比特幣ETF時代：加密貨幣交易者必看的10大關鍵市場指標

現貨比特幣交易所交易基金的推出，為加密貨幣市場帶來新時代——一個充滿新數據點與動態轉變的時代。當BlackRock、Fidelity等傳統金融巨頭推出比特幣ETF時，它們不僅釋放了機構資本的浪潮，也為交易者帶來一連串全新須密切關注的市場指標。

忽然之間，像創建單位流量、AP（授權參與者）套利價差、金庫資產憑證延遲等概念，進入了交易術語範疇。這些指標加上本來就熟悉的鏈上數據——但在許多情況下，與ETF相關的新指標比過往指標（如NVT或MVRV）更具洞察力，更能理解比特幣價格的「貝他值」（即其相對宏觀市場變化的走勢）。

為什麼這種變化如此重要？簡單來說，比特幣的投資者基礎和市場結構正在改變。現貨ETF為購買BTC提供合規、類股票的投資工具，並且在短時間內吸引了數十億美元資金。例如，現貨比特幣ETF問世18個月內，美國現貨ETF總淨流入約500億美元，相當於像BlackRock的iShares Bitcoin Trust等基金持有超過70萬枚BTC。這相當於全體比特幣現有供應的3–5%在一年半內被轉移至ETF資產託管。如此龐大的比特幣轉移進ETF保管，也難怪交易者會密切留意追蹤這些基金動向與影響力的市場指標。

同時，長期持有（HODL）者與原生加密交易者也在適應新變化。一些傳統鏈上指標已經無法全面反映目前情況。舉例來說，網絡價值對交易比率（Network Value to Transactions, NVT）——常被喻為比特幣版「本益比」——現在出現高位，在過去可能意味「過度高估」。但如今，這更多或許只是交易量轉移到ETF或其他工具，而非真的出現泡沫訊號。同理，市場價值與實現價值比（MVRV），過去能精準預示頂部和底部，但現在必須結合大量幣移動至機構保管的現象去解讀。簡言之，傳統指標依然重要，但新指標能在ETF時代加以驗證甚至取而代之。

以下是每位加密觀察者在比特幣ETF時代應該關注的10大關鍵市場指標指南。我們將剖析每項指標的含義、現今重要性以及如何塑造交易者對比特幣市場的理解。從ETF股份創建流量與套利價差的細節，到鏈上與去中心化交易所供應變動的細膩跡象，這些都是現代比特幣交易者必看的信號。而正如我們將會看到的，BlackRock等的比特幣產品組合往往成為市場動向的風向球——直接證實、甚至挑戰市場健康狀態指標。接下來就讓我們深入了解。

1. 創建單位流動：追蹤ETF資金進出

在ETF時代最受市場關注的指標之一，就是創建單位流動——本質上，指比特幣流入或流出ETF的淨變化。當現貨比特幣ETF接收新資金時，它並非無中生有比特幣，而是由授權參與者（AP）交付現金（或比特幣）給基金發行人，然後基金再將等值BTC納入ETF持倉。這個過程叫「創建」，通常以標準批次（稱為創建單位）完成。每個創建單位代表相當大一批ETF股份（例如每單位對應固定數量比特幣，如5或10 BTC，依不同基金而異）。相反程序——投資人贖回時稱為「贖回」，此時BTC會被從基金移除，現金或比特幣則返還給AP。透過觀察創建及贖回的情況，交易者可直接洞悉有多少比特幣需求或供給流經這些基金。

為何這如此重要？這是機構市場情緒及資金動能的測量。連續大量的創建流，說明有大額資金透過ETF湧入比特幣，是看多需求的強烈訊號。相反，大筆贖回顯示有資金流出，若市場無法吸收將壓低價格。例如，2024年1月美國現貨ETF開市時，壓抑已久的需求爆發，首日交易新批核的比特幣ETF齊錄得7.21億美元流入，包括Bitwise、Fidelity、BlackRock等為首。這意味著這些基金為新股份搶購現貨比特幣，是新一波買盤最直接證據。正如一位分析師所言，這印證了SEC多年封殺相關產品後的「積壓需求」。

漸漸地，創建單位流量成為市場趨勢的風向球。2024–2025年牛市期間，ETF連續幾週出現資金淨流入。甚至曾有15個交易日連續流入美國現貨比特幣ETF，同步出現比特幣價格衝擊新高。每一天，ETF金庫增添新比特幣——強烈反映（很可能是機構透過理財顧問及基金）正在布局上漲行情。相反，第一次趨勢逆轉則被視為預警：2024年12月，美聯儲會議後比特幣跌破十萬美元大關，ETF單日出現史上最大流出——一天有6.719億美元撤出。這代表AP大量贖回股份，ETF須將逾6,500枚BTC回售市場。這種巨量流出打破了15天連勝紀錄，直接扭轉了淨流入的格局，暗示資金風險意向可能轉淡。

需要留意的是，創建／贖回量有時會產生誤導，並非所有ETF股份創建均源自單純「買進持有」投資。有不少流量其實是由套利交易者推動（稍後將詳述）——例如對沖基金抓住市場價格錯位，創建或贖回股份並非真正看多比特幣走勢。Real Vision執行長Raoul Pal估計，新ETF約有三分之二的淨流入，實際上都是由套利型對沖基金貢獻，而非長期散戶投資者。正如Pal所指出，「如果這屬實，ETF主要流量其實幾乎全是套利者，散戶尚未成為主角。」實務上，這表示部分創建流實際是短線交易者在不同市場調節ETF股份與比特幣，快速套利所致，並非退休基金單向長期買進比特幣曝險。現時交易者在解讀創建流數據時會特別注意這背景。即便如此，套利導向的創建也代表間接需求，畢竟只要ETF或相關價格被人搶購才能產生套利機會。

未來應留意各大ETF每日、每週的創建／贖回數據。多數ETF發行人每日會公布股份流通量或資產規模（AUM）更新，可按份額換算為基金持有BTC數量。創建單位突然暴增（即ETF AUM激增）猶如巨鯨買盤——大量比特幣自交易所流入ETF冷錢包託管。相反，頻繁贖回好比大戶拋售。在新ETF時代，這些流量已足以影響市場，常常能解釋鏈上分析師覺得難理解的走勢。當大資金要透過ETF進出時，創建單位流動正是他們留下的痕跡，已成為市場推拉的重要觀察指標。

2. AP套利價差：溢價／折價作為市場情緒指標

緊隨創建流之後，要關注的指標就是AP套利價差——也就是ETF市場價格和其每單位底層比特幣資產淨值（NAV）之間的差距。雖然這聽來艱澀，但實際上非常關鍵，反映出供需失衡與ETF運作的效率。原因如下：在理想情況下，一檔現貨比特幣ETF理應與所持比特幣的實際價格高度貼合。舉例來說，如果每股支援0.0001 BTC，則市價應等於0.0001 BTC價值。若ETF價格高於資產淨值，就是溢價；反之則為折價。授權參與者——大型專業交易商——會義務性消弭這些價差。例如，如ETF高出NAV 2%時，AP可透過創建機制套利：按不足市價買入BTC、換取新ETF股份，再於市場2%溢價賣出。如此將增加ETF股份供應，並理論上使價格下修靠近NAV。相對地，如出現折價，便會激發贖回行動（低價買ETF股份、用以贖回高價BTC，再出售BTC套利）。這種套利機制正是ETF能與標的資產價值緊貼的關鍵。

溢價／折價的規模與持續性意義重大。ETF長期溢價，代表市場需求極旺，AP可能難以追上步伐——這既是看多信號，也可能透露操作摩擦、風險限額等因素壓抑套利效率。反過來，長期折價則反映賣壓或需求降溫（如過去Grayscale Bitcoin Trust常見狀況）。美國現貨ETF交易剛啟動時，散戶炒作熱情高於AP調整速度，出現短暫溢價。有些ETF於開市首日也一度高於NAV，為反應靈敏者創下可觀套利機會。正如有文章分析：「若ETF處於溢價，...」 Here is the translation as you requested. Markdown links are preserved in original form (i.e., not translated).

將會出現創建流程。AP（授權參與者）會在高價時賣空ETF份額，然後以淨資產價值（NAV）創建它們、以較低價格買回，從而賺取利潤。“這個機制正是我們所看到的——ETF的成交量非常巨大（新基金上線首日成交量超過47億美元），遠超過實際的資金淨流入，這意味著其中存在大量的短線買賣與套利行為。

隨著時間推移，ETF的溢價/折價通常維持在很小的範圍內（多在正負1%以內），顯示套利機制運作良好。但溢價/折價的方向是一種極佳的市場情緒指標。例如，在強勁買盤時期（比如比特幣創新高時），ETF價格通常會出現小幅溢價，反映出買方積極搶購ETF份額的速度快於AP能補充新份額的速度。交易者會特別關注這類時刻——溢價往往是大規模買壓即將到來的領先指標。同樣地，如果ETF長期呈現折價，則可能意味著贖回壓力正在累積，甚至可能波及更廣泛市場。2024年底我們就見到這種現象：隨著比特幣價格自新高回落，一個月CME期貨溢價跌至年化10%以下（較之前明顯降溫），ETF也開始以接近甚至略低於NAV的價格交易。CoinDesk的報導指出，這種溢價下降是“短線需求減弱”的信號，實際上這也和此前那些創紀錄的日流出規模相呼應。基本上，當輕鬆套利空間消失（因為ETF價格已無明顯高於公允價值），套利驅動的資金流入也隨之減慢，短期內ETF持續增長的動能也因此減弱了一個支撐。

AP套利利差的另一個維度，則與期貨市場的動態密切相關。有些避險基金會採用現貨＋期貨價差交易策略：買進ETF份額（對應比特幣多頭曝險），同時做空比特幣期貨，從中收割收益差額。當ETF溢價／期貨溢價高於常態時，該交易的吸引力也會發生變化。2024年12月，CME期貨溢價跌回個位數，使得這種價差操作沒那麼有吸引力，連帶使ETF份額套利創建行為減少。結果就是：新ETF單位的需求轉趨平淡，資金流入也略有降溫。這構成了一個有趣的反饋循環：ETF的溢價、期貨基差、以及資金流動彼此相互影響。

對一般加密貨幣投資人而言，重點可歸納如下：密切關注ETF市場價與NAV的差距（許多理財網站及ETF發行商都會公布即時估算NAV）。如果溢價（市場價＞NAV）長期為正，代表市場願意多付一點溢價——通常為看多信號；反之，負的價差（折價）則可能預示賣壓醞釀中，或是套利者即將入場沽售現貨。這是一項結合市場情緒與機構性結構的指標。在ETF上市之後，這個溢價／折價幾乎成了比特幣“華爾街的恐懼/貪婪指數”縮影，隨著買氣高漲或避險浪潮而劇烈波動。並請記得，當這個指標走向極端時，AP這類幕後無名巨擘會出手套利，將市場價格帶回均衡，同時直接影響比特幣的供需結構。

3. 保管庫資產儲備證明延遲：小心帳面與實際比特幣間的落差

現貨比特幣ETF問世後，一個獨特的焦慮點是：我們如何確信這些ETF真的持有他們聲稱的比特幣？在加密圈，信條是「勿信任，要驗證」，這衍生出資產儲備證明（proof-of-reserves, PoR）的概念——用加密方法公開證明託管人真有其資產。隨著傳統金融巨頭透過ETF切入加密市場，“ETF儲備更新的即時性和透明度”（可說是保管庫PoR延遲）成為值得追蹤的新指標。簡單來說：當ETF新發行份額（代表基金應該買進更多BTC），那些BTC究竟多快就真的進入基金的區塊鏈託管錢包？若出現明顯延遲，可能代表存在「承諾書」或內部結算（尚未在鏈上完成最終結算）。

這議題在2024年年中達到高潮，彼時市場有傳言指Coinbase——許多比特幣新ETF的主要託管人——可能對ETF資金流入採用「紙上比特幣」或延遲分配的方式。比特幣價格在過去數月內奇異地持平，儘管ETF資金流入龐大，一些人開始推測託管人並未立即在鏈上購買現貨比特幣，而是以承諾兌付、晚些時候再購買的方式，先發行掛勾BTC的ETF份額。也就是說，PoR鏈上證明可能滯後，讓人不安。投資人和分析師開始要求ETF發行每一筆創建都能有鏈上證據，要求Coinbase能清楚證明如新增1000BTC份額，應該有對應的1000BTC很快就轉進基金保管錢包。

貝萊德（BlackRock）對此非常認真。2024年9月，貝萊德向美國SEC提交修正案，明確收緊IBIT信託資金的提領及結算時間規範。條文明確規定，ETF每一筆創建所需的比特幣必須在指示發出後12小時內，經鏈上轉帳存入託管人（Coinbase）。根據文件內容，貝萊德明確寫道：“Coinbase Custody必須於收到客戶指令後十二小時內，自託管帳戶將比特幣轉出至公開區塊鏈地址”（此處的客戶即為貝萊德旗下基金）。白話來說，假設貝萊德告知Coinbase“我們ETF新售出單位，需要補進500BTC”，那麼Coinbase必須保證12小時內就能在鏈上看到這些BTC進帳。這是對市場雜音的直接回應，也是為了讓投資人安心，絕無ETF版「部分準備金」作弊行為。

Coinbase執行長Brian Armstrong也公開澄清這波FUD（恐慌疑慮）。他解釋，公司處理所有ETF份額的“鑄造與銷毀”（創建與贖回），最終都要在鏈上結算，但機構客戶常會用短期融資或場外交易（OTC）履約以先行結算。換句話說，Coinbase有時會暫時提供信貸額度或動用內部流動性來協助ETF發行商快速處理，但到當天結束（如Armstrong所言“一個營業日內”），所有資金流動都會回歸鏈上託管金庫。因此，短暫延遲「對機構客戶都是常態」，但最終都會完成結算——只是時間上稍有落差。

這一切對交易人有什麼意義？最大風險在於：如果PoR延遲過大或出現空檔，對短線供需會產生影響，也可能反映市場異狀。舉例來說，若ETF回報巨額資金流入，但託管錢包上的比特幣餘額並未同步上升，那麼這些買單的價格影響力很可能會遲到（等託管機構終於買進比特幣時才體現）。這是一種可行動的線索——就像提前知道有一大筆掛單未真正進入買盤。反之，若ETF其實用衍生品或其他手法替代現貨購買（所謂“紙上比特幣”的噩夢情境），那原本預期的供需推升效果就恐怕落空——這點對以此預期操作的交易人極為重要。

目前為止，尚無發現不法行為——這些質疑多為預警或假設。貝萊德要求12小時內鏈上結算（以及其它ETF很可能跟進此標準），代表PoR資訊遲延正在被縮短。只是，這一切突顯了ETF時代下，加密市場新形態的警戒需求。現今有些交易員會自備區塊鏈瀏覽器工具，持續追蹤ETF託管錢包的餘額變化，對照官方公佈的資金流入，檢查是否同步。任何異常延遲都可能在加密推特上掀起話題。例如，Tron創辦人孫宇晨曾公開質疑Coinbase管理的包裹比特幣（cbBTC）託管透明度、未見儲備證明，直批如果信任崩壞將是比特幣的「黑暗時刻」。

好消息是到目前為止，ETF提供方都有高度意識防患未然。貝萊德強調鏈上即時結算，加上Coinbase在託管領域的主導地位（截至2024年底，負責管理全美11檔比特幣ETF中的8檔，市場份額達90%），標準顯然已相當嚴格。這裡值得密切關注的重點指標，就是ETF儲備更新的速度與一致性。如果你高度關注市場，甚至可直接追蹤其已知錢包地址，或利用Dune Analytics等儀表板即時追蹤ETF資產。若餘額開始出現明顯遲滯，就可能是警訊，或至少提供短線交易啟示（例如，也許一大筆ETF買單還沒進場——可以搶先卡位）。

總結來說，保管庫PoR延遲機制就在於要求ETF發行商誠信透明，讓市場各方能實時掌握資訊。在ETF時代，加密圈的透明精神也在滲入傳統金融產品。能意識到「時間差」——ETF帳面流入到實際比特幣進帳的時間差——的交易人，便可能更洞悉短線流動性趨勢。更廣泛看，這一指標也彰顯市場已然巨變：還有什麼資產市場會有散戶要求直接上區塊鏈看資產移動？對比特幣來說，如今卻幾乎已成標準程序。

4. 貝萊德IBIT資金流入：巨獸的一舉一動

在新格局下，貝萊德（BlackRock）iShares Bitcoin Trust（IBIT）象徵與實務意義都難以誇大。貝萊德，這個全球最大資產管理公司，正式進軍比特幣領域無疑是歷史性的里程碑。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.

符合預期，一旦 IBIT 推出，它很快就成為比特幣 ETF 之間的主導者——以至於現在許多交易員甚至將 IBIT 的流入/流出數字視為整體機構需求的指標。換句話說，如果你需要選擇一個產品來觀察「大資金」對比特幣的興趣，IBIT 就是那個指標。

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.

來看看數字。到 2025 年 7 月，也就是上市約一年半後，BlackRock 的 IBIT 已經累積持有 70 萬顆比特幣，資產規模約為 760 億美元。換個角度來看，光是 IBIT 的比特幣持倉就比第二大和第三大基金加起來還多——分別是富達的 Wise Origin BTC 基金（FBTC，約持有 20.3 萬 BTC）和 Grayscale（現已轉 ETF，約持有 18.4 萬 BTC）。IBIT 的強勢成長甚至讓它成為 BlackRock 旗下所有 ETF（不論是否加密貨幣）中最大的幾檔之一。事實上，到了 2025 年中，IBIT 已經是 BlackRock 近 1,200 檔基金中，第三大營收貢獻者，AUM 規模甚至超越一些知名主流 ETF，如 iShares S&P 500 基金（IVV）。這對一檔加密貨幣基金來說是驚人成就，鞏固了 IBIT 的核心地位。

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.

為什麼這些數據這麼重要？因為 IBIT 的資金流入與流出具有市場影響力。當 IBIT 不斷有資金流入，代表 BlackRock 的授權參與者（AP）每天都在市場上購買比特幣（或協助轉入託管），這形成一種持續的背景買盤，支撐價格、或至少消化賣壓。確實，ETF 分析師認為 BlackRock 系列產品在原生加密需求減弱的時期有效地支撐了比特幣市場。彭博 Eric Balchunas 就曾為「紙本比特幣」的質疑打趣，指出事實上長期持有者（HODLer）是在這波上漲中賣出，而正是 ETF——尤其是 BlackRock 的產品——不斷吸收這些拋售，屢次「把比特幣價格從深淵拉回來」。他認為，把價格停滯歸咎於 ETF 是搞錯對象；IBIT 彷彿「金絲雀」確認了市場信號——如果沒有這些流入，修正本可能更慘烈。

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.

追蹤 IBIT 的資金流可以很簡單，只要關注 BlackRock 的每日 AUM 報表，或是公開區塊鏈託管帳戶資料即可。例如，首波資金熱潮期間，IBIT 幾乎每天都在增長，據傳連續數週都沒有出現單日資金淨流出。CoinDesk 指出，到 2024 年底，BlackRock 的 IBIT 維持連續周流入，直到某次長期增長後才出現首次「零流動」日（即當天沒有進也沒有出，中斷了連續增長紀錄）。即使在那創下全市場最大單日 ETF 淨流出的時候，IBIT 也能持平——顯見其資金黏著度和市場關注度。IBIT 走勢，往往也代表整個 ETF 市場脈動。

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).

IBIT 是關鍵指標的另一層原因在於：BlackRock 的品牌和銷售通路，讓他們能夠吸納大量新進入比特幣市場的資金。不論是財務顧問、機構，甚至部分散戶經由券商帳戶進場，通常都會選擇流動性最佳、最知名的基金——而 IBIT 恰恰符合這些條件。因此，IBIT 流入激增，可能代表一波新用戶進場，或者有大型機構資金配置。相反地，如果 IBIT 出現連日穩定淨流出，可能表示機構情緒轉空，或有其他競爭者（如更低費率或產品創新）開始搶走資金。

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.

我們也會密切關注 BlackRock 除了 IBIT 以外的產品線。文章提到 BlackRock 產品如同「金絲雀」預警一樣——的確，到了 2025 年中，BlackRock 也已申請或推出其他加密資產產品（例如以太坊信託型 ETF 正在申請，多元數位資產基金也有可能）。儘管這些超出比特幣本身的觀察範圍，但 BlackRock 的動作經常被視為新趨勢的認證。如果他們積極擴張加密產品，意味著他們預見了持續需求。如果 IBIT 的資金流與價格同步上漲、流入暫緩時市場觸頂的節奏持續存在，那它本身就成為領先指標。

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.

舉例來說，假設比特幣價格在某個區間高位盤整，鏈上數據溫吞，一些鏈上分析師可能擔心回調將至。可是你去看 IBIT 當日報告，發現當天又新增 2,000 顆比特幣進帳——這可是相當大的資金流入。這就顯示市場上還有新錢進來，儘管在交易所未必看得出來。這時你對於是否該放空那個高位可能會再三考慮，因為 BlackRock 的「金絲雀」還在唱多。反過來，若比特幣下跌時看到 IBIT 連續多日出現淨流出，就是警訊——大型安全網（機構逢低買進）可能暫時消失。

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.

總之，BlackRock IBIT 的資金流動，如今已成市場健康關鍵指標，濃縮了機構進場這一大主題。交易員談到「機構買盤」或「機構賣壓」時，越來越直接引用 IBIT 數據作佐證。BlackRock 管理的比特幣規模如此之大，他們的資金進出幾乎等同於機構總體資金流。只要 IBIT 庫存持續堆高，多頭就有有力的支撐指標；若這波潮流反轉，空頭必然嗅到血腥味。所以每週都要密切盯著 IBIT 的趨勢——它就像市場裡的 800 磅大猩猩，牠怎麼動，比特幣市場整個叢林就跟著動。

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.

隨著 ETF 橫空出世，還有另一項更具宏觀意義的指標浮現：ETF 持有的比特幣總量——也就是有多少流通中的 BTC 被這些投資工具吸納。這代表比特幣供需關係的根本性轉變。當代幣進入 ETF 時，一般會被託管在冷儲存中，在多數情況下，相當於從流通中凍結，直到有人贖回 ETF 份額為止（而從歷史來看，長時間都未必會發生大量贖回）。本質上，比特幣 ETF 讓流動性形成「單行道」：多頭行情時大量幣入場（鎖住供應），但流出通常比較黏滯，除非遇到重大市場修正或套利誘因才會有贖回潮。

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.

進入 ETF 時代後，觀察有多少 BTC 被鎖在 ETF 裡，有點像在看另一波「Hodl 浪潮」，只是這波是由機構累積推動的。這個數字正快速爬升。到 2024 年底，也就是 ETF 上市不到一年，美國現貨比特幣 ETF 合計已持有約 90 萬顆 BTC。再回顧前述 2025 年中，這數字很可能已突破 100 萬顆——其中 70 萬為 BlackRock IBIT，另外上萬顆分布在富達、灰度等機構。要知道，100 萬顆大約占流通供應量（2025 年中約 1,940 萬顆）的 5%。這 5% 的比特幣沉在 ETF 裡，與 2024 年之前（GBTC 另當別論）幾乎是零的局面相比，可說是戲劇性轉折。有些基金的市場份額尤為驚人——如 BlackRock IBIT 一檔就占了全部存量約 3.5%。

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.

為什麼要追蹤這件事？因為越多比特幣沉在長期持有的金融工具裡，市場上流通可交易的供應就越吃緊。其他條件不變下，只要需求持平或增長、供應鎖死，價格就有利多——這是經典的稀缺邏輯。想想 2004 年 SPDR 黃金基金（GLD）上市後，短期內吸納了數百噸黃金進入金庫，有分析認為這創造了新需求、抽走市場供給，促成 2000 年代金價大漲。現在比特幣正經歷類似軌跡。每次 ETF 新發份額，代表幣從原本流動性較高的交易所或個人錢包流進機構保險庫，除非有人贖回ETF，平時基本不會釋放。這樣對下跌時有助於降低波動（市面上可砸盤的幣更少），但若有朝一日大量釋放，也會集中風險。

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，ETF 仍然呈現淨累積趨勢。即便偶有流出，從 2024 年初到 2025 年 7 月，總資金流入一路走高，累積超過 500 億美元。但 2025 年有個耐人尋味的現象：價格沒有因為這麼多幣「被抽離市場」而馬上暴漲。有些人原本預期供給抽走 100 萬枚會引爆短缺行情、價格大噴發，實際卻是溫和上升還多次遇到拋售潮。為什麼？因為長期持有者和礦工趁這次有新資金進場出貨。ETF 和新進買家承接現貨，一些早期玩家則趁機調節或套利。佐證這點的指標就是幣齡（coin age）資料——這部分下節（Coin Days Destroyed 激增）再談。本質上，ETF 在吸收老玩家的賣壓，防止價格短期內過度飆升。Eric Balchunas 說 ETF 一次次把價格從深淵裡救回只是其中一種說法；另一個說法則是，這些 ETF 提供了主動派大戶出場的流動性，短期雖然讓行情沒那麼爆裂，但事情的另一面是，等這些「弱手」賣完，供應就轉到「強手」（由 ETF 代表的長期投資人）手裡。這為接下來的市場走勢鋪路。potential supply shortages down the line if demand resurges while those ETF-held coins stay put.

因此，追蹤 ETF 持倉總量與總供應的比率，是衡量我們在這場「供應吸收」過程中走了多遠的一個方法。如果看到 ETF 持幣比例停滯在高原狀態，這可能意味著市場已接近飽和——大部分想進場的機構都已經進來，新增需求開始放緩。如果看到這個比例持續上升（甚至加速上升），那可能預示著價格上漲與資金流入之間會產生正回饋循環（過去牛市常見這一幕：價格越高越吸引資金，資金又拉高價格，如此循環）。有分析師甚至推測，比特幣未來也許有 10% 或更多會被鎖定在 ETF 裡。這就引出了有趣的問題：什麼時候市場流通量（能在交易所買賣的幣）會縮減得過於緊繃，導致買方流動性稀缺，從而出現劇烈波動？未來幾年或許我們會看到答案。

同時，也要留意那些 ETF 幣到底分散在多少發行商手中，還是都集中在少數幾家？到 2024 年底為止，光是黑石（BlackRock）一家就掌握了 38% 的鏈上 ETF 資產份額，而 Coinbase Custody 則負責保管將近 90% 的相關資產。也就是說，整個比特幣市場有很大一部分，其實都由單一託管方（雖然是針對眾多客戶）掌控。這種高度集中雖然提高效率，但也帶來「單點故障」風險——一些人已經提出警告。不過，如果撇開細節，從指標角度來看，ETF 實際鎖定了多少枚比特幣，本質上就是機構級 HODLing（長期持有）的一項直觀指標。

總結來說，比特幣 ETF 供應吸收率是一個大方向的指標，能為其他許多數據提供背景解釋。如果你看到鏈上交易量下滑、交易所儲備減少，這未必是熱情消退，有可能只是幣都轉移到 ETF 裡去了。如果波動率降低，也許正是因為大量比特幣由基金冷錢包鎖定。不過如果哪天波動意外竄升，或許就是這一趨勢短暫反轉了。你可以把這個指標想像成「華爾街手上握有多少比特幣」的水桶。水位越高，市場規則就越顛覆過往。

6. Coin Days Destroyed (CDD)：老持有者出場還是繼續鎖定？

話鋒一轉，來看看經典的鏈上分析指標，Coin Days Destroyed（CDD，幣齡銷毀天數）在 ETF 時代變得意義重大。這個指標已經存在很多年，受到鏈上分析師喜愛，因為它能洞察長線持有者的行為。那為什麼在討論 ETF 時代還要特別提這個指標？因為當有重大新買家（像是 ETF）入場時，對於長線持有者來說正是拋售部分存貨的好時機——而 CDD 正好能看出他們是否真的這麼做（或絲毫不動）。

先快速說明一下 CDD：每枚比特幣每天靜止不動，就累積一天「幣日」。當一份比特幣經歷長時間未動後轉移，這些累計的幣日會一次性被「銷毀」。舉例來說，你有一枚 BTC，放了 100 天才轉帳，就銷毀了 100 個幣日；如果你有 50 枚 BTC，200 天沒動過，忽然轉出，就是 50*200＝10,000 幣日銷毀。銷毀天數越多，表示有巨大規模的老幣在轉移——通常背後代表著長線玩家或所謂「聰明錢」賣出或再配置資產。

健康牛市裡，其實不希望見到 CDD 極端飆升——理想狀況是多數長期持有者一路抱牢（讓 CDD 保持中度），只有在頂部才陸續獲利了結。反之，CDD 飆升則可能代表分配期——老手利用流動性悄然出場。熊市谷底時期，CDD 則通常維持低點，因為只有短線、不耐久的持有者賣出，「鑽石手」還抱得緊緊的。

那麼 ETF 問世以來出現了什麼狀況？2024 年 ETF 剛開始大量吸納資金時，CDD 整體維持在正常水準，有小幅上升但不算異常。然而，漲勢延續到 2025 年，比特幣沖上歷史新高（突破 7 萬、8 萬、9 萬，直奔六位數），分析師開始觀察到令人警惕的 CDD 急升。以 2025 年 7 月為例，比特幣 CDD 突然大幅跳升，出現警訊：大持有者在退出，價格可能回檔。尤其當月初有大量長眠老幣甦醒：將近 8 萬枚 2011 年的比特幣（陳放了 14 年！）忽然被移動，創下史上最大規模之一的 CDD 峰值。這項事件（極可能是早期巨鯨或機構轉帳）銷毀了驚人的幣日，因為每一枚都累積了十年以上的歲月。分析比對發現，這是記錄中第二高的單日 CDD 峰值，僅次於 2024 年 5 月一樁更大規模的事件。

分析師對這類情形非常謹慎。歷史經驗顯示，當 CDD 超過某一臨界值時，往往預示著重大的市場修正即將來臨。CryptoQuant 數據指出，2022 至 2025 年中旬間，CDD 累積（以某種彙總算法計算）超過兩千萬這個門檻的情形僅出現過五次，而前四次都與重挫同步。2025 年 7 月的這一輪就是第五次，再度引發市場會不會有大規模拋售的擔憂。事實上，這 8 萬枚比特幣很大一部分疑似流向交易所或新買家（可能是 OTC，也可能，誰知道呢，最後變成 ETF 托管的資產——如果賣給機構）。重點是，Coin Days Destroyed 清楚顯示老幣正在異動。

這就是為什麼 CDD 能和 ETF 流入數據產生「相輔相成」的效果：ETF 數據告訴你新資金瘋狂湧進，CDD 則指出老資金在撤退。這種「雙向」其實同時發生，結果就是價格上漲被削弱——大買家沒遇到大賣家。可以說，「聰明錢」長線持有者利用了 BlackRock 等機構帶來的流動性完成出貨。這部份供給轉手（從 2011 年錢包流向新持有者），這些新持有者又會成為新一代的長線玩家，暫時不易再動。

對交易員以及觀察者來說，ETF 時代持續追蹤 CDD 指標非常關鍵。因為這能判斷市場發球權在哪邊：是長線資金有信心、一動不動（低 CDD，偏多訊號，代表長線持有者期待更高價格），還是他們正悄悄出場（高或升高的 CDD，預警風暴來臨）？2025 年 7 月此輪明顯屬於後者，隨後市場果然出現顯著修正，證明「過去 CDD 峰值往往領先價格劇烈下跌」。

同時，把 CDD 與供給吸收率結合，也很有意思。有 Bitwise 分析師分享的圖表顯示，從 2020 年到 2024 年，比特幣價格穩步走高，但只要供給調整後的 CDD 指標跳升，往往市場立刻出現修正。ETF 的流動性就成就了這種 CDD 峰值（2024 年 5 月的急升可能就是比特幣首次逼近 7 萬美元時，老持有者集中出貨所致——極有可能是史上最大 CDD 單筆事件）。

你可以說，Coin Days Destroyed 比過去更值得用來驗證市場敘事。如果大家一面倒叫好機構加碼，CDD 指標可以告訴你老鯨魚是不是在利用這波成為「順利下車」的窗口。如果沒有（ETF 吸納但 CDD 始終低檔），那是極為利多訊號——代表連長線玩家也捨不得賣，還期待未來更高價。如果有（ETF 剛吸納，CDD 同時急升），那這波漲勢就容易隨新買家疲態出現回檔。

目前觀察下來，其實兩者並存——確實有部分分配（distribution）發生。畢竟，比特幣也沒有一口氣直奔 20 萬美元，而是隨著老幣被消化出現多次拉回。接下來，建議把 CDD 跟 ETF 流入量一起放在自己的儀表板上：它們是一體兩面。高 ETF 流入 + 高 CDD＝老錢包大規模換手（短線漲幅收斂）；高 ETF 流入 + 低 CDD＝流通供給真實減少（漲勢更強，直到改變走勢的事件出現）。如果哪天 ETF 流量有大量淨流出、CDD 同時暴衝——那將是雙重空頭警訊（目前大規模還沒出現過）。

總結來說，Coin Days Destroyed 依然是觀察「鑽石手」與「紙手」（易賣者）行為最佳指標之一。ETF 時代並沒有改變其重要性，反倒賦予它全新劇情——如「巨鯨搭 ETF 新進需求順風車出場」這類現象可藉此驗證。這是一座連接舊式鏈上分析與新式機構資金流的橋梁——哪怕華爾街大軍入場，我們還能掌握這齣比特幣大戲幕後的原始主角。

7. Cumulative Volume Delta (CVD) Divergence：拆解訂單流淺意大義

不見得所有關鍵指標都圍繞長期持有者或機構，也有些屬於短線市場動力的「技術指標」。其中受到交易員越來越重視的，就是 Cumulative Volume Delta（CVD，累積成交量差），特別是不同細分市場之間的 CVD 分歧（divergence 或 spread）。簡單來說，CVD 追蹤一段時間內主動買單與賣單淨值的累積和，反映實際下單的買賣力量對比。如果 CVD 持續上升，代表買盤占主導（市場買單強於賣單），如果持續下跌，則是賣方主控。這項指標好用之處在於，能看出是誰在主導價格變化，以及漲跌行情背後有沒有實際主動買盤「力挺」。

在比特幣 ETF 時代背景下，CVD 的一個高明用法是——比較不同交易場域或市場類型間的指標變化。例如...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，許多分析師會觀察現貨 CVD 與永續合約 CVD 的比較。如果比特幣價格上升，理想狀況下你會希望看到現貨市場和期貨市場都呈現淨買入（CVD 上升）——這代表普遍的市場共識。但有時會出現分歧：想像價格緩慢上漲時，現貨 CVD 持平，而期貨 CVD 卻在上升（或反之）。這可能表示這波行情主要由衍生品交易者（加槓桿）推動，而現貨買家（也許代表更「真實」的需求）卻沒有出現——這類行情上漲相對較弱，如果衍生品交易者改變想法，漲勢可能隨時反轉。反過來說，如果現貨 CVD 飆升但價格反而沒什麼動靜，可能意味著現貨交易所正在發生大量累積，只是還沒反映在突破之中——這有可能是一個多頭壓力鍋的徵兆。

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.

舉個實際例子：2025 年 4 月，當比特幣逼近沉重的 $95,000 阻力位時，市場觀察者發現了一些奇特現象。Binance（幣安）的現貨 CVD 保持相當平穩，即使價格緩緩推升至 $95,000，顯示這波上漲並非大量激進買家瘋狂吃單所推動。反而看起來像是被動限價單慢慢推升價格——換句話說，雖然有買家，但他們是掛買單等賣家來賣，而不是追高 FOMO 進場。同時，每次價格推高都有賣單掛出來（CVD 持平代表賣家吸收了買單）。這種 CVD 分歧——價格不斷創新高，但 CVD（買盤量）卻沒跟著創新高——往往預示短期反轉。當時分析師就警告市場需要「拍賣價穿越 $95,000 的大量賣單流動性」才能維持漲勢。換句話說，除非看到一波激進買量出現（讓 CVD 明顯拉升），消化 $95,000 的賣牆，否則這波反彈可能隨時停滯。事實上，$95,000 一開始果然難以突破，驗證了 CVD 分歧所顯示，儘管價格樂觀，卻暗藏賣壓。

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).

交易者愈來愈重視這些訂單流細節。CVD 另一個用途，是比較不同市場或區域的相對強弱。例如，你可以追蹤美國交易所（如 Coinbase）與主要亞洲交易所或 DEX 的 CVD，來觀察哪一邊（或哪種平台）帶動買方或賣方。TradingView 社群有腳本甚至會用現貨 CVD 減掉永續合約 CVD，得到「現貨與永續 CVD 分歧」指標——當數值為正，代表現貨市場強於永續（更多淨買入）；為負則代表永續比現貨更強（多頭）。這很有參考價值：由現貨帶動的上漲（現貨 CVD 領先）通常被認為是比較有機、現金轉進比特幣的需求驅動；而永續合約帶頭的行情則較投機、槓桿嫌疑大（隨時可能快速反轉）。

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，現貨市場可能成為關鍵，因為 ETF 最終的交易都發生在現貨。如果像黑岩的授權參與者（APs）進場買進，他們會在現貨交易所或 OTC 購入，而不是用永續合約。因此當 ETF 流入量大時，現貨 CVD 也理應出現強勢。事實上，有分析師指出，2024–2025 間有些行情看起來的確「現貨驅動」色彩明顯——例如比特幣突破 $70,000 時，觀察到穩定幣流入和現貨買盤上升（CVD 增長），而並非單純永續合約的空頭回補上拉。這與過去（如 2019 或 2020），BitMEX 及其他高槓桿合約平台率先帶動行情的模式已經不同。

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.

不過，專業套利者的存在也讓期貨市場很快會追上現貨。因此，追蹤現貨與期貨 CVD 之間的變化是動態的。一旦現貨與期貨 CVD 走向顯著分歧（例如一方上升一方下降），就是警訊。老練交易者會利用這指標來嗅出潛在反轉或確認。例如，多頭 CVD 分歧的典型情況是價格創新低，但 CVD 卻創出較高的低點——這代表雖然價格回落，但賣壓已在減緩，可能提前反彈。而空頭分歧像 2025 年 4 月那種狀況：價格創高，但 CVD 沒創新高——買盤動能追不上價格，得小心下跌風險。

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.

實務上，交易員常討論的一個指標是被動買盤 vs 主動買盤的概念。ETF 上市以後，我們也看到某些時候市場由被動買家（即耐心持續累績的買家）推動，卻沒有造成 CVD 急升。這會表現為價格緩步上行但 CVD 平緩，意即這些買家是掛買單等賣家來賣，而非主動追價吃單。有些人認為這是機構行為——機構通常不會追價，而是掛冰山單、用演算法分批成交等。所以，有一種有趣的新現象：比特幣偶爾會在成交量輕但持續的情況下慢慢爬升（CVD 斜率低），這與過去散戶瘋狂追高爆拉時的暴衝型量能特徵相當不同。雖然傳統動能指標可能不會響鈴，但這種與以往不同的分歧值得留意。

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.

總結來說，CVD 及其分歧就像價格行為下方的買賣壓 X 光。當 ETF 時代來臨，大型玩家及新型場域（如去中心化交易所、或 ETF 代入的 CME 期貨）陸續參戰，擁有這套 X 光視角就能更精準辨別究竟是誰掌控市場強弱。這波行情是真的買壓在撐，還是因無人想接盤而下殺？CVD 分析能給你答案。上個週期已精通鏈上數據的交易員，如今也在學習掌握訂單流、CVD 等指標，繼續保有優勢。

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.

特別要注意跨市場比較：現貨 vs 期貨、東方 vs 西方、DEX vs CEX。如果這些市場的 CVD 走勢出現明顯分歧，很可能提醒某一方敘事領先過快。例如，如果 DEX 交易（諸如大量 on-chain swap）出現大額買方 CVD，但中心化交易所卻無動靜，也許是某個 DeFi 巨鯨正在積累，還沒反映到全球價格——這是套利機會還是訊號？這正是新一代分析師要問的細節。說到底，CVD 分歧分析已成為解讀即時與短線價格波動的重要指標，補足傳統成交量或價格圖無法看出的資訊。重點從不是流量多寡，而是流量品質，而 CVD 正是我們窺視這品質的窗口。

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）與鏈上交易的興起，讓加密市場多了一個新維度：鏈上市場與傳統中心化交易所（CEX）間，價格可能會短暫產生差異。進入 ETF 時代，尤其法規與大型機構陸續進場後，「DEX 與 CEX 價差」（基差）日益受到關注。這個基差指標實際上就是觀察比特幣（或包裝比特幣）在 DeFi 場域跟中心化交易所是否出現價格不同，以及這背後的意義。

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?

加密貨幣歷來出現過區域或平台性的價格差異。例如韓國早年著名的「泡菜溢價」，當時比特幣在韓國交易所因資本管制與本地需求而高於全球行情。又像 Coinbase 對 Binance 偶爾出現的小幅溢價，通常是美國機構熱買時推高 Coinbase 價格。DEX 對 CEX 的基差則是近年新現象：舉例來說，在以太坊上的 DEX（如 Uniswap）或去中心化永續平台（如 dYdX、GMX），比特幣（或其衍生品）的價格是否脫離了像 Binance、Coinbase 這類中心化交易所？

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.

大多數情況下，套利者會讓這些市場價格緊密跟隨；但當沒有跟上的時候，資訊意義重大。持續的價差通常代表套利受限或需求壓力不同。譬如，有一天 DeFi 用戶突然大規模買入（比如有人用大量 USDC 在 Uniswap 兌換 WBTC），那 DEX 上的 WBTC 價格很可能會凌駕於全球均價。理論上，套利者可以拉平這個差價——他們在 CEX 購入 BTC，包裝成 WBTC，然後到 Uniswap 以高價賣出，賺取價差並拉回市場均衡。不過，實務上這種套利有成本（Gas 費、延遲、流動性限制），因此小幅價差經常發生。這些價差的幅度與持續時間都值得觀察。如果 WBTC 在 DEX 上長期維持比 Coinbase 貴 0.5%，就表示鏈上需求大於套利者的供給——這對短線現貨價格屬於利多（最終套利者也會去 CEX 買貨、推高那邊的價格）。反過來說，如果某個 DEX 或去中心化期貨平台的 BTC 出現折價或異常延遲，可能暗示 DeFi 區塊流動性遇到瓶頸或市場風險偏好下降。

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

舉個具體例子：想像有天監管打壓或 CEX 當機（並非稀有情況），交易者可能會轉向 DEX 尋找替代方案。如果（假設情境）Binance 暫停 BTC 提領，DEX 上價格很可能出現上揚分歧，因為大家願意在鏈上花溢價取得 BTC 流動性。這個價差就代表很重要的信號：市場願意多付費，換取防審查、全天候的交易替代方案。另一面，極端波動時，像 GMX 這類去中心化永續平台，因其定價或預言機機制，有時資金費率或價格針與中心化永續平台會有很大不同。期貨基差本意是期貨價與現貨價之差，所謂「DEX 基差」可以用去中心化永續合約的隱含價格與中心化交易所現貨價的差來衡量。如果 DEX 永續價比現貨高出 5%，那麼——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.

這代表鏈上槓桿做多的情況相較於主流市場來說非常多——這或許是不可持續的，並且可能即將修正，或者對於能夠在DEX永續合約做空並買現貨的人來說，這是一個套利機會。

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.

另一個例子：在美國監管恐慌期間，位於美國的交易者可能會偏好使用DEX來買比特幣部位（為了避免KYC或是因為他們已經離開特定交易所）。這可能會在鏈上池中形成明顯的需求區塊。相反地，當美國ETF獲批時，或許有些離岸或DeFi交易者，預期ETF將主導價格發現，因此選擇拋售部分部位，導致一段時間DEX上的比特幣價格出現折價。

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.

我們還要考慮包裝比特幣（wrapped Bitcoin, WBTC）和原生比特幣之間的因素。在以太坊上的WBTC或其他鏈上的包裝版本，若出現價格差異，需經由託管人贖回。理論上，WBTC應該與BTC的價值1:1相等。實際上，大多時候是如此，但萬一託管人的信心動搖或出現贖回潮，WBTC可能會出現小幅折價（過去曾因擔心得到託管風險而短暫發生）。反過來，如果WBTC出現溢價，則會激勵業者鑄造更多WBTC（將實體BTC鎖定並發行WBTC），這類似於AP套利ETF溢價。觀察這個掛鉤狀態，本質上也是另一種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).

那麼，交易者如何利用這個指標？主要是用來檢測市場壓力與市場間的需求流動。在正常情況下，DEX與CEX之間的價差都非常微小。當價差變大時，往往意味著出現不平衡。例如，若發現DEX上的BTC價格持續高於其他平台，可能代表加密原生領域的資金（如山寨幣獲利或DeFi收益）正在獨立於傳統金融資本流入之下，流向比特幣。若價格較低，則可能異常（如有大型鏈上賣方，或者DeFi清算造成本地價格下壓，直到套利進場為止）。

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.

可以回想一個小事件：當某DeFi協議出現漏洞時，有一段短時間可以在其平台上用比市場價更便宜的價格購買BTC；最終套利機器人會將這個價差抹平，但動作夠快的人已經受益。這類案例凸顯了全面觀察市場的重要性。ETF時代並沒有消除DeFi這個“西部世界”的影響力——事實上，甚至讓這情況變得更有趣。大型機構可能在CME、Coinbase等間進行套利，但加密原生人士則會在Uniswap、Sushi、PancakeSwap、GMX、dYdX等多個池子之間套利。

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.

最終該觀察的是：每當比特幣出現大幅波動時，記得檢查DEX世界。去中心化交易所和借貸平台的價格有跟上現貨嗎，還是出現落後？若比特幣暴漲且DEX流動性偏低，DEX價格或許會暫時落後，這可能是一個套利機會，或者代表DeFi交易者還不完全相信漲勢。相反，如果比特幣下跌時，你發現鏈上價格其實撐得比較穩（也許因DEX用戶不容易恐慌性賣出），這或許暗示著底部即將到來，而套利者將搶進去DEX撿便宜。

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.

這個指標也許不像“比特幣ETF持有X%供應量”那麼直觀，而是以價差百分比或現象型的觀察呈現。不過，它已是分析工具組的一部分。在ETF時代，市場上沒有任何一個部分可以忽略：中心化機構資金流、鏈上長期持有者流，當然還有DeFi資金流都緊密交錯。敏銳的交易者會同時觀察每個領域，尤其是它們之間的縫隙——因為有時資金正好會從縫隙中溜走（即便只是一瞬間），而這些縫隙正好洩漏了市場故事。

9. Network Value to Transactions (NVT) Ratio: Rethinking the “Bitcoin P/E” in an ETF World

9. 網絡價值與交易量比（NVT）指標：在ETF時代重新思考比特幣的“本益比”

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.

在ETF熱潮和機構進場之前，像NVT這類鏈上指標一直是加密分析師們的重點指標。NVT（網絡價值與交易量比）經常被譬喻為比特幣版的本益比（P/E Ratio）。它的算法是比特幣市值（網絡價值）除以每日鏈上交易量（通常以移動平均平滑）。其直覺假設是：如果比特幣價格相較於區塊鏈上實際流動的價值過高，可能代表高估（像本益比過高的股票）；如果低於鏈上使用量，可能代表低估。

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.

歷史上，高NVT通常代表市場泡沫。例如，價格大漲但成交量未跟上時，NVT就會飆升，暗示價格跑贏了基本用量。低NVT則可能意味著拋售或低估（大量價值轉移但價格偏低）。像Willy Woo這類分析師推廣了NVT，甚至將其發展為“NVT Signal”信號（利用移動平均）來把握市場週期。確實，NVT飆升時有時對應市場高點，NVT低時則接近底部。

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.

但早在2010年代末，市場就發現NVT的有效性逐漸降低。主要原因是越來越多比特幣的活動移往鏈下、Layer-2方案以及交易所。當幣待在交易所時，其所有權可以多次轉手，卻未必會在鏈上註冊為“交易”。當交易所或ETF等託管方持有大量儲備時，內部調撥同樣不會成為鏈上交易紀錄。結果，NVT出現長期上移——看起來網絡價值增長速度遠超鏈上交易量，依照NVT標準，比特幣始終處於高估。事實上，這只是計算方法的侷限：NVT的分母“鏈上交易量”遺漏了愈來愈多的鏈下經濟活動。

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.

進入2024–2025年，現貨ETF時代加劇了這個現象。現在，可能有數十億美元的比特幣持倉在紐約證交所或其他股市以ETF份額轉手，這些動作都不會記錄為鏈上BTC轉賬量。投資人可能只需賣出5000萬美元的IBIT股份，即可讓另一人取得比特幣敞口，而託管庫比特幣壓根沒有實體交易發生。此時，NVT的分母不變，但價格（市值）可能因ETF市場波動而變動。結果：NVT可以一路攀升且長期維持高位，卻不再與過去意義相同。

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.

許多分析師都明確注意到這個變化。有些人試圖調整NVT（例如將“NVT Signal”移動平均期間拉長，或排除已知的非經濟性交易等），但最根本的是，近年來NVT因鏈下成交量成長而持續偏高。有份Bitcoin Magazine Pro報告精簡說明：“NVT Signal原本很適合找市場週期頂部，但因持幣越來越多轉移到鏈下，NVT信號效力已下降。”另一個來源指出：“越來越多投資者交易量走向鏈下，特別是在交易所”，造成標準NVT長期上移，必須修正。

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.

以實際角度來說，你如果打開過去十年的NVT圖，就會發現2015年所謂“高”NVT，到2025年已經截然不同。基準線本身已上移。因此，單純以“NVT高於歷史均值就要崩盤”這種直觀解讀，現在已經不準確了——NVT那麼高只是因為大多數交易早已移到鏈下。

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.

這樣是否代表NVT就沒用了？也不盡然。但這意味著分析師現在會更謹慎使用，通常會搭配其他指標。有些人嘗試只計入經濟性鏈上交易量（過濾自發送、找零輸出等），或是盡量納入Layer-2數據。但即便如此，ETF誕生後，這些做法也難以掌握全貌。NVT這個鏈上分析寵兒，現在只能退居輔助地位。

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.

話雖如此，它仍能提醒極端狀態。如果NVT真的爆衝到史無前例的數值，也許仍可視為投機烈度大幅高於實際用量。但所謂“用量”現在或許應涵蓋假設性的鏈下成交量。例如，有人可以設計一種修正版NVT，將ETF交易量（折算為BTC）合計進鏈上量，這將是有趣又創新的混合指標——儘管目前並未被廣泛採納。

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.

對一般加密貨幣使用者來說：重點是，NVT指標在ETF時代下必須重新校正。如果你看到有人在Twitter貼NVT圖就斷言牛熊輪替，要檢查他有沒有考慮結構性變化。NVT概念創始人Willy Woo就指出，早在2019年交易所與託管規模膨脹時就需要調整——ETF效應正延續這趨勢。

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.

可以舉個假設例子：假如未來比特幣市值2兆美元，而鏈上交易量僅每日50億美元，NVT=400。依過去經驗，這種數字可能完全不合常理，顯示比特幣對比網絡使用大幅高估。但如果同一時間，每天有500億美元比特幣ETF股份在股市成交，另有200億在CME期貨交易等？整個比特幣網絡很活躍，只是這種活躍已不被原本NVT計算方式涵蓋。比特幣網路的“收益”（若我們把交易額當作收益），已大量發生於另一套平行金融體系。

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.

那麼，交易者如何調整？很多人開始轉向MVRV（後文將介紹）、活躍地址數、或其他“真實成交量”等替代指標。NVT並未被完全拋棄，但通常會附上局限的警語討論。此外還有“修正版NVT”或NVT金比率等變體，採用更長週期觀察。不過整體而言，ETF時代多少讓NVT作為獨立估值指標的地位逐漸式微。

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

總結來說，網絡價值與交易量比（NVT）已無法像過去那樣單純作為比特幣的估值尺規。這提醒我們：生態變了，指標本身也該進化。現今NVT屢創高點，並不必然代表災難將至，它也是市場演化的某種體現——有越來越多價值……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.

在主鏈層之外發生的轉帳。某種程度上，高 NVT 甚至可能是網路成熟的一種特性，而不是缺陷；這意味著網路可以用相對較少的鏈上交易承載巨額市值，因為這些交易通常代表批次處理或鏈外聚合的價值（例如，一次 ETF 創建 1000 BTC 可能只顯示一筆鏈上交易，但那 1000 BTC 可能在鏈下被分給成千上萬的投資人）。因此，觀看 NVT 時要抱持保留態度。極端值或趨勢仍然值得關注，但請結合這些新發展來解讀。

10. Market Value to Realized Value (MVRV) Ratio: New Light on a Trusted Cycle Indicator

10. 市值與實現價值比（MVRV）：為被信任的週期指標帶來新視角

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).

另一個值得在 ETF 時代重新審視的比特幣分析指標是 MVRV（市值對實現價值比）。如果說 NVT 被視為比特幣的「本益比」，那麼 MVRV 則有點像是比特幣的「股價淨值比」，或更精確地說，是平均持有者收益的指標。其計算方式是以比特幣的市值（市場價值）除以其實現市值（根據每枚幣最後移動時的價格計算的總價值）。實現價值就像是整個網路的總持幣成本基礎；它將每一枚幣最後交易時的價格加總起來。因此，MVRV > 1 代表市場價格高於平均成本基礎（持有者多數獲利），MVRV < 1 則代表低於成本基礎（持有者多數虧損）。

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.

歷史上，MVRV 在辨識市場極端情緒方面表現出色。過去牛市頂峰常常出現 MVRV 係數 3、4 甚至更高——這代表平均持有人自上次移動以來持幣價值已經增長三到四倍（潛在利潤豐厚，通常是亢奮的訊號）。反之，在熊市低點，MVRV 曾經跌破 1，殘酷時期甚至到 0.5–0.7——表示市價比平均成本基礎低 30–50%，通常代表拋售和低估。這很直觀：當 MVRV 很高時，利潤豐厚，通常會引發獲利了結（賣出）和修正；MVRV 很低時，大多數人都在虧損，賣壓完全釋放，市場才會開始回升。

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.

那麼，ETF 時代對 MVRV 有何影響？乍看之下，並不像 NVT 那麼直接，因為 MVRV 源自鏈上成本基礎資料，幣一移動就會更新。但要注意：當 ETF 吸收供給時，大量比特幣會移動（從賣方到 ETF 託管商），其實現價值也會更新為當下價格。這表示，當 ETF 從長期持有者手中買入比特幣時（例如，某些自兩萬美元以來未動過的老幣，現在以六萬美元移轉），實現市值將大幅跳升。當實現市值更接近於市值時，MVRV 係數就會降低。因此，反直覺地，即便價格上漲，舊幣轉手易主的過程會因實現市值（分母）同步提升而讓 MVRV 無法飆到過去的高點。

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.

換句話說，2024–2025 年間大量比特幣經由 ETF 轉手給新買家，導致 MVRV 頂部被壓抑。市值雖創下新高，但實現市值也同步創新高，因為許多先前沉睡的舊幣被新買家「重估」了價格。這或許解釋了，為何到了 2025 年中，MVRV 的水準未如價格那般誇張。例如，2025 年 6 月一份資料指出，MVRV 的 Z 分數僅在 2.4 附近，並未達到過去高點常見的 5 或 7 以上。即便價格大漲，這種長期維持較低區間的現象，說明持續有舊幣移動、實現價值不斷更新，使得 MVRV 不易過熱。本質上，ETF 等新買家的出現，讓舊幣在進入極端危險的高位前就已被實現（售出）。這意味牛市可能更持久、呈階梯式攀升，而非如往常般爆量急頂——至少這是其中一種解讀。

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.

然而，MVRV 仍然非常有價值，尤其是價格反向波動時。想像一種情境：價格大幅修正，但大多數人並未拋售（因此前期「換手」導致實現市值仍居高不下）。此時市場市值可能再度低於實現市值，使 MVRV 掉到 1 以下。這如同過去熊市時，可能是世代級的買入良機。而 ETF 參與是否會改變這個推論，則尚未有定論：若真的發生此情境，ETF 會否出現資金流出（幣移出、實現市值下降）？有可能，但未必完全同比例——部分機構或許會選擇繼續持有，讓實現市值維持高檔。

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.

或許有人會問：ETF 持有的比特幣算在實現市值裡嗎？答案是肯定的，因為它們被轉移到託管方時，就是一次鏈上移動，建立了新的成本基礎。在託管後，若沒再鏈上移動，那麼這部分的實現市值就維持不變。因此 ETF 長期持幣時，這些幣的實現價格就是購買時的市價。若市場價格跌破這個水準，這些幣（及持有者）處於未實現損失狀態——歷史上，很少有長期持有者能無止境地承受這樣的虧損（總有人會認賠出場）。但若持有者是投資期限極長的機構，或許願意忍受，這會讓實現市值維持高位，MVRV 可能出現深度下探。如此，底部出現的方式就可能異於以往——也許更急促，也可能需要不同的評估指標。

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.

另一細節：實現市值現在包含大量在高價格移動過的幣（ETF 買入價）。這會讓未來熊市時，MVRV 的底部墊高，畢竟，供給中擁有高成本基礎的份額增加。在過去的循環裡，大量供應持續由成本極低的早期持幣者掌控，所以熊市時市值能掉到實現市值附近。現在隨著實現市值攀高、與市值距離縮小，未來熊市裡 MVRV 也未必會像過去那般大幅低於 1。雖目前仍是推測，但確實有其合理性。

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.

不論如何，作為可追蹤的指標，MVRV 依然是判斷市場整體情緒與週期階段的頂尖工具之一。唯一不同的是，必須意識到頻繁的幣權再分配（如這一輪的情形）讓數據顯得「重置」了許多。到了 2025 年中，儘管比特幣摸到 $100,000，大多指標（如 MVRV Z 分數）也沒有到歷史極端，令某些多頭堅信週期還未見頂——正所謂「還有剩餘動力」；畢竟若長線持有者已賣了不少給 ETF，如今願意賣的籌碼可能比過去循環更少——這很可能導致最終頂部更高，或下修幅度更小。

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.

但話說回來，倘若 MVRV 再度攀升至過往的極端區間（例如比率 > 3.5 或 4，Z 分數進入紅色警戒），依然會是強烈的過熱警訊。屆時，ETF 申購潮恐怕會減慢，市場籌碼幾乎全數處於獲利狀態——極度脆弱。我們接下來要觀察是否會出現如 2024 年底那般 ETF 流出、以及長線尚未獲利的籌碼主動認賠出場。

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.

總結來說，ETF 時代並沒有讓 MVRV 失效，而是讓它變得溫和而精確。它就像一支可靠的體溫計，現在只是因為「病人」體質不同而有一點不同讀數。依舊絕對值得列為重點指標——用來判斷市場是否過熱或嚴重低估。關鍵在於「情境」：將 MVRV 結合前述指標一起看——若 MVRV 偏高、ETF 淨流入停滯又看到 CDD 激增，那就是明確的警戒區；相反地，若 MVRV 偏低，ETF 繼續進貨，CDD 極小（強者續抱），那歷史上就是黃金買點。

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.

最終，NVT 與 MVRV 這兩大傳統鏈上指標，若能與 ETF 及市場結構等新指標結合，才最能還原全貌。在投資者陣容已擴及華爾街大戶和錢莊的今天，MVRV 依然是鏈上資料與投資者行為之間的關鍵橋樑。

Final thoughts

最後總結

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.

比特幣市場一直是一段進化史——從密碼龐克的實驗、到投機狂潮，再到散戶推動的牛市與礦工清算的循環。如今進入 ETF 時代後，我們見證傳統金融動能與原生區塊鏈透明數據的深度融合，這也帶來一套全新工具，可以更全面解讀驅動價格和情緒的動因。

The top 10 metrics we’ve explored form a holistic dashboard for the modern Bitcoin observer:

我們上述探討的十大指標，已成為現代比特幣觀察者的全方位儀表板：

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
ETF 誕生與贖回流動 揭示了機構資金進出台幣的「潮汐力量」。
AP 套利價差 作為 ETF 需求和市場效率的即時體溫計，隨時暗示大玩家是否容易套利、何時退場。
儲備證明時滯 保持系統誠實，確保帳面數字均有鏈上現貨相對應——這是傳統金融規模與加密貨幣透明度結合下的新課題。
貝萊德 IBIT 流入量（及其他同類）已成為「華爾街比特幣」的心跳指數，提供簡單而有力的大集團食慾參考。
ETF 持幣總量 追蹤有多少比特幣流進機構產品金庫，這一慢速變動的數字，說明長期供給的轉變。
Coin Days Destroyed（消耗幣日） 持續記錄比特幣最老一批玩家的動作，他們總是在每一輪行情開啟與終結時，決定何時死守、何時認輸。
CVD 異步（累積成交量背離） 深入訂單簿，分辨漲跌背後究竟有無堅實的買盤或賣壓，而不是閃電流動性的空洞。
DEX 與 CEX 底差 提醒大家——非所有交易都遵循同一劇本，當中心化和去中心化市場走勢分歧時，其中的落差蘊含資訊（甚至套利機會）。
NVT 比率 教會我們謙卑——當牌局變了，沒有任何單一指標能夠萬無一失，而比特幣的...Certainly! Below is your translation, following all instructions:

「fundamentals」can be expressed in more ways than just on-chain tx volume.

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.

對一般加密貨幣讀者而言，掌握這些指標就像擁有了一把利器，能讓你在充滿炒作和恐懼的市場雜音中理性判斷。你不再只是聽到「貝萊德在買入」或「巨鯨在拋售」這種模糊的敘事，而是能從數據中看到端倪：比如貝萊德的資產管理規模（AUM）持續上升、Coin Days Destroyed 在巨鯨移動資金時明顯激增、CVD 線在可疑拉盤中於圖表上出現分歧。每個指標就像在同一場比賽中從不同視角切換攝影機——一個專注於進攻，一個評估防守，一個捕捉觀眾反應，一個洞悉教練戰術。唯有同時觀察，你才能拼湊出整場比賽的全貌。

而實際上，現在比特幣這場大賽又有了新明星球員。貝萊德的產品組合——以 IBIT ETF 為代表——已成為這些訊號中的「礦坑金絲雀」。當 IBIT 不斷出現大量資金流入時，我們看到價格展現強勢（即使像 NVT 這樣的傳統指標看起來偏高）；每當 IBIT 停止流入或出現資金外流，也往往與其他指標釋出的修正訊號同時發生。這隻金絲雀雖然不是導致轉折的原因，卻往往最先有所感應。以長期持有者拋售為例，ETF 的大量吸收有效承接了拋壓——若沒有這波 ETF 資金，價格可能會直線下墜，而有了它們，賣壓則被緩衝了。關注貝萊德與同業動向，如今已是比特幣觀察者的日常。

這同時也是一場融合的故事：鏈上數據的「極端主義者」與華爾街分析師，如今也在研究同一批圖表，只是切入角度不同。資深幣圈人士會透過交易所儲備與 CDD 來判斷是進場還是出貨；而 ETF 分析師則觀察基金流向與溢價。但雙方其實都在用不同工具診斷同一個市場。現在，比以往任何時候都更需要聰明的分析師融合兩種思考方式。

ETF 問世之後讓市場變得更複雜，但同時更成熟。現在沒有任何單一指標能「給你答案」（也許從來都沒有）。但將這些指標結合起來，就能拼湊出多元立體的市場視角。這也是為什麼傳統訊號像 MVRV 或 NVT 會出現不同反應——不是它們失效了，而是因為市場機制本身變得更多元、更深層。這也凸顯合規大型產品的崛起，卻又不會掩蓋底層網路活動的核心地位。

不論你是交易者還是長期持有者，這十項指標足以決定你看見「冰山全貌」或只是「冰山一角」。一次拉升，到底是真需求還是單純槓桿炒作？數據會告訴你——也許 ETF 創建量飆升、現貨 CVD 強勁（偏多）；也可能是價格衝高但 CDD 同時激增（偏空拋售徵兆）。是不是逼近瘋狂頂部？對照 MVRV 是否進入歷史紅區、ETF 資金流入是否趨近枯竭。下跌是否為進場良機？觀察 MVRV 是否接近歷史低點、長期持有者是否持續沉寂（低 CDD），同時 ETF 仍在默默吸納——當價格與累積出現背離，就是機會來臨的訊號。

總結來說，比特幣的旅程始終是結合舊與新的過程——它用科技重塑了傳統金錢與信任的概念。現在輪到我們將舊時的各種指標，與全新市場結構融合。成果是，我們對比特幣驅動邏輯有了更清晰、細緻的敘事。不論你是日內交易者、長線信仰者，還是單純的好奇觀察者，把這些指標納入你的雷達，將幫助你撥開炒作和頭條。ETF 時代已經來臨，市場數據史無前例地豐富——善用它，你就能以信心與洞見，駕馭比特幣這段精彩新篇章。