比特幣 ETF 時代：加密交易者必須留意的 10 項關鍵市場指標

現貨比特幣交易所買賣基金推出，為加密市場帶來了嶄新時代——一個充斥著全新數據點與變化動態的時代。當傳統金融巨頭如黑石（BlackRock）、富達（Fidelity）等推行比特幣 ETF，除了釋放大量機構資金，也帶來了前所未有、多元且值得交易者密切關注的新興指標。

交易圈內突然開始討論起「創建單位流量」、「授權參與者（AP）套利差價」及「金庫儲備證明延遲」等詞彙。這些指標加入了習以為常的鏈上數據之列，但實際上，現時 ETF 推動的新指標，有時比過往指標（如 NVT 或 MVRV）更有助解讀比特幣價格的「貝塔值」（即相對其他市場因素的變動）。

為何這種轉變很重要？簡言之，比特幣的投資者組成及市場結構正在演變。現貨 ETF 提供受監管、證券市場化的比特幣投資途徑，快速吸引到數十億美元資金。例如，美國現貨比特幣 ETF 推出短短 18 個月，即錄得約 500 億美元的資金淨流入——意味基金如黑石旗下的 iShares Bitcoin Trust，實質託管超過 70 萬枚比特幣。這約為比特幣流通總量的 3–5%，一年半內已從公開市場抽走。隨著如此大量比特幣遷入 ETF 託管，市場自然愈來愈重視能追蹤這些基金活動和影響的指標。

同一時間，長期持幣者（HODLer）及資深加密交易者也在調整自己的分析視角。部分傳統鏈上數據已不能反映全部現實。例如，網絡價值與交易比率（Network Value to Transactions，俗稱比特幣「市盈率」）現時雖然數據偏高，過去或解讀為「過度高估」，但現在可能只代表大量交易量已轉移至 ETF 或其他金融產品，而非泡沫警號。同樣，過往很可靠的市場價值對實現價值比（MVRV），現在也必須考慮巨額幣流進入機構金庫等因素。簡而言之，舊指標仍具參考價值，但新指標在 ETF 時代或會驗證甚至凌駕過往傳統數據。

以下是每位加密市場觀察者在後 ETF 時代必須關注的十大市場指標。我們將拆解每項指標的意義、其當下重要性，以及如何左右交易者對比特幣市場的理解。無論是 ETF 份額創建流、套利價差，還是鏈上與去中心化交易所的供應變化跡象，這些新訊號正指引著現代比特幣交易者的決策。值得留意的是，黑石等 ETF 產品組合，往往像是市場的「煤礦金絲雀」，驗證（或質疑）各項指標所反映的市場健康狀況。立即深入了解。

1. 創建單位流量：追蹤 ETF 資金進出

後 ETF 時代最受關注的指標之一，就是創建單位流量，簡單說即是比特幣進出 ETF 的資金淨流。當現貨比特幣 ETF 新接獲資金投資時，並非憑空誕生比特幣；而是由授權參與者（AP）將現金（或比特幣）交付基金發行商，後者再將等值 BTC 加入 ETF 資產池。這一流程稱為「創建」，通常以標準化單位進行，每個創建單位代表大量 ETF 份額（比方固定 5 或 10 BTC，按基金要求而定）。反之，投資者贖回時則稱為「贖回」，可能將 BTC 從基金中移除並把現金或加密貨幣返還給 AP。透過觀察創建及贖回活動，交易者可以直接掌握有多少新需求與供應透過這些基金流動。

這為何重要？因為這反映了機構投資者的態度與資金實力。高且持續的創建流量，就是大量新資金透過 ETF 湧入比特幣——屬於市場需求的利好訊號。相反，巨額贖回則意味資金流出，若其他地方難以吸納，還會對市場造成壓力。例如，美國現貨比特幣 ETF 在 2024 年 1 月推出時出現首輪創建熱潮，累積達 7.21 億美元淨流入，由 Bitwise、富達與黑石等公司領軍。這等於大量比特幣被這些基金收購，用於支持新發行的 ETF 份額——是新資金入場的實證。有分析指，這印證了美國證監會多年以來阻撓該類產品後，「被壓抑的需求」終於釋放。

隨時間推移，創建單位流量成為市場趨勢的晴雨表。2024–2025 年牛市期間，ETF 連續數週錄得淨流入，當時甚至連續 15 天每天有新資金流入美國現貨比特幣 ETF，推動比特幣衝上新高。這 15 天中，持續有新幣被存入基金金庫——明顯是機構、理財顧問及基金看好後市而積極部署。相反，首次重大逆轉則引起市場緊張：2024 年 12 月，美聯儲議息後比特幣價格跌破六位數，ETF 出現史上最大單日淨流出：單日撤走 6.719 億美元。這意味 AP 贖回大量份額，基金需將逾 6,500 枚 BTC 投回市場。這一次流出，終止了 15 天連升紀錄，及「打斷」穩步入資格局，被視為市場風險偏好減弱的信號。

值得一提，創建／贖回數據偶有誤導，因為並非所有 ETF 創建份額屬「買入持有」資金流。事實上不乏套利交易（稍後詳解）：對沖基金通過創建或贖回 ETF 份額，並非單純押注比特幣方向，而是捕捉價差。Real Vision CEO Raoul Pal 就估算，全新 ETF 的淨流入中，或有 三分之二 屬套利對沖基金貢獻，而非長線散戶。「若屬實，代表 ETF 主要資金流其實還未來自散戶，」Pal 指出。換句話說，部分創建流量是賺取買賣差價的快錢交易者行動，而非退休金基金真心大舉配置比特幣。交易者現時解讀創建流時，亦會考慮這個背景。不過，即使是套利，亦間接反映需求，因為套利機會的產生先決條件是 ETF 或相關產品被高價追捧。

未來，密切留意大型 ETF 每日或每週的創建／贖回數字。絕大多數 ETF 發行商每日都會公布發行在外單位或管理資產值（AUM），可折合基金所持 BTC 數。創建單位突然增加（AUM 大幅躍升），相當於巨鯨入市——大量新比特幣從交易所流向 ETF 冷錢包。反之，如遇大量贖回，則類似大戶拋售。在 ETF 新時代，這些流量足以牽動市況，亦能解釋連資深鏈上分析者難以解讀的價格走勢。當大資金選擇用 ETF 入市或撤離時，創建單位流就是市場留下的足跡，成為理解市場動態的核心關鍵指標。

2. AP 套利差：溢價／折價作為情緒風向標

創建流量的密切拍檔，就是「授權參與者套利差」——即 ETF 市場價格與其每份額所對應比特幣淨資產值（NAV）之間的價差。雖然聽似艱澀，但這其實是供求失衡、ETF 機制是否高效運作的重要指標。原因在於：理論上，現貨比特幣 ETF 應該緊扣其持有的實際比特幣價格。比如每份 ETF 代表 0.0001 BTC，那其市價也應貼近 0.0001 BTC 的市值。若 ETF 比 NAV 貴，屬於溢價；反之則是折價。授權參與者（大型交易商）負責掃平這些偏差。例如，ETF 比 NAV 高 2% 時，AP 可透過創建新份額套利——於市場買入比特幣、按 NAV 交付換取新 ETF 份額、然後以溢價賣出份額賺取差價。這樣 ETF 供應增加，價格理論上會回落至 NAV。若出現折價，則誘使贖回（低價買入 ETF，在基金換取等值比特幣後賣出獲利）。這一套利機制正是 ETF 跟蹤資產淨值的基礎。

溢價／折價幅度及持續時間本身極具啟示意義。如果 ETF 持續溢價，顯示需求極大，AP 來不及補倉，對市況利好，但同時反映可能有交易摩擦或風險限制阻礙套利效率。持續折價則意味賣壓或需求下降（如往昔的 Grayscale Bitcoin Trust）。美國現貨 ETF 剛登場時，散戶熱情帶動 ETF 一度小幅溢價，速度快過 AP 補倉。上市首日，一些 ETF 短暫出現高於 NAV 的價格，讓反應夠快的套利者賺到豐厚利潤。作為一篇分析所總結：「如果 ETF 出現溢價，」 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.

隨着ETF邊度生產流程展開，授權參與者（AP）會沽空貴價ETF份額，再以更平的淨資產值（NAV）作創建，從中賺取利潤。呢個機制就正正係我哋見到嘅情況——ETF首日新基金成交量極高（超過47億美元），遠遠多過實際資金流入，意味住好多短線換馬、仲有唔少套利活動混雜其中。

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嘅溢價／折讓幅度一般都好細（多數喺正負1%範圍內），證明套利系統運作良好。但溢折價方向，其實係個超好嘅市場情緒信號。例如，當買盤激烈（例如比特幣創新高）時，ETF嘅價錢傾向輕微溢價，代表有買家心急追貨，搶高ETF價快過AP增發新份額。交易員就係睇呢啲moment——有溢價，未來大買盤壓力隨時來臨。同理，如果ETF長期折讓，可能意味住沽壓累積緊，有機會波及寬闊市場。我哋早喺2024年尾見過端倪：比特幣跌離歷史高位時，一個月CME期貨溢價跌穿年化10%（之前高好多），ETF交易價都逼近甚至低過NAV。CoinDesk報導指，溢價下降係「短線需求減退」跡象，而且同時期確有紀錄級單日資金外流。簡單講，當套利容易賺錢期過去（ETF無再高過淨值被狂掃），套利資金都會慢下嚟，短期ETF增長就少咗一個重要支持。

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.

套利點有另一個角度，係點樣同期貨市場聯動。有啲對沖基金玩cash-and-carry trade——買ETF（持有比特幣多頭），同時沽空比特幣期貨，賺收益差。如果ETF溢價、或者期貨升水高，呢類組合操作就會轉變。2024年12月，CME期貨溢價跌落個位數，令套息trade吸引力減弱，新ETF份額嘅套利創建都隨之減少。結果就係新ETF需求軟咗，資金流入都冷卻少少。ETF溢價、期貨基差、資金流三者互動，組成咗個有趣嘅反饋循環。

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.

一般加密幣投資者要記住：要密切留意ETF市價同NAV之間嘅差距（好多財經網站/ETF發行商都提供即時指示NAV）。如果長期有正溢價，即係市場有人願意多俾價，通常都係牛市信號；相反，如果折讓、即係負溢價，就可能沽壓壟罩住，或者有套利者準備將現貨沽出。呢個指標混合咗市場情緒同機械市場結構。喺ETF後時代，呢個spread基本變成比特幣嘅「華爾街恐慌／貪婪小指標」，隨需求大起大落、風險情緒波動而擺動。要記住，一旦差距太誇張，幕後AP大戶會隨時入場套利，市場又會給佢哋「搞番正」，咁直接影響比特幣供求。

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.

現貨比特幣ETF出現之後，一個比較獨特嘅疑慮就係：我哋點樣知道ETF真係持有應該有嘅比特幣？加密圈成日講「唔好信，自己驗證」，所以先有proof-of-reserves（儲備證明）呢個概念——即係用加密方式證明託管人實際有曬聲稱嘅資產。而傳統金融機構經ETF進場加密世界後，好多人最醒目就係盯實ETF儲備更新嘅時點同透明度，呢個可以叫vault PoR延遲。講白啲：新ETF份額創建時（代表基金要增持更多BTC），幾快會見到果啲BTC真真正在鏈上託管錢包現身？如果delay太長，可能暗示發行咗類似欠單或者內部結算仲未finalize到鏈上。

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，坊間傳聞指Coinbase——差唔多所有新比特幣ETF嘅主要託管人——可能用「紙比特幣」或者ETF資金流入分配有delay。比特幣價幾個月都異常牛皮，雖然有大額公布資金流入ETF，部分人懷疑ETF託管人其實無即時鏈上買足夠BTC，而係先發行份額，再用遲啲先補BTC嘅方式，類似發咗BTC欠單。即係潛在鏈上證明拖後腳，市場所帶嚟不安。投資者同分析員開始要求每次ETF創建都要鏈上驗證，基本上希望Coinbase證明，當發行咗值1000 BTC嘅新份額，應該短時間內真係有多1000 BTC入咗ETF託管錢包。

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好認真面對呢啲疑慮。喺2024年9月，佢哋向SEC申請文件修訂，明確收緊IBIT信託嘅提現同結算時間規則。新規定好清楚要求，所有新創建份額需補足BTC，必須喺收到指示後12小時內，將BTC鏈上轉到託管人。BlackRock文件入面寫明：「Coinbase Custody必須喺獲得客戶（即BlackRock基金）指令後12小時內，將比特幣由託管戶口劃到公有區塊鏈地址。」簡單啲：BlackRock話「Coinbase，啱啱賣咗啲ETF，要加多500 BTC入保險庫」，Coinbase必須確保12小時內喺鏈上見到啲BTC。呢個係正面應對市場傳聞，要俾投資者信心ETF內無玩分段儲備。

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 CEO Brian Armstrong都出嚟親自撲火，針對恐慌同謠言作出回應，話其實所有ETF份額出入都最終會鏈上結算，只不過機構用戶有時會先短線融資或者用場外（OTC）先運作，到尾聲先正式結算。即係Coinbase可以暫時由自己流動性墊底，等ETF發行人唔洗等咁耐，但到一日完結時（Armstrong話「約一個工作天以內」），所有增減會反映返喺Prime Vault鏈上。所以短暫延遲係「所有機構客戶都會見到嘅常態」，並唔係無結算，只係時間差。

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.

點解投資者要理PoR延遲？因為如果有長時間delay，短期供求會受影響，可能預示市場有啲古怪。例如ETF明明報告大量資金流入，但無見到相關BTC增長，咁啲新錢可能後尾先真正買BTC——即係正貨單未落到order book。換句話，如果ETF咪用衍生品/其他方法頂住，唔係買實貨BTC——即係傳說中「紙比特幣」——預期上升需求好可能唔會如理想推高價格，所以要炒作資金要識留意。

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.

到目前為止，市面上無咩明顯違規證據，大家多數都係預先警惕。隨住BlackRock推12小時結算新規，加埋其他ETF應該好快跟，等「驗證延遲」個窗口愈嚟愈細。不過，單係成個問題炒大，都證明ETF之後，需要新一層警覺。依家有啲交易員會直接睇ETF託管錢包嘅鏈上數據，睇住增持幾規律，有無match官方流入。一有唔尋常delay，Twitter上面隨時又炒作。例如波場Justin Sun就曾經公開質疑Coinbase管理包裝比特幣（cbBTC）無出清晰儲備證明，如果信心失守簡直係「比特幣黑暗時刻」。

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供應商一直主動防範信任危機。BlackRock堅持即時鏈上結算，再加Coinbase穩坐主要託管人（到2024年底，為11間美國比特幣ETF入面8間打理託管，合共有接近九成ETF資產經佢處理），即係緊設高水平。呢度最要睇就係ETF儲備更新快唔快、夠唔夠穩定。如果你夠貼地，甚至可以追蹤已知ETF錢包地址，或者用Dune Analytics嗰啲即時儀表板追ETF持倉。如果嗰啲數據持續同官方披露脫節得好離譜，可能要提高警覺，或者引發新嘅交易思路（例如有大單未入場，可以預先埋伏）。

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.

總結，Vault PoR延遲，其實係用嚟迫ETF發行商守規矩同提昇市場警覺。ETF後時代，加密圈嘅透明精神滲入傳統金融產品。識得「留心個Gap」——即ETF紙上記錄同真實比特幣上鏈時間差——可以睇懂短線流動性走勢，更有優勢。宏觀嚟講，呢個指標都反映個世界變哂：有咩傳統資產市場會要求零售投資者「實時見到資產移動」？比特幣依家就係咁玩。

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嘅iShares Bitcoin Trust（IBIT）無論象徵意義定實質影響，喺新格局底下都大到難以形容。作為全球最大資產管理公司，BlackRock進軍比特幣市場，本身就係分水嶺式大事。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.

一如預期，IBIT一推出就迅速成為比特幣ETF市場嘅主導者——強勢到好多交易員而家都當IBIT嘅資金流入/流出數據係整體機構需求嘅指標。換句話講，如果你要揀一隻產品嚟睇「大戶」對比特幣興趣嘅脈搏，IBIT就係首選。

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.

睇下數字。去到2025年7月，即推出後約一年半，BlackRock嘅IBIT已經持有70萬枚BTC，資產規模約760億美元。咁講可能更有感覺：單係IBIT持有嘅比特幣，就多過緊隨其後兩大基金——Fidelity嘅Wise Origin BTC基金（FBTC）同埋Grayscale（而家都係ETF）產品合埋，加埋佢哋都分別淨係大概持有203,000同184,000枚BTC。IBIT增長咁兇猛，已經令佢變成BlackRock旗艦ETF之一，而唔分加密貨幣定傳統資產都一樣。事實上，去到2025年中，IBIT已經成為BlackRock差唔多1,200隻基金入面第三大收入來源，資產規模仲超越咗啲好出名、主流嘅ETF，好似佢哋自己隻iShares S&P 500基金（IVV）。呢啲成績對一隻加密貨幣基金嚟講，真係誇張，亦證明IBIT已經成為市場核心。

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.

點解呢樣數據咁重要？因為IBIT嘅流入流出會直接影響市場。當IBIT出現穩定淨流入，代表BlackRock嘅AP每日都係市場掃Bitcoin（或者安排資產轉去托管），變相為市價提供咗一隻穩定買盤，可以托價，起碼吸收咗部分賣壓。其實，ETF圈分析師都認為BlackRock呢套ETF組合，真係有撐住比特幣市況——有啲時候原生加密資本入市冇咁強。彭博Eric Balchunas曾經用「紙BTC」呢個講法嚟開玩笑，現實係長線持幣者（所謂「HODLers」）其實喺升浪趁機沽貨，反而係ETF——特別係BlackRock隻——一直接緊啲籌，幾次為BTC「頂住深淵」。佢認為叫價橫行怪罪於ETF根本搞錯重點；應該話IBIT係「金絲雀」，話緊大家知：冇咗佢呢啲資金流入，調整可能慘好多。

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.

要追蹤IBIT流向其實好簡單，可以睇BlackRock每日AUM報告，或者公開鏈上保管地址數據。好似第一波火熱行情嗰陣，IBIT幾乎日日淨流入，成個幾星期未試過淨流出。CoinDesk就報導講，2024年尾，BlackRock隻IBIT連續多星期錄得正流入，最終先至出現咗第一次「零流向日」（即係冇流入冇流出，打破持續增長紀錄）。即使遇到ETF大規模贖回嗰日，IBIT都企得穩——證明基金黏度高，受關注度長期穩定。簡單講，IBIT嘅走勢好多時都代表晒全市場ETF嘅方向。

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點解仲咁關鍵？因為BlackRock品牌影響力同埋分銷渠道夠闊，多數新入場資金都會揀佢。理財顧問、機構客，甚至啲散戶經券商買ETF，大多數都揀最流通、最大隻、最出名嗰隻——IBIT就滿足晒曬。即係話，IBIT資金流陡增時，好可能反映咗有新玩家入場，或者大戶加倉。反過來，如果IBIT持續有大量BTC流出，有機會代表機構對市睇淡，或者資產俾競爭對手搶走（例如有另一間發行商大幅減費或推新花樣）。

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.

另外，我哋都會留意BlackRock除咗IBIT以外嘅加密產品線。之前提及BlackRock嗰套產品係「金絲雀」——到2025年中，BlackRock已申請甚至推出咗其他加密ETF產品（例如Ethereum Trust ETF喺籌備中，多種資產加密基金亦有機會出現）。雖然呢啲唔直接關我哋睇比特幣，但BlackRock舉動經常幫市場趨勢「正名」。如果佢不斷加大加密產品陣容，等於認同需求維持高企。至於IBIT嘅資金流模式（例如流入與價格同向、停流入時頂緊市場）如果延續落去，自己都已經係一個前瞻指標。

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，比特幣炒到某個位置徘徊、鏈上數據又冇乜起色，分析員都驚會回調。但你睇IBIT每日資產報告，原來當日又再加碼2,000枚BTC——好大筆流入。即係話有新資金繼續吸納，雖然交易所未表現出嚟，但其實勢頭未斷。咁你要唔要趁橫行時開淡倉，都可能要諗多兩諗，因為BlackRock呢隻「金絲雀」仲叫緊牛市歌相反，如果BTC走弱咗，你又見到IBIT連續數日有淨流出，就要小心，代表本來最大嗰張安全網——機構低吸興趣——可能有暫時唔在場。

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.

總結，BlackRock IBIT資金流而家已經係市場健康嘅核心指標。佢代表住機構進場呢個宏觀主題。依家啲交易員講「機構買盤」或者「機構走貨」，都愈嚟愈直接用IBIT數據做佐證。BlackRock手上持有BTC數量咁驚人，佢嘅流入流出基本等同於全體機構資金流向。如果IBIT個金庫愈儲愈多，多頭就有可靠數據撐腰。一旦轉勢，熊黨就有新藉口。記住要留意住每周大方向——IBIT就係800磅大猩猩，佢向邊行，森林（即比特幣市場）就一定反應。

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.

喺ETF浪潮下，最重要、幾乎係宏觀等級嘅指標之一，就係所有ETF加埋持有嘅比特幣供應量——進而即係流通BTC有幾多已經俾呢啲投資工具吸納咗。呢個數據代表比特幣供需格局根本性嘅改變。當比特幣進入ETF，大多會存放喺託管人嘅冷錢包，有效地長期離開咗流通市場，直到有人贖回ETF股份（正如見到，往往好長一段時間都冇人贖）。本質上，比特幣ETF令流動性變成「單程路」：牛市時有大量幣流入（鎖住供應），資金流出則相對難，除非市況大跌或有明顯套利誘因先會多啲人贖回。

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時代之後，睇有幾多BTC鎖咗喺ETF，等於追蹤一種新嘅「Hodl wave」，不過今次推手係機構吸納。數字一路急升。到2024年尾，啱啱開賣未夠一年，美國現貨Bitcoin ETF總共隻鏈上就幫投資者鎖咗90萬枚BTC。正如頭先提過，去到2025年中，呢個數字應該已突破100萬枚BTC——BlackRock就佔咗70萬，其餘好幾十萬落咗Fidelity、Grayscale改制後個信託同其他ETF。以市值比例嚟講，100萬BTC大約係全流通量嘅5%（2025年中大約有1,940萬枚BTC）。5%嘅比特幣而家鎖晒喺ETF入面，變化好誇張，要知2024年前（GBTC信託除外）呢個比例基本係零。部分個別基金市佔率仲更驚人——BlackRock隻IBIT一隻就包咗所有流通BTC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.

點解要睇呢個數？因為比特幣被鎖喺長線產品愈多，市場可用供應就愈收緊。其他因素不變下，需求持續甚至增長、供應鎖咗愈多，對價錢就有利——即係經典「稀缺論」。類似黃金ETF對黃金市場影響：GLD一推出就喺金庫累積上百噸黃金。有分析指過，呢啲做法拉高咗2000年代黃金價格，係因為新需求+市場供應縮水。比特幣好可能而家都發生緊類似情況。ETF新股份出現，即代表啲比特幣由流通環境（如交易所或個人錢包）移入去機構金庫，除非贖回，通常極少流返出市。呢種情況有助下跌時減波動（可沽籌碼少咗），但亦積聚風險：一旦將來齊齊傾巢而出，衝擊會特別大。

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，趨勢都係淨積累，縱然偶有流出，整體由2024年頭到2025年7月都係持續大幅增長——單計淨流入已經去到500億美元。同時，2025年一個頗有趣發現係：儲咗咁多BTC，價格卻冇即時大升。有啲人以為市場撇走100萬BTC即刻會供應極緊、爆升。但最後走勢反而係慢慢升、中間反覆有獲利賣盤。點解？主要因為好多長線持有者同礦工把握機會出貨。ETF與新資金入場時，早期持有人見勢好自然換現金或者調倉。你睇coin age（幣齡）數據（下節會講Coin Days Destroyed飆升）都會見到。簡單講，ETF幫手吸咗好多老籌壓力，防止咗價錢過度暴升。Eric Balchunas話ETF救市頂住深淵只係其中一個角度；另一角度，ETF提供咗充裕流動性俾啲大戶走貨，短期內反而平滑咗升勢。但同樣道理，一旦淨係剩返長線持冒者（由ETF託管），仲會迎嚟……potential supply shortages down the line if demand resurges while those ETF-held coins stay put.

因此，追蹤總ETF持倉與總供應量的比例，是衡量「供應被吸收」進度的一個方法。如果我們見到ETF持有的百分比開始橫行，這有機會意味著市場已經飽和—大部分有興趣入市的機構都已經進場，新資金流入開始減慢。如果這個比例繼續上升（特別是越升越快），有可能會引發價格上升和更多資金湧入的正面循環（過往牛市週期經常就是這樣：價格升—吸引投資—再升—再吸引...）。有分析員甚至推測，比特幣有機會有10%甚至更多最終鎖在ETF內。這就帶出一個有趣問題：究竟去到什麼水位，流通在交易所的「可交易」幣會緊張到，買賣一邊的流動性不足而引發劇烈波動呢？這可能在未來數年會見分曉。

同時，要留意這些ETF持有的比特幣到底落在誰手—係分散多個發行商，定只係集中幾間？去到2024年尾，單是BlackRock就已經佔晒全鏈上ETF資產市佔38%，而Coinbase Custody亦負責差唔多90%這啲ETF資產的託管。換句話說，好大一撮比特幣實際上都喺同一個託管人手上（雖然係幫好多客戶持有）。這種集中局面有好有壞：效率高，但亦出現所謂「單一失誤點」（Single Point of Failure）風險，有啲人都警告過。從數據角度來講，忽略個別細節，ETF內有幾多幣，呢個指標本身就係機構HODL意願的簡單反映。

總括而言，比特幣ETF的供應吸收，是個宏觀指標，可以幫你解讀好多其他市場現象。例如如果你見到鏈上交易量下跌，或者交易所持幣愈來愈少，其實未必單純係市場冷淡，亦可能只係啲幣都移咗去ETF度。如果波幅縮細，有可能係好大部分供應被基金冷錢包鎖住。反過來，如果波幅突然急升，亦可能解釋為這個趨勢短暫逆轉。你可以當這個指標係「華爾街持倉比特幣」水位計；愈多幣掟晒入去，對全市場運作都會有深遠影響。

6. Coin Days Destroyed (CDD)：老手出貨定繼續手緊？

講番經典鏈上分析，喺ETF時代出現後，一個指標變得更重要，就係Coin Days Destroyed（CDD：幣日銷毀）。呢個指標行咗好多年，深受鏈上分析師歡迎，因為可以睇到長線持有者行為。不過，點解ETF年代都要提佢？因為有大型新買家（即ETF）登場，剛好畀嗰啲長期持有人一個好機會走貨／減磅，而CDD可以直接喺鏈上反映到有冇出現呢個情況。

簡單介紹下：CDD即係計某一日有幾多「幣日」因比特幣移動而被銷毀。每個比特幣停留喺一個錢包一日，就累積一個幣日。如果你1 BTC擺咗唔郁100日先轉走，就係100幣日被銷毀。如果你50 BTC放低唔郁200日先郁，咁就係50*200 = 10,000幣日銷毀，如此類推。銷毀幣日愈多，反映長期冇郁過的舊幣出現大移動。CDD數值高，通常表示好多舊比特幣（長期投資者或者所謂「聰明錢」持有）開始移動，多數係賣出或資產重新分配。

一個健康牛市，理想上唔應該見到CDD極端急升；最好好多長期手合住唔放手（CDD保持適中），到頂先沽。CDD突然勁升，就多數意味分派期—老手趁機食糊走人。而熊市底部通常CDD會低，因為剩返冇耐性啲散戶沽晒，長期持有者選擇死守。

咁ETF投入市場之後見到啲咩情況？一開波2024 ETF大額資金湧入時，CDD都算正常—有升幅，但未去到危險位。不過，當升市延續到2025、比特幣破新高（衝過$70k、$80k、$90k甚至向六位數進發）時，我們開始見到CDD異常飆升，引起市場警覺。例如2025年7月，比特幣的CDD指標突然大幅抽升，分析師即時發警號：可能有資深持幣人士正在選擇離場，或將引發價格調整。具體來講，當月初有大約80,000個2011年未郁過的BTC（即14年冇人郁過）突然動身，創下有史以來最大規模之一的CDD spike。單單這次（應該係早期持有人or鯨魚挪動）已經損耗咗一大堆幣日，因為那些幣每粒都吸咗成十幾年塵。根據分析，是紀錄以來第二高CDD spike，僅次於2024年5月更大規模那一役。

分析師對此相當重視。歷史上，CDD一旦升破某些水平後，經常緊跟大型市場調整。CryptoQuant數據顯示，2022到2025年中期間，CDD超過2,000萬（某個累積幣日的量度方式）的情況只試過五次，而頭四次全部都剛好撞正重大跌浪。2025年7月這次係第五個例子，引發巨額沽壓到來的憂慮。事實上，那批8萬BTC極大機會已經流入交易所，或者最少易手（或OTC交易、甚至賣咗畀機構再託管入ETF都唔出奇）。重點係，Coin Days Destroyed已發出舊供應移動的明確信號。

這裏就見到CDD與ETF流入類指標可以完全互補。一方面ETF流入話畀你知好多新資金入市不停買貨，另一方面CDD話你知好多舊錢同時選擇離場。兩邊同時發生，結果就係升市動力被對沖—大買家同大沽家交收。一句講晒，「聰明錢」長線HODL大戶利用BlackRock一類大戶帶嚟的流動性放貨。一旦這種大搬運完成（2011年啲老錢包去咗新持有人手），啲幣又reset age—可能短期之內都唔會再郁，因為新手都會扛住唔放。

對交易員同觀察者來講，ETF時代之後繼續睇CDD好關鍵，可以知道市場主動權係邊類人手中—長期持有人夠信心繼續坐定定（CDD低，偏牛訊號，顯示睇更高），或者佢哋悄悄落車（CDD升，警號響起）？2025年7月就是屬於後者，結果唔出所料市場很快就出現一次較明顯回調，印證「CDD高峰位通常係急跌先兆」這個說法。

還有一點值得留意：CDD與供應吸收之間的互動。有Bitwise分析師分享的圖表顯示，比特幣價錢由2020升到2024期間，供應調整後的CDD每逢有peaks就剛剛係出現價格回吐前。而ETF正正係提供流動性畀那些高峰位（如2024年5月比特幣首次衝上$70k，有早期大戶沽貨—估計那次就是歷來最大CDD spike）。

其實，你可以說Coin Days Destroyed作為「查核市場敘事」的工具比以前更加重要。當市場熱烈歡呼機構買買買時，CDD可拆穿後面原來OG鯨魚出貨。如果沒有（即ETF大買下都唔郁），極之利好—代表就連長揸手都未食糊住，睇更高價。如果CDD一飆，牛市可能要加倍小心，因為新資金無力再承接時有危險。

到目前為止，市場呈現一個混合局面—確實有部分分派發生。畢竟，比特幣並非直線升到$200k，中間都有回調，正是老幣被吸收之故。往後ETF流入同CDD，兩者一齊參考。一陰一陽互相制衡。ETF大流入+C DD高＝大量舊錢包換手，短線頂部易壓制。ETF大流入+CDD低＝供應真減少，價格更有可能升到唔郁得住。反之如果某日ETF走資之餘CDD又爆燈—那就雙重撤退信號（暫時仲未見過真正發生）。

總括來說，Coin Days Destroyed依然係觀察比特幣鑽石手vs紙手行為的最佳鏈上指標之一。ETF時代冇改變其原有地位，反而賦予新意義（即鯨魚利用ETF流動性放貨）。這是bridging old-school鏈上數據與institutional 新資金流的方法，大市有咩故事，原始角色點都要keep住監察。

7. 累積成交量差額（CVD）背馳：解讀買賣盤暗湧

並非所有重要指標都關於長線HODL或機構買家，有啲反而關乎短線市場運作。例如現時炒家日益重視的累積成交量差額CVD（Cumulative Volume Delta）—特別係觀察唔同市場CVD數據之間的背馳。簡單理解，CVD係累積埋淨買入成交（買家主動掃貨）同賣出成交（賣家主動砍貨）之差。如CVD向上，就代表買方佔上風（市場流入主動買單），向下就表示賣方壓制。咁有咩作用？最大益處就係可以睇穿究竟呢波升跌真係有冇足夠主動單去支持。

套用落ETF年代比特幣市場，最有用分析CVD其中一招，就係對比唔同平台或市場…instance，許多分析師會觀察現貨CVD與永續期貨CVD的表現。如果BTC價格正在上升，理想情況下你會希望現貨市場和期貨市場都出現淨買入（CVD向上）——這是一種信心廣泛的信號。但有時會出現背馳：想像一下，價格慢慢上升，但現貨CVD持平，而期貨CVD則在上升（或反過來）。這可能意味著，這波升幅是由衍生品交易員（有槓桿）推動的，而現貨買家（或許屬於較“真實”的需求）缺席——這樣的升浪較弱，一旦衍生品交易員失去信心，隨時可能掉頭。相反，如果現貨CVD急升但價格卻沒太大變動，可能代表有大量累積正在現貨交易所發生，但這種買盤尚未在價格爆發中體現出來——這反而可能是一個積聚已久的牛市信號。

一個具體例子：2025年4月，比特幣衝擊9萬5千美元強大阻力位時，市場觀察者注意到一些奇怪跡象。Binance的現貨CVD相對持平，即使價格逐步逼近95K，這顯示上升並非由大量激進買家掃貨推高。相反，似乎是被動限價盤推動了價格——換句話說，有買家，但他們只是在等賣方跌到他們設的買盤價位，讓價格慢慢上升，並非FOMO追高。與此同時，每次價格推上去，都有賣盤接力（CVD持平表示賣壓吸收了買入）。這種CVD背馳——價格創新高但CVD（買入成交量）無法同步創新高——往往會預示短線回調。當時，分析師警告市場必須「拍賣穿過95K這個重要賣單流動性」才可以維持升勢。本質上，除非有一波激進買盤出現（將CVD明顯推高）把95K的賣牆吃掉，否則升勢有機會受阻。事實上，95K最初確實難以攻破，證實了CVD背馳信號：儘管價格動作樂觀，暗藏的沽壓仍然存在。

越來越多交易員將這些買賣盤細節納入分析。另一個CVD用法是衡量不同交易所或地區之間的相對強弱。例如，可以比較美國Coinbase和主流亞洲交易所，或與DEX的CVD，看是哪一邊（或哪類平台）領先買入或沽售。TradingView的社群腳本甚至有一個計算「Spot vs Perp CVD Divergence」指標，將永續CVD從現貨CVD中扣減——數值正表示現貨市場比永續市場更偏牛（更多淨買入），負則代表永續比現貨更偏牛。這很有啟發性：現貨主導的升浪（現貨CVD領先）往往被視為較自然推動（可能是資金由現金轉入BTC），而永續主導的升浪多數為投機槓桿推動（容易反轉）。

進入ETF年代，理論上現貨市場會變得更重要，因為ETF最終的交易是在現貨市場。例如，BlackRock的AP買入時，都是在現貨交易所或者OTC買，不會在永續期貨市場操作。所以ETF大筆流入期間，預期現貨CVD理應走強。事實上，有分析師指出，2024–2025年某些價格走勢更明顯由現貨主導——例如比特幣升穿70K時，有穩定幣流入與現貨買盤（CVD上升）推動，而非單純期貨的空倉擠壓。這與過往某些升浪（如2019或2020年主要由BitMEX等高槓桿期貨平台帶動）有所不同。

不過，由於有精密套利者存在，期貨市場很快會跟上現貨，因此現貨與期貨CVD的差異是一個動態觀察。一旦現貨與期貨CVD背馳（例如一個上升一個下跌），就需要警惕。有經驗的交易員會用來嗅探潛在反轉或確認。例如，牛市CVD背馳是指：價格創出低點，CVD卻做出更高的低點——意味著即使價格再試低位，沽壓已逐步減弱，有機會反彈。而一個熊市背馳就像2025年4月的情景：價格衝高，CVD卻未能同步創高——買盤動能落後於價格，需要小心回調風險。

在實戰上，交易員會特別留意「被動」與「主動」買入的分別。ETF時代後，我們經常見到由被動買家（可理解為慢慢吸納的機構）主導升浪，但CVD卻沒有大幅飆升。也就是說，價格慢慢上移但CVD走勢平淡，代表買家在等賣方主動沽貨而非自己追價。有分析認為這是機構行為：機構一向不追價，他們會放冰山單、用算法慢慢吃貨等等。因此出現一種新型升勢：比特幣可以在成交量輕微但持續（CVD斜率很低）下慢慢爬升，這與過去散戶瘋狂入市的爆發性上升截然不同。這種走勢未必會觸發傳統動能警號，但與典型模式的背馳實屬值得關注。

總結而言，CVD及其背馳就像市場買盤和沽壓的X光，讓你看清價格行為背後的動因。ETF時代，大戶及新交易場景（如去中心化交易所、CME期貨ETF等）加入，要有這層X光分析變得更重要：這波升浪背後真有實盤買入？下跌時是恐慌性拋售還是純粹乏人問津？CVD分析正是解答這些問題的工具。上一輪牛市已精通鏈上數據的交易員，如今正重新學習CVD等訂單流指標以維持競爭優勢。

要密切留意跨市場比較：現貨對期貨、東方對西方、DEX對CEX。如果CVD在這些市場之間出現背馳，往往代表某方的敘事可能過於超前。例如，若DEX（可能是某大宗鏈上swap）出現大量買入CVD，而中心化交易所未有同樣反應，也許是DeFi巨鯨在積累，這還未反映在全球價格——是套利機會還是新信號？這些正是現今新世代分析師要問的細緻問題。事實上，CVD差距分析已成為解釋日內／短線價格變動不可或缺的指標，單靠成交量或價格圖未必捕捉到這些內涵。說到底，質比量更重要，而CVD正是我們觀察流動質素的窗口。

8. DEX vs CEX 價差基差：觀察DeFi與CeFi價格脫節

去中心化交易所（DEX）與鏈上交易的興起，為加密市場增添了新維度：即鏈上市場與傳統中心化交易所（CEX）之間短暫價格差異的可能性。ETF時代（尤其是在監管加強和大型機構進場後），追蹤DEX對CEX基差（價差或利差）變得尤為重要。這個指標簡單來說，就是觀察比特幣（或包裝比特幣）在DeFi場域與中心化場域之間的價格是否不一，以及其背後反映的意義。

歷史上，加密市場中經常出現地區或場館價差。例如韓國多年前著名的「泡菜溢價」，因資本管制和本地需求，導致比特幣在韓國交易所遠高於全球價格。又例如，當美國機構買盤熾熱時，Coinbase價格偶爾會比Binance略高。DEX對CEX的價差則是更近期的新現象：譬如在基於以太坊的DEX如Uniswap，或去中心化永續平台如dYdX、GMX，比特幣或其衍生工具的價格會否有別於Binance或Coinbase？

大部分時間，套利者都會令市場價格非常接近——但當出現偏差，就頗值得留意。持續的價差要麼反映套利有摩擦，要麼則顯示市場需求壓力不同。舉個例子：若某刻DeFi用戶突然大量買入（例如有人在Uniswap用USDC大額換WBTC），DEX上的WBTC價格就會瞬間升至全球價格以上。理論上套利者會介入：他們會在CEX買BTC後包裝成WBTC，然後於Uniswap高價沽出套利以抹平價格。但現實中，這種套利有成本（gas費、時間延遲、流動性有限等），所以少量差價時有出現。這些價差的規模和持續時間值得觀察。例如，若WBTC長期在DEX較Coinbase高0.5%，代表鏈上需求超過套利者供應——短線看好（套利者遲早會去CEX掃貨推高該處價格）。相反，若DEX或去中心化永續期貨平台出現低水或異常延遲，可能代表DeFi領域出現流動性問題或風險厭惡情緒。

再舉一個具體場景：若有監管打壓或中心化交易所停機（不是沒發生過），交易員就會轉投DEX作替代。如果（舉例）Binance暫停BTC提現（純屬假設），DEX價格可能立刻上揚，因為市場願意為鏈上BTC流動性多付溢價。這個價差帶來重要訊號：市場為抗審查、任何時候都能交易的場景多付出成本。又例如，在極端波動時，去中心化永續如GMX偶然會因定價或預言機設計，與傳統永續有不同融資費或價格異動。所謂期貨基差，是指期貨價與現貨價的分別。而「DEX基差」可以理解為去中心化永續的隱含價格與CEX實際現貨價格的對比。如果某DEX永續高水5%，這...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.

表示鏈上有大量槓桿開多倉，相對主流市場來講，可能唔可持續，好有機會會調整，或者對於可以同時沽空去中心化交易所永續合約、買現貨嘅人嚟講，會有套利空間。

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：美國監管氣氛比較緊張嘅時期，美國本土交易員可能會傾向用去中心化交易所去買比特幣敞口（為咗避免做KYC，或者佢哋已經唔再用某啲交易所）。咁樣就可能令鏈上池有明顯需求出現。反之，當美國ETF獲批，可能有啲海外或者DeFi交易員預期價位由ETF承擔，於是沽出手頭上持幣，短時間令去中心化交易所價格有折讓。

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.

另外，原生比特幣同包裝比特幣（Wrapped Bitcoin）都要留意。WBTC（以太坊上嘅包裝比特幣）或者其他鏈上類似嘅包裝幣，當價值同BTC脫鉤時要經託管商贖回。理論上，WBTC要1:1等值BTC，實際上大部份時間都係，但如果託管信心動搖，或者有人「走資」，WBTC可能會輕微折讓（過去大家擔心託管風險時出現過）。反過來，如果WBTC高水，會激勵商戶鎖倉BTC去鑄造多啲WBTC（就好似ETF有高水時AP會套利）。觀察兩者兌價，其實係另一種去中心化市場基差指標。

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).

咁交易員點用呢類指標？主要用嚟睇市場壓力同跨市場需求。正常情況下，去中心化交易所同中心化交易所價差好細。一旦有價差，通常代表有失衡。例如，若果見到去中心化交易所持續高水，可能代表鏈上資本（例如山寨幣獲利，DeFi孳息等）流入BTC，唔理傳統資金。而見到低水，可能有啲事發生（比如有大戶鏈上賣出，或者DeFi清算潮令本地價壓低，等套利資金介入）。

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.

例如過往曾有DeFi協議出現故障，果陣一度可以喺其平台用低過市價買到BTC，套利bot好快就抹平價差，但反應夠快就有著數。呢啲小細節都證明咗宏觀把握市場重要。ETF時代未有取代DeFi野蠻生長──甚至可能更精彩。大型機構玩CME、Coinbase之間的套利，但加密原住民就會喺Uniswap、Sushi、PancakeSwap、GMX、dYdX等DEX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.

總之，要監察：每當比特幣大上大落，都要望埋DEX。去中心化交易所同借貸平台價錢跟唔跟得上市場波動？如果比特幣抽升，但DEX流動性薄，價格可能會慢一拍跟唔上（或者低水）──咁代表有套利空間，或者DeFi交易員未信。相反，比特幣急跌但鏈上價格守得住（可能因為DEX交易員未咁快驚到沽貨），套利者入市掃平，可能就係階段性底部。

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.

呢啲指標未必有幾多個百分比咁直白，好多時都係價差幅度或者經驗之談。不過而家都已經成為分析工具箱嘅一部分。ETF時代底下，每個板塊都唔可以忽略：中心化機構資金、鏈上HODLer動向、同埋DeFi流動都會互相影響。識得睇市嘅人，一定會同時留意所有市場，更加著重留意唔同領域之間啲縫隙——因為資金好多時就係喺啲細縫位溜出溜入，背後都有故仔。

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（NVT）比率：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熱潮同機構主導之前，NVT比率等鏈上數據，都係好多人分析加密市場嘅主流指標。NVT即「網絡價值對交易量比率」，成日被形容為比特幣等於股票市盈率（P/E）。計法就係用比特幣市值（網絡價值）除以每日鏈上交易量（通常用移動平均值去平滑波動）。直覺上，如果比特幣價格同佢區塊鏈實際流轉價值比，太高——就可能係高估，就好似股票高市盈率。如果換手量多過價值，就可能係低估。

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.

過去歷史上，NVT升高會被視為泡沫訊號。例如價格炒上但鏈上交易量跟唔到，NVT就會抽升，代表價格遠離基本面。NVT偏低，反而可能代表低潮盤出或抵買（實際轉帳量多，價格反而平）。有啲分析員（如Willy Woo）將NVT推廣，更創出「NVT Signal」用移動平均去定義周期。實際上，好多時NVT頂見頂，NVT低見底。

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.

但去到2010年代尾開始，越嚟越多人發現NVT「唔夠準」。因為好多比特幣活動已經由主鏈轉咗去外部、L2（第二層解決方案）或者交易所。喺交易所託管下，幣可以經內部轉帳換手，唔會上到主鏈。ETF同中心化交易所託管大量幣，內部戶口之間轉移，表面上「冇鏈上交易」。咁NVT就會長期向上偏離，好似價值升得快過鏈上活動，令比特幣永遠都係過高估值。但其實唔係價格問題，而係「T」唔反映越來越多嘅鏈外經濟活動。

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.

一到2024–2025，現貨ETF世代，呢件事只會加劇：大量比特幣資產經ETF份額喺紐交所、股市等換手，鏈上交易統計唔到。投資者A賣咗$5000萬美金嘅IBIT ETF畀B，實際BTC仍然託管冇郁過，連一嘢鏈上交易記錄都冇。但因為ETF交易推動價位，NVT分母冇郁，分子市值升咗，計出嚟個比率只會愈嚟愈高，唔再代表以前嘅意思。

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.

有啲分析師專登點出個轉變。有啲人再微調NVT（譬如拉長移動平均、或者剔走明顯唔係經濟用途嘅交易），但總體趨勢就係：由於更多交易量搬去鏈外，NVT近年愈來愈高。好似Bitcoin Magazine Pro一份報告咁講：「NVT Signal一開始適合估頂，但越多幣搬去平台，NVT Signal效力就減弱。」另一個資料來源都指出：「越多投資者交易量去咗鏈外，特別係交易所，標準NVT會自然向上，要作出調整。」

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.

實際上，如果你而家睇NVT十年圖，就會見到2015年嘅「高」NVT同2025已經完全唔同水平。基線已經升咗。所以，如果而家見NVT 150，好高過歷史平均、就話比特幣要爆煲，其實可能係誤判——咁高NVT未必一定係泡沫，而係反映大量交易已經搬去鏈外。

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.

咁係咪NVT完全廢咗？都唔係，不過而家大家會小心啲用、會同其他數據一齊交叉睇。有啲人試下淨係計「有經濟意義」嘅鏈上交易（例如濾走自發自收同找贖），或者加埋Layer-2數據，但喺ETF時代，其實都覆蓋唔曬全部。NVT由當年鏈上分析嘅「星級指標」，而家退咗居二線。

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依然可以反映極端情況。如果NVT突然異常升到天價，仍然有機會係價格異常偏離實用（尤其係投機過熱）。不過「實用」而家應該加埋鏈外交易。例如，可以創新計法：將ETF交易量（折算BTC）加埋去鏈上交易量，再計NVT。咁樣會比較貼近實況——但目前未見係主流公開指標。

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.

對一般加密圈讀者嚟講，重點係：NVT指標喺ETF時代需要重新調校。如果見到Twitter有人貼NVT圖話「世界末日」定「極樂牛市」，最好睇清楚佢有冇計埋結構性轉變。NVT之父Willy Woo早喺2019年都話過：交易所、託管商影響已經需要調整，而ETF只係再推高呢個趨勢。

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.

可以假設：假如未來比特幣市值2萬億美金，主鏈每日交易量得50億美金，NVT = 400。以前睇呢個數，肯定會話價值超級高估。但如果果陣每日有500億美金比特幣ETF喺股票市場交易，另有200億CME期貨，咁真係用緊，但已經唔係NVT原本嗰個途徑。實際上，比特幣「獲利」（類比為交易量）喺好多平行金融系統度實現緊。

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.

咁交易員點跟進？好多人已經用替代指標，例如MVRV（下文介紹）、活躍地址數、或者算真實成交量。NVT未至於被遺棄，但大家傾時都會提醒佢嘅限制。市場上仲有「調整版NVT」或者NVT黃金比率（用長周期），但總結即係ETF新時代，單靠NVT已經唔夠用嚟做估值基準。

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：NVT網絡價值對交易量比率，已經唔再係從前咁直接去衡量比特幣合理估值。告訴我哋一個道理——生態變就要指標都變。近日NVT高企，未必等於有泡沫爆發，更可能係反映生態進化：愈嚟愈多價值、流動……Here is your requested translation in the specified format, with markdown links left untranslated as instructed.

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.

在主鏈層以外進行轉移。某程度上，NVT 高其實可能是「成熟」的特徵，而唔係缺陷；即係話網絡能夠以相對較少嘅鏈上交易，承載住更大嘅市值，因為好多交易都已經係批量處理或者係鏈下匯集咗嘅價值（例如，一個 ETF 創建 1000 BTC，鏈上可能只係見到一個交易，但呢 1000 BTC 可能係鏈下分配俾幾千個細投資者）。所以睇 NVT 嘅時候要保留一份懷疑。極端值或者趨勢都值得留意，但要放喺新形勢入面一齊解讀。

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

10. 市值與實現價值（MVRV）比率：老牌周期指標的新啟示

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).

另一個比特幣分析界老字號、但 ETF 之後值得重新審視嘅指標，就係 MVRV——市值與實現價值比率。如果話 NVT 係「比特幣嘅市盈率」，MVRV 就好似「價格對賬面值」或者更貼切係平均持有者利潤指標。計算方法係用比特幣市值（market cap）除以其實現市值（realized cap，即最尾一次移動嗰刻，全部幣總值）。實現價值就好似全網平均成本；每粒幣計佢上次動嗰下嘅價格，全部加埋。MVRV > 1 即係現價高過平均成本（即持有人平均有賺）；MVRV < 1 即係低過成本（平均蝕）。

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 一直係分辨牛熊極端位嘅好指標。過往牛頂嗰啲位，MVRV 成日都衝到 3、4 甚至更高——即係話平均持有者啲幣自上次移動以嚟，價值已經升咗三倍四倍（潛在利潤勁多，呢啲多數係過熱信號）。相反，殘酷熊市最低谷時，MVRV 曾經跌穿 1，甚至去到 0.5–0.7——即市價係比成本低 30–50%，通常見到大量拋售同嚴重低估。其實概念好直觀：MVRV 勁高，即枱面有好多利潤要實現，批人會拋售獲利，然後矯正。MVRV 勁低，即大部分人蝕緊，賣盤賣到攰，上升就順理成章。

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.

咁而家 ETF 時代對 MVRV 有咩影響？表面睇，好似唔及 NVT 咁直接，因為 MVRV 主要基於鏈上成本數據——任何幣一郁就會更新。但諗真啲，ETF 吸收供應時，好多幣都由賣家手上轉咗去 ETF 託管人，實現價值就根據而家價格刷新晒。即係話，當 ETF 手上收咗由長期持有者啲舊幣（例如以前 $20k 買，家陣 $60k 出售），實現市值自然升得快過市價升。當 realized cap 追得貼市值，MVRV 比率就會壓低。所以，雖然市價升咗，但舊幣「易主」嘅過程（即分母都升）會令 MVRV 唔會飆得過高。

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「換主」（多數經 ETF），其實壓抑咗 MVRV 嘅高位。當市值創歷史新高時，實現市值都一齊創新高，因為大量以前無郁過嘅幣都係高價轉手咗。呢個就解釋到點解 2025 年中，有人發現即使市價高, MVRV 都唔算特別高。例如，有資料指 2025 年 6 月 MVRV Z-score（關聯指標）其實只係 2.4 左右，無去返過往頂位（好多時 5 或 7 以上）咁極端。即使升市都持續偏低，因為幣不停移動導致實現價值不停上調，令 MVRV 壓抑。簡單講，有咁多買家（ETF 同其他）及時吸納老幣，使「未實現利潤」提前鎖定，未到極端高位就已經換手了。咁樣有可能令牛市唔會一下子爆頂，反而拖得較長，級級上升。

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 依然好有參考價值，特別係情況突然調轉。例如價跌得急但無人賣貨（之前換手嘅實現 cap 保持高位），咁市值可能會短暫低過實現價值，MVRV 落返 1 以下。依據過往熊市經驗，呢啲反而係超值低吸機會。當然，ETF 參與之後會唔會影響呢個邏輯仲有待觀察——跌市會唔會有 ETF 淨資金流走（即啲幣轉出去，realized cap 跌）？可能有，但未必成比例——部分機構大戶可能會死撐唔走，令 realized cap 係高位頂住。

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 持有啲幣計唔計入 realized cap？計嘅，因為當佢地轉去託管人時，係鏈上有 movement，已經重新設定成本。一旦進入託管未有郁過，realized cap 會穩定住。如果 ETF 長期持有，咁啲 coins 嘅 realized price 就等於當時買入價。如果市價跌穿呢個水平，啲幣同持有人都即時處於未實現虧損——歷史上，唔多 long-term 持有人可以永久死頂（總有一部分人會斬倉）。但如果而家啲持有人係觀點長線嘅機構，可能真係可以捱落去，realized cap 會keep 住高，MVRV 或因此跌得勁深。即係未來熊底未必同以前一樣修，可能急跌，或者冇以前咁低。

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.

仲有啲細微地方：而家 realized cap 裏好多都係較高價位轉手嘅幣（即 ETF 買入位）。咁即係供應有一大堆嘅成本都抬高咗，熊市時 MVRV 嘅地板可能都會高咗。以前好多幣成本勁低（初期玩家手中），所以熊市時市值可以跌到好貼 realized cap。家下 realized cap 高咁多，未來熊市 MVRV 可能唔會再跌穿 1 咁多，講得通。

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 依然係不可或缺嘅宏觀情緒、周期判斷指標之一。不過大家要明白，當市場經歷大量「換莊」，佢會變得更經常「重置」，易啲 reset。2025 年中，比特幣即使接近 $100k，MVRV Z-score 都顯示無過往咁極端。呢個都俾咗牛派信心：周期應該未頂，「仲有水位」，有評論就咁講。事實上，長線持有者已經將手上好多幣轉咗去 ETF，即係之後爆量賣出嘅人會唔會少啲？可能真係比以往少——咁最尾高位應該會更高，或者即使調整都唔會咁深。

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.

反之，如果未來 MVRV 又重返歷史極高位（例如 > 3.5 或 4，Z-score 入紅區），都依然係一個超熱警號。嗰時可能 ETF 增長開始放慢，市場剩低都係賺錢位，好危險。屆時就要密切留意 ETF 流向會唔會逆轉（好似 2024 年尾咁）及長期持有者會唔會終於都鎖定利潤沽貨。

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 時代未有令 MVRV 失效，但佢已經溫和咗，就似舊時好準嘅 thermometer，因病人轉咗底子，指數都會有啲唔同，但依然係觀察市場過熱或嚴重被低估時嘅必睇指標。最緊要係睇大環境，一齊參考：如果 MVRV 高，而 ETF 淨流入停滯、CDD 飆高，即係危險信號；如果 MVRV 低，而 ETF 仲繼續入貨，CDD 亦低（話即係強手頂住），咁過往通常係超抵買信號。

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.

最終，NVT 及 MVRV 呢對老牌鏈上指標，加埋新時代 ETF 同市場結構數據，先至拼得出最全面局面。即使而家持有人由 Cypherpunk 加到華爾街精英，MVRV 依然係鏈上數據同投資者行為之間不可或缺嘅橋樑。

Final thoughts

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.

比特幣市場一直都係進化史——由 cypherpunk 實驗，到投機狂熱，由散戶主導嘅牛市，到礦工 capitulation。到咗 ETF 之後，仲進化多一步：傳統金融力學同比特幣固有、透明區塊鏈數據嘅融合一齊出現。我哋有新工具理解價錢同情緒背後嘅驅動因子。

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

我哋以上討論過嘅十大指標，可以講係今時今日觀察比特幣不可或缺嘅全面儀表板：

ETF creation and redemption flows reveal the tidal forces of institutional money entering or leaving.
ETF 新發行與贖回流量（ETF creation and redemption flows）：反映咗機構資金出入洪流。
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).
AP（授權參與者）套利價差：即時解讀 ETF 需求同市場效率，提示大戶有無利可圖（或幾時退出）。
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.
儲備證明時滯：保障系統真實，確保檯面發生嘅每一單，都有鏈上數據配合——呢個亦係 crypto 透明同傳統金融規模融合之下嘅新挑戰。
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.
貝萊德 IBIT 淨流入（BlackRock’s IBIT inflows）及其同業，已經係「華爾街比特幣」心跳，一個最直接有力評估大戶胃納的方式。
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.
ETF 持有總供應量：追蹤幾多比特幣已經「入倉」做機構產品，慢慢轉手但對長期供應有極大參考。
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.
銷毀幣天數（Coin Days Destroyed）繼續紀錄著最大資深持有人行動，佢地何時持幣、何時出貨，經常係每輪升浪嘅序曲同終章。
CVD divergences zoom into the order books, deciphering whether price moves are built on solid buy/sell foundations or air pockets of passive activity.
CVD（累積成交差異）背馳：深度解讀訂單簿內情，判斷升跌係貨真價實還是「虛火」。
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.
去中心化 vs 中心化交易所基差（DEX vs CEX basis gaps）：提醒大家，唔同市場唔一定同步，去中心化同中心化有咩分別、基差點解會有，背後資訊同套利空間都值得拆解。
NVT ratio teaches us humility – that no metric is infallible once the game changes, and that Bitcoin’s
NVT 比率提醒大家要謙卑——遊戲規則一變，冇一個指標係永遠萬無一失，而比特幣嘅...Here is your requested translation, following your formatting instructions (skipping markdown links):

「基礎因素」其實可以用多種指標去表達，唔只局限於 on-chain 交易量。
MVRV 比率就好似投資者嘅指南針，指示住而家處於市場週期嘅咩位，不過而家因為啲幣不停換人手，呢個指標都不斷要校正。

對一般加密貨幣讀者嚟講，掌握呢啲指標其實係一種武裝，可以幫你穿透嗰啲炒作或者恐慌嘅雜音。咁你唔使再聽到「BlackRock 買緊貨」或者「大戶賣緊貨」嗰啲摸唔著頭腦嘅故事，而係直接睇到啲數據：BlackRock 嘅資產管理規模（AUM）一路上；Coin Days Destroyed 因為大戶搬幣而暴升；你個圖表有 pump 時 CVD 線分岔。每個指標就好似同一場波賽唔同鏡頭－一個睇攻勢，一個睇防守，一個睇觀眾反應，一個睇教練部署。齊齊睇晒，先至睇到全盤大局。

而事實上，今時今日 Bitcoin 這場大賽已經有咗新嘅主角。BlackRock 嘅一系列產品－以 IBIT ETF 為首－其實已經成為好多信號嘅「煤礦金絲雀」。當 IBIT 流入源源不絕，價格都明顯硬淨（即使有啲舊指標例如 NVT 呈現偏高）；而 IBIT 停止或者有流出嗰陣，亦正正撞正其他指標發出調整警告。金絲雀本身唔係推動市場變化嗰個，但通常第一個有反應。例如，ETF 吸納咗長線持有者賣出啲貨幣，證實咗長線持有者的確賣緊；如果冇咗呢啲 ETF 流入，可能價格會插到冇影，但有咗佢哋，沽壓就有承接。依家睇 BlackRock 同其他大行，已經變成咗睇 Bitcoin 必須嘅一部分。

呢個都係一個融合嘅故事：on-chain 純粹派同華爾街分析員而家其實都喺睇差唔多嘅圖表，只係由唔同角度切入。一個行內老手，會睇交易所存款同 CDD 去判斷市場係吸納定派貨；ETF 分析員就睇資金流向同溢價－但兩者都係用唔同工具，分析緊同一個市場。今時今日，要睇得清楚，懂得兩種方法同時運用，就最掂。

ETF 面世以後，市場係複雜咗，但同時成熟咗。冇一個指標可以單憑自己俾你完整答案（其實以往都未必得）。但集合埋嚟睇，就變成多角度揸位。解釋到點解依家有啲經典信號（如 MVRV 或 NVT）會閃唔同顏色－唔係佢壞咗，而係市場背後嘅運作模式闊咗。而家大型、受規管產品影響力上升，但同時基層網絡運行依然好重要。

無論你係炒家定揸住唔郁都好，留意住呢十個指標，可以決定你係咪睇到前面冰山或者只係望到水面：升市係咪真實需求支撐，定只係空殼加槓桿刺激？啲數據會話你知－好似 ETF 新創數量激增、現貨 CVD 硬淨（偏牛），定係幣價抽高但 CDD 都跟住彈（派貨赤字信號）。係咪近頂部？查下 MVRV 同過去紅色區域，睇吓 ETF 流入係咪已經乾水。跌市係咪撈貨機會？咁就要睇下 MVRV 係咪近歷史低位、長線持有者有冇郁（低 CDD），同時 ETF 有冇靜雞雞加倉－呢種價與吸納出現背馳，正正就係機遇嘅信號。

最後，其實 Bitcoin 一直都係融合新舊－攞傳統貨幣同信任嘅概念，用新技術重新改寫。今時今日又再來過：舊有指標，加上新形勢一齊用。結果就係，隨時都睇得更清楚、更細膩，了解住點解 Bitcoin 會咁郁。無論你係短線 day trader、長期信徒，定係純粹好奇心重，只要將呢啲指標納入你嘅雷達，就可以分清宣傳與事實。ETF 後時代已經嚟咗，數據比以前多更多－識用的話，你就可以信心十足、清清楚楚咁迎接 Bitcoin 下一章。