional money entering or leaving.
- AP arbitrage spreads act as a real-time barometer of ETF demand and market efficiency, hinting at when big players see easy profits (or when they step back).
- Proof-of-reserve lags keep the system honest, ensuring that what’s happening on paper is backed by on-chain reality – a novel concern that marries crypto’s transparency with TradFi’s scale.
- BlackRock’s IBIT inflows (and its brethren) have become the heartbeat of “Wall Street Bitcoin,” giving a simple yet powerful read on big-money appetite.
- Total ETF-held supply tracks how much Bitcoin has migrated into the vaults of institutional products, a slow-changing metric that speaks volumes about long-term supply dynamics.
- Coin Days Destroyed continues to chronicle the actions of Bitcoin’s oldest hands, often writing the prelude and epilogue of each rally as they decide when to hodl and when to fold.
- CVD divergences zoom into the order books, deciphering whether price moves are built on solid buy/sell foundations or air pockets of passive activity.
- DEX vs CEX basis gaps remind us that not all trading follows the same script – when decentralized and centralized markets diverge, there’s information (and arbitrage) in the delta.
- NVT ratio teaches us humility – that no metric is infallible once the game changes, and that Bitcoin’s
十大指標組成咗現代Bitcoin觀察者嘅全面儀表板：
- ETF創造與贖回流向揭示住機構巨額資金湧入或流走嘅大潮；
- AP套利價差成為ETF需求同市場效率嘅即時晴雨表，提示大玩家幾時覺得有肉食或選擇暫退；
- 儲備證明滯後維持系統誠信，確保紙面記錄真係有鏈上資產背書——呢個議題將加密透明度同傳統金融規模結合埋一齊；
- 黑石IBIT流入量（同其他類似產品）成為“華爾街比特幣”嘅心跳脈搏，簡單而有力咁反映巨資胃口；
- ETF持幣總量記錄住有幾多比特幣正式俾機構產品吸納，好慢變但最能講長線供求大勢；
- Coin Days Destroyed繼續記錄住比特幣最老資格持有者既行為，經常寫下每輪升浪起承轉合的前奏與尾聲；
- CVD指標背馳聚焦訂單簿，分辦升跌背後係真有買賣盤支持，定係得表面行貨；
- DEX對CEX基差 提醒我哋唔同市場有唔同劇本——去中同中心交易所價差蘊含好多交易訊息同套利機會；
- NVT比率提醒我哋要謙虛——冇一個指標可以打天下，尤其當市場規則已經大變...Here’s your requested translation in zh-Hant-HK (with markdown links skipped):
“fundamentals” can be expressed in more ways than just on-chain tx volume.
「基本因素」其實唔止可以用鏈上交易量去表達，仲有好多其他方式。
- MVRV ratio stands as a trusty compass for where we are in the market cycle, albeit one now constantly recalibrated by the churn of coins into new hands.
MVRV比率一直都係一個可靠指南針，幫你判斷市場週期嘅位置，不過依家因為有咁多幣不斷換手，呢個指標都成日要重新調整。
For the common crypto reader, arming oneself with these metrics is empowering. It cuts through the noise of hype and fear. Instead of just hearing “BlackRock is buying” or “whales are selling” as nebulous narratives, you can see it in the data: BlackRock’s AUM ticking upward, Coin Days Destroyed spiking as whales move coins, CVD lines diverging on your chart during a suspicious pump. Each metric is like a different camera angle on the same match – one shows the offense, one the defense, one the crowd’s reaction, one the coach’s strategy. Only by watching them all do you get the full picture of the game.
對一般加密貨幣讀者嚟講，學識用呢啲指標，真係好有用。佢可以幫你過濾晒啲吹噓同恐慌嘅雜音。你唔會淨係聽到啲「BlackRock買緊貨」、「大戶賣緊幣」咁模糊嘅說法，數據會直接話你知：BlackRock嘅資產管理規模上升、Coin Days Destroyed急升（即係大戶有幣移動）、CVD線圖喺啲可疑爆升時開始分歧。每一個指標都好似用唔同鏡頭睇同一場波，有啲鏡頭影攻勢、有啲影防守、有啲就係觀眾反應、教練布陣——你睇晒全部先至會睇到成個全局。
And indeed, Bitcoin’s grand game has new star players. BlackRock’s product suite – led by the IBIT ETF – has proven to be a sort of canary in the coal mine for many of these signals. When IBIT saw relentless inflows, we saw strength in price (even as some older metrics like NVT looked high). When IBIT paused or outflows hit, it coincided with correction warnings from other indicators. The canary isn’t causing the shifts, but it often feels them first. It validated, for example, that long-term holders were selling, by absorbing their coins – without those ETF inflows, perhaps the price would have fallen off a cliff; with them, the selling was cushioned. Watching BlackRock and its peers is now simply part of watching Bitcoin.
事實上，比特幣場上依家有新星入場。BlackRock嘅ETF產品（以IBIT領頭）已經成為好似「煤礦入面啲金絲雀」一樣，領先反映好多信號。每次IBIT資金淨流入唔停，加埋幣價都硬淨上升（就算NVT啲舊指標指數偏高）。而IBIT見到資金流停咗、甚至有走資，就經常同啲其他信號預警回調重疊。其實ETF呢隻「金絲雀」唔會改變市況，不過佢往往係最早感受到變化嗰個。好似，有ETF資金淨流入可以吸收長線持有人拋貨，如果冇呢啲ETF入場錢，價錢可能一早插到落山；有佢哋頂住，沽壓自然緩衝咗。依家講比特幣，一定要睇埋BlackRock同其他基金嘅動作。
It’s also a story of convergence: on-chain purists and Wall Street analysts are now looking at some of the same charts, albeit from different angles. A crypto veteran might check exchange reserves and CDD to infer if accumulation or distribution is happening, while an ETF analyst checks fund flows and premiums – but they’re diagnosing the same market through different instruments. More than ever, a savvy analyst will blend these approaches.
其實，依家係一個融合故事：鏈上數據信徒同華爾街分析員，而家開始望住同一啲圖，只不過角度唔同。玩開幣圈嘅，會睇交易所余額、CDD判斷到底係吸貨定派貨；ETF分析員就望資金流同溢價，但大家都係用唔同工具分析同一個市場。聰明而家分析員，都會學識將唔同方法融合一齊用。
The post-ETF era has made the market more complex but also more mature. No single metric will give you the answer (if it ever did). But taken together, these metrics provide a multi-dimensional view. They explain why classic signals like MVRV or NVT may flash differently now – not because they’re broken, but because the market’s underlying mechanics have broadened. They underscore the rising influence of regulated, large-scale products without eclipsing the importance of grassroots network activity.
ETF時代之後，市場雖然複雜咗，但同時成熟咗。無一個單一指標話晒事（其實以前都唔得）。但將啲指標一齊用，就可以有個多維度視野。你會明白點解以前嘅MVRV、NVT等舊信號而家可能閃法唔同——唔係佢哋壞咗，而係市場底層機制已經變化擴闊咗。新興規範化、大規模ETF產品嘅影響力愈來愈大，但基層網路活動一樣繼續舉足輕重。
For traders and hodlers alike, paying attention to these ten metrics can be the difference between seeing the iceberg ahead or just the tip. Is a rally backed by real demand or hollow leverage? The data will tell – perhaps ETF creations are soaring and spot CVD is strong (bullish), or maybe price is spiking while CDD also leaps (bearish distribution sign). Are we nearing a euphoric top? Check MVRV against historical red zones and see if ETF inflows are drying up. Is a dip a buying opportunity? Look if MVRV is near past lows, and if long-term holders are dormant (low CDD) while, say, ETFs are still quietly adding – a divergence between price and accumulation that spells opportunity.
無論你係炒家或者長線持有者，睇實呢十個指標，可以令你係冰山撞船前就已經見到成舊冰山，而唔係淨係見到個山尖。升市究竟係真需求，定係得槓桿炒高？啲數據會講晒——例如ETF建立速度急升，現貨CVD又強（牛市信號）；定係價大升但CDD一樣飆高（熊市派貨味重）。係咪上到亢奮頂部？可以check下MVRV有無去到歷史紅區，ETF資金流係咪又停晒。調整/回吐其實係吸納良機？睇下MVRV值有無接近過去低位、長線持有人係咪都休眠緊（低CDD），而ETF又暗暗吸貨——價同吸貨力之間有無背馳，隨時代表有機可乘。
In closing, Bitcoin’s journey has always been about blending the old and the new – it took the old concepts of money and trust and reinvented them with new technology. Now the cycle repeats: we take old metrics and marry them with new market realities. The result is a clearer, more nuanced narrative of what’s driving Bitcoin at any given time. Whether you’re a day trader, a long-term believer, or just a curious observer, keeping these metrics on your radar will help you cut through the hype and headlines. The post-ETF era is here, and it comes with more data than ever – use it wisely, and you’ll navigate this exciting chapter of Bitcoin with confidence and clarity.
總結，Bitcoin一直都係將舊概念（如金錢同信任）用新科技改造出新玩法。依家新舊交融又再出現：以前啲指標，要同新市場環境結合一齊用。效果就係你可以更立體、深入咁理解邊啲因素主導緊比特幣。無論你係短炒、長擺，或者只係有啲好奇心，有呢啲指標做參考，絕對可以幫你穿透一大堆噪音和標題黨。ETF時代已經嚟到，數據比以前多得多——善用佢哋，你一定可以更有信心同清晰度，迎接Bitcoin呢個精彩新篇章。