比特幣ETF時代：10項加密貨幣交易者必須關注的關鍵市場指標

現貨比特幣ETF推出為加密貨幣市場帶進全新時代——一個充滿嶄新數據點與市場動態變化的時代。當傳統金融巨擘如BlackRock、富達(Fidelity)等陸續發行比特幣ETF時，不僅釋放了龐大的機構資金，同時也帶來了大量新的指標，讓交易者得以細細觀察。

忽然間，像是創造單位流(creation-unit flows)、AP（授權參與者）套利價差(AP-arbitrage spreads)及金庫儲備證明延遲等概念，成為了新時代的市場語言。這些新指標加入了原本熟悉的鏈上數據，而眾多因ETF誕生而來的新指標，對理解比特幣價格的“beta”（即相對於整體市場因素的變動）更具啟發性，有時甚至優於過去經典指標，如NVT或MVRV。

為什麼這種轉變如此重要？簡而言之，比特幣的投資者基礎和市場結構正快速演變。現貨ETF提供了一個受監管的股票型渠道來購買BTC，並在短時間內吸引了數十億美元資金。例如，自推出後短短18個月，美國現貨比特幣ETF總淨流入約500億美元，類似BlackRock的iShares Bitcoin Trust等基金持有超過70萬顆BTC。短短一年半內，這相當於將全市場3至5%的比特幣供應從開放市場中取走。在大量比特幣進入ETF託管的情況下，交易者自然特別關注與這些基金運作相關的種種數據和影響。

同時，長期持有者（HODLer）與原生加密貨幣交易員也正在調整策略。一些傳統鏈上指標已不足以解釋全部現象。以被視為比特幣「本益比」的Network Value to Transactions（NVT）為例，以往數字過高會被視為「估值過高」，但現今這些異常可能僅是因為交易量大量轉向ETF或其他場外產品，而非真正的泡沫訊號。類似地，市場價值與實現價值（MVRV）指標曾被用來判斷牛熊頂部或底部，但現在必須結合大額比特幣進入機構金庫的背景來詮釋。總而言之，舊指標依舊重要，但新指標在ETF時代可能更客觀地佐證甚至取而代之。

以下整理出後ETF時代每位加密貨幣觀察者都應關注的十大核心市場指標。我們將解析每個指標的意義、其現階段的重要性，以及它如何影響交易者對比特幣市場的理解。從ETF份額創建流、套利價差的細節，到鏈上與去中心化交易所上供給變化的細膩訊號，這些都是現代比特幣交易者的導航明燈。事實上，BlackRock自家的比特幣產品套件，往往成為市場健康的「金絲雀」，確認或挑戰著每個指標所揭示的訊號。接下來，讓我們一同深入探討。

1. 創造單位流：追蹤ETF資金進出

現貨ETF時代最受關注的其中一項指標，就是創造單位流，也就是比特幣進出ETF的淨流量。當一個現貨比特幣ETF獲得新資金流入，並不是憑空創造比特幣，而是由授權參與者（AP）向基金發行人交付現金（或比特幣），發行人則將對等數量的BTC加入ETF持倉。這個流程，稱為「創造」，通常以標準批次執行，每個創造單位代表一大批ETF份額（視ETF設計而定，一個單位可能對應5顆、10顆BTC）。相反地，當資金撤出時則稱為「贖回」，即BTC從基金中移除，再將現金或BTC返還給AP。藉由觀察創造與贖回行為，交易者得以直接掌握這些基金帶動的新比特幣需求與供給。

為什麼這麼重要？因為這反映了機構資金的信心與實力。大量且穩定的創造流，代表龐大資金正經由ETF湧入比特幣——對市場需求是明顯利多。反之，巨額贖回則顯示資金流出，若無其他市場吸納，可能對價格形成下壓。舉例來說，美國現貨比特幣ETF於2024年1月首度上市時，就爆發創造潮，體現出長期壓抑的需求。首日交易，通過Bitwise、Fidelity及BlackRock等機構領軍的新比特幣ETF，合計吸引7.21億美元資金流入，這等於這些基金大量買入比特幣實際作為新份額的儲備，明確證實買盤來襲。正如某分析師所言，這正凸顯了SEC多年阻擋此類產品後所累積的「積壓需求」。

隨著時間推移，創造單位流已成市場趨勢的晴雨表。2024至2025年多頭時期，多數ETF連續多週出現淨流入。曾出現美國現貨比特幣ETF連15天淨流入的驚人紀錄，帶動比特幣一路攀升新高。這段期間，每天都有更多BTC進入ETF金庫——明顯顯示（多數是經由財富管理顧問及機構資金）投資人正佈局多方。反之，該趨勢首次明顯反轉被視為警訊：2024年12月，聯準會會議後比特幣價格跌破六位數，ETF單日出現6.719億美元最大單日贖回紀錄。AP一次性贖回大量份額，ETF被迫釋出約6,500顆BTC至市場。這麼大的流出終結了那波15連勝，打破穩定資金流入的模式，暗示市場情緒可能步入觀望或風險趨避。

值得一提的是，創造/贖回的交易量有時會具迷惑性，並非所有ETF份額創建都是簡單的「買進並持有」操作。有很大一部分來自套利驅動的交易（後文將詳述）——對沖基金創建或贖回ETF份額，目的是利用價格差，而非真心看好比特幣行情。Real Vision執行長Raoul Pal估算，新ETF的淨流入中，可能有三分之二其實是套利基金造成，而非長期零售投資者主導。Pal表示：「如果這推論正確，那代表ETF大部分流入只是套利者，零售投資尚未成為主力。」換言之，部分創造單位流僅反映快錢交易人藉由平衡不同市場ETF份額與比特幣來賺取差價，而非退休基金單純買入比特幣曝險。交易者在解讀創造流量時，如今多半會加上這層背景。不過，即使由套利推動的創造，本質上也反映間接需求，因為只有當ETF或相關商品需求被推高時，套利機會才會出現。

未來記得定期密切觀察各大ETF每日、每週的創造/贖回數據。許多ETF發行單位都會每日更新流通份額或管理資產規模(AUM)，可換算成該基金內比特幣量。創造單位急增（即AUM飆升），就像「巨鯨」大買盤，大量比特幣從交易所轉入ETF冷錢包；相反地，如出現集體贖回，則如大型持有者拋售。在ETF主導的新時代，這些流動會實質影響市場，也常解釋傳統鏈上派難以理解的價格走勢。當巨額資金經ETF進出市場時，創造單位流就是其痕跡，已成理解市場動能與反向力量的核心指標。

2. AP套利價差：溢價/折價做為情緒溫度計

與創造流同步出現的另一指標，是AP套利價差——即ETF市場價格與其每股所對應的比特幣淨資產價值（NAV）間的價差。乍聽之下似乎很理論化，但實際卻是衡量供需失衡以及ETF機制運作效率的關鍵指標。其原理如下：理論上，現貨比特幣ETF的價格應始終接近其實際持有比特幣的價值。如每股代表0.0001 BTC，ETF份額價格就應等於0.0001顆BTC的市價；若更高則為溢價，低於則為折價。AP（大型交易公司）有責任將價差套利抹平。例如，當ETF以高出NAV 2%的價格交易時，AP可藉由以NAV買比特幣後，換成ETF新份額，再在市場上以2%溢價賣出，賺取差價。這會提高ETF供給，理論上將價格壓低至接近NAV。反之，若出現折價，則會促使贖回（低價買ETF份額、換得更高市值的BTC、然後出售BTC套利）。這樣的套利過程，正是維持ETF價格貼近其資產價值的核心機制。

溢價/折價的幅度與持續時間，解讀起來意義重大。如果ETF長期處於溢價，代表市場需求旺盛，AP難以及時跟上，這既是多頭訊號，也可能暴露一些如流通摩擦或風險限制削弱套利效率。相反，若長期折價，則顯示賣壓大於買盤，需求疲弱（如歷史上的Grayscale比特幣信託時常見現象）。美國現貨ETF早期交易時期，就曾經出現短暫溢價，因零售興奮於AP尚未來得及補充BTC造成。上市首日，部分ETF甚至一度高於NAV，為手快者帶來豐厚套利機會。如同一則分析所言：「如果ETF處於溢價，... 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.

未來會有創建流程。授權參與者（AP）做空價格較高的ETF份額，然後以較低的淨資產價值（NAV）創建ETF份額，從而捕捉利潤。這正是我們所看到的——ETF交易量非常大（在新基金上市第一天就超過47億美元），遠遠超過了實際的淨流入，這意味著大量的短期換手，以及在這當中可能發生的套利行為。

Over time, the premium/discount of ETFs has generally stayed small (often within ±1%), showing the arbitrage system works. But the direction of that spread is an excellent sentiment pulse. For instance, during periods of intense buying (say, Bitcoin breaking a new high), ETF prices have tended to tilt to a slight premium, reflecting eager buyers who lift the offer on ETF shares faster than APs can create new ones. Traders watch for those moments – a premium can be a leading indicator that big buy pressure is coming in. Likewise, if ETFs start to consistently trade at a discount, it might mean outflow pressure is building that could spill into the broader market. We saw a hint of this in late 2024: as Bitcoin began to slip off record highs, the one-month CME futures premium dipped below 10% annualized (down from much hotter levels) and ETFs started to trade nearer to – or slightly below – their NAV. A CoinDesk report noted this decline in premium was a sign of “waning short-term demand,” and indeed it coincided with those record daily outflows mentioned earlier. Essentially, when the easy arbitrage profits dried up (because ETF prices were no longer bid above fair value), the arbitrage-driven inflows also slowed, removing one support for continued ETF growth in the short term.

隨著時間推移，ETF的溢價/折價通常都保持在一個很小的範圍（多半在±1%以內），這顯示套利系統運作良好。但這個價差的方向本身就是一個絕佳的市場情緒溫度計。舉例來說，在強勁買盤期間（例如比特幣創新高時），ETF價格傾向於出現輕微溢價，反映出急切的買家提高買入ETF份額價格的速度快於AP能新創份額的速度。交易者會特別留意這些時刻——溢價往往是強勁買盤壓力即將到來的領先指標。同理，如果ETF開始持續折價交易，可能代表賣壓正在累積，甚至可能波及更廣泛的市場。2024年底我們就看到這樣的徵兆：比特幣自歷史新高滑落時，CME一個月期貨的溢價年化跌破10%（之前遠高於這水平），ETF價格逐漸接近甚至略低於其淨值（NAV）。CoinDesk報告指出，這種溢價下滑反映「短線需求正在減弱」，而這正好與當時創紀錄的日流出台數相呼應。基本上，當套利的輕鬆利潤消失（ETF價格不再高於公允價值時），以套利為動力的資金流入也隨之放緩，短期內少了一個支撐ETF持續增長的動力。

Another angle to AP arbitrage spreads is how they relate to futures markets. Some hedge funds use a cash-and-carry trade: buying ETF shares (long Bitcoin exposure) while shorting Bitcoin futures, to harvest the difference in yields. When ETFs trade rich or futures trade rich, the dynamics of that trade shift. In December 2024, the CME futures premium dropping into single digits made this carry trade less attractive, which in turn meant fewer arbitrage creations of ETF shares. The result: softer demand for new ETF units and a mild cooling of inflows. It’s a fascinating feedback loop where ETF premiums, futures basis, and flows all interact.

AP套利價差與期貨市場之間也有密切關聯。有些對沖基金會進行現貨-期貨套利——買入ETF份額（等同於做多比特幣），同時放空比特幣期貨，從中賺取利差。當ETF或期貨溢價太高時，這種套利交易的吸引力會改變。2024年12月，CME期貨的溢價降落到個位數，這讓套利空間縮小，使得以套利動機新創ETF份額的意願減少。結果就是：新ETF份額需求轉弱，流入也略有降溫。這是一個有趣的市場反饋循環——ETF溢價、期貨基差和資金流動相互影響。

For the average crypto investor, the takeaway is: keep an eye on the ETF market price vs NAV (many financial sites and ETF issuers publish real-time indicative NAVs). A consistently positive spread (premium) suggests the market is willing to pay a markup – often a bullish sign – whereas a negative spread (discount) can be a warning of brewing selling pressure or at least arbitrageurs about to step in and sell the underlying. It’s a metric that blends market sentiment with mechanical market structure. In the post-ETF world, this spread has essentially become Bitcoin’s “Wall Street fear/greed gauge” in miniature, fluctuating with demand surges and risk-off waves. And remember, when that gauge tilts too far, the APs – the anonymous giants behind the scenes – will swoop in to profit, bringing the market back in line and, in the process, affecting Bitcoin’s supply-demand balance directly.

對一般加密貨幣投資人來說，重點就是：持續關注ETF市價與NAV的差距（很多金融網站和ETF發行商都會即時公布NAV指標）。若持續出現正價差（溢價），代表市場願意支付溢價購買——通常是多頭訊號；反之，若價格出現折價，則可能是賣壓醞釀的警訊，或至少說明套利者即將逢高賣出現貨。這個數據同時反映了市場情緒和市場結構。現今ETF時代，這個價差已經變成迷你版的比特幣「華爾街恐懼/貪婪指標」，隨著需求暴增或避險浪潮上下震盪。記住，當這個指標偏離太多時，幕後的AP們——這些匿名的大戶——就會趁勢出手套利，把市場價格拉回正軌，並直接影響比特幣的供需平衡。

3. Vault Proof-of-Reserve Lags: Mind the Gap Between Paper and Bitcoin

一個隨著現貨比特幣ETF興起而出現的獨特疑慮是：我們如何確定ETF真的持有應有的比特幣？在加密社群裡，「不要相信，要驗證」深入人心，也因此催生了所謂的資產儲備證明（proof-of-reserves, PoR）概念——用加密方法證明託管方確實持有它聲稱的資產。隨著傳統金融巨頭透過ETF涉足加密產業，有個值得關注的新指標，就是ETF資產儲備更新的時效和透明度，也就是俗稱的資金池PoR延遲（vault PoR lag）。簡單來說：新ETF份額創建時（代表基金應該買入更多BTC），這些比特幣究竟多快會出現在基金託管錢包的鏈上？如果出現明顯延遲，可能說明發行方在用「IOU」或內部結算，尚未真正完成區塊鏈上的最終結算。

這個問題在2024年年中很突出——有流言傳出，Coinbase作為許多新ETF的主要託管方，可能採用「紙比特幣」或延遲配置來因應ETF的資金流入。雖然ETF報告顯示流入巨大，但比特幣價格卻連續數月異常平穩，讓部分人開始猜測，發行方或許未即時在鏈上買入等量比特幣，而僅發行以後補BTC為背書的份額。換句話說，就是鏈上資產儲備證明的延遲，這也讓市場感到不安。投資人和分析師因此開始要求對每一筆ETF份額創建都要有鏈上的驗證，基本上就是希望Coinbase能證明，舉例如果新增1000 BTC價值的份額，就應該很快有1000 BTC進入ETF的公開錢包地址。

BlackRock對這疑慮相當重視。2024年9月，他們向SEC提交IBIT信託新修正條款，明確規定提款與結算時效。條款要求，任何因新創ETF份額而應支付給信託的比特幣，都必須在12小時內鏈上轉入託管人錢包。在備查文件中，BlackRock具體說明：「Coinbase Custody必須自接獲客戶（此處為BlackRock基金）指令起，於12小時內將比特幣由託管帳戶提出並轉移至公開的區塊鏈地址。」換言之，如果BlackRock說「Coinbase，我們賣了新ETF份額需要再加500 BTC到我們金庫」，Coinbase必須12小時內在鏈上反映出這些新幣入帳。這直接回應了市場傳言，目的是向投資人保證ETF領域沒有搞部分準備制的把戲。

Coinbase執行長Brian Armstrong也公開回應FUD（恐慌、不確定與懷疑）。他解釋，所有ETF份額的「發行與贖回」最終都會在區塊鏈上結算，但機構級客戶通常有短線融資或OTC選項，以加速交易前置流程。換言之，Coinbase可能會短暫墊付或動用內部流動性，讓ETF發行商能即時操作，但一天結束前（「約一個工作天內」，Armstrong表示），所有變動都會反映在Prime Vault的鏈上。稍有延遲是所有機構客戶「常態」，不是沒結算——只是有時延遲。

為什麼這對交易者很重要？因為如果資產儲備證明有重大延遲或落差，會直接影響短期供給，也可能暗示市場有非常態的現象。如果ETF公告巨額流入，卻沒看到已知託管錢包有等量比特幣進帳，就表示這些買單在市場上尚未出現，等託管方之後才買進。這種訊息很有價值——等於你「事前知道」有一批買單還沒真正在市場成交。反過來，若ETF用衍生品對沖或其他方式，並沒有買現貨比特幣（也就是最糟的「紙比特幣」情境），那麼預期的價格拉抬壓力根本不會出現，這對於押注這種行情的人來說非常關鍵。

到目前為止，並沒有證據顯示有重大違規——所有擔憂多半都是預防性或假設性的。而BlackRock那項「12小時結算」條款，以及其他業者跟進，意味著驗證延遲的空間正在收縮。但這次爭議本身也展現出ETF時代的新警覺要求。現在，交易者有時會在鏈上持續追蹤ETF託管錢包餘額，對照官方流入數字有沒有如期增加。任何不尋常的延遲，常常會成為加密推特上的話題。有次，Tron創辦人孫宇晨（向來愛搞話題）就公開質疑Coinbase對其包裝比特幣（cbBTC）缺乏明確的資產儲備證明，稱如果信任流失「比特幣將迎來黑暗時刻」。

好消息是目前ETF提供者積極維護信任機制。BlackRock堅持即時鏈上結算，加上Coinbase本身已成美國加密ETF的主流託管方（截至2024年底，管了美國11檔ETF中的8檔，約9成資產），都設定了高標準。最值得追蹤的指標就是ETF資產儲備更新的速度和規律。如果你很專業，可以直接用區塊鏈瀏覽器，甚至Dune Analytics看即時ETF託管地址餘額。若這些帳戶開始出現與官方數據不符的延遲，不但可能是預警，也可能是交易曝險（例如，某筆大買單還沒真正進場——或許有機會搶早入場）。

總結來說，PoR延遲的存在，就是為了讓ETF發行者誠實，確保市場透明。在ETF時代，加密精神的透明要求已慢慢滲入傳統金融商品。能留意ETF份額數字與實際比特幣進帳之間落差的交易者，可能在把握短期流動性方面獲得優勢。更廣義來看，這個指標也說明市場格局已徹底改變：哪有別的資產市場要求散戶能親眼看到資產真的從一個公共帳戶地址搬到另一個？但對比特幣來說，這已經成為常態。

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.

很難高估BlackRock的iShares比特幣信託（IBIT）在這個新格局中的象徵與實質影響。全球最大資產管理公司BlackRock正式進軍比特幣市場，被視為加密產業的一個分水嶺。And true to expectations, once IBIT launched, it rapidly became the dominant player among Bitcoin ETFs – so much so that many traders now treat IBIT’s inflow/outflow figures as a proxy for overall institutional demand. In other words, if you had to pick one product to watch as the pulse of “big money” interest in Bitcoin, IBIT would be it.

如預期的一樣，IBIT 一經推出，便迅速成為比特幣 ETF 中的主導者——甚至到了一個地步，許多交易者現在將 IBIT 的資金流入/流出數據視為機構性需求的代表。換句話說，如果你只能選擇一個產品來觀察「大資金」對比特幣興趣的脈動，那就是 IBIT。

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.

來看看一些數據。到 2025 年 7 月，也就是推出約一年半後，貝萊德（BlackRock）的 IBIT 已經累積了 700,000 枚比特幣，資產規模約 760 億美元。將這個數字換個角度來看，光是 IBIT 就持有的比特幣數量，比接下來最大的兩支基金——富達（Fidelity）的 Wise Origin BTC 基金（FBTC）和 Grayscale（現為 ETF）的產品——加起來還多，這兩者分別持有約 203,000 及 184,000 枚比特幣。IBIT 的強勢成長甚至讓它成為貝萊德旗下最大型的 ETF 之一，不論是加密貨幣類型還是其它領域。事實上，到 2025 年中，IBIT 已經是貝萊德近 1,200 支基金中第三大營收來源，資產規模甚至超過一些熱門主流 ETF，如 iShares S&P 500 基金（IVV）。對於一支加密貨幣基金來說，這是一項驚人的成就，也確立了 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.

這些數據為什麼重要？因為 IBIT 的資金流入與流出具有牽動市場的意義。若 IBIT 持續有資金流入，代表貝萊德的授權參與者（AP）正在市場上不斷購買比特幣（或協助將比特幣轉入託管），這種背景買盤壓力能推升價格或至少吸收賣壓。事實上，ETF 分析師們認為，貝萊德的產品組合，在加密原生需求較弱的時期，實質上支撐了比特幣市場。正如彭博 Eric Balchunas 在回應「紙比特幣」說法時打趣指出，實際情況是長期持有者（「HODLers」）確實趁漲勢賣出，而真正持續吸收比特幣的其實是這些 ETF——特別是貝萊德——「一次又一次將比特幣價格從深淵中拯救出來」。在他看來，怪罪 ETF 導致價格停滯是不對的，其實 IBIT 像金絲雀一樣提供了市場信號——假如沒有這些資金流入，修正可能會更加劇烈。

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 的流向其實很簡單，只需監控貝萊德每天的資產管理規模（AUM）報告，或是其託管帳戶的公開鏈上資料即可。例如，在第一波大規模關注期間，IBIT 資金連日穩定增長。據報導，連續好幾週沒有一天出現資金淨流出。CoinDesk 指出，到 2024 年底，IBIT 已經連續數週錄得資金流入，直到很久之後才出現「第一個零流量日」（意指當天沒有資金流入或流出，終止連續增長紀錄）。即使在創紀錄的大規模 ETF 資金流出日，IBIT 本身也能做到持平——這證明其持有者黏著度較高或持續受到關注。IBIT 走勢如何，往往代表著整體 ETF 市場的走向。

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 之所以又是關鍵觀察指標，還因為貝萊德的品牌與通路優勢，意味著它會吸納大量新進入比特幣市場的投資人。理財顧問、機構，甚至部分經由券商進場的散戶，往往都會選擇流動性最好、知名度最高的基金——IBIT 正是一例。因此，IBIT 資金大幅流入往往意味著有新一波採用潮，或某大型基金加碼。相反地，倘若 IBIT 開始不斷流出比特幣，可能象徵機構情緒逆轉，或有競爭者在搶走資產（例如出現更低管理費或更創新的產品）。

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.

我們除了關注 IBIT 之外，也會追蹤貝萊德整體的產品組合。前文提到，貝萊德的產品組合就像是金絲雀——事實上，到 2025 年中，貝萊德也已申請或推出更多加密產品（例如以太坊信託 ETF 及多資產數位基金等）。雖然這些超出比特幣範疇，但貝萊德的動作經常驗證市場新趨勢。如果他們積極擴展加密產品線，代表其認定市場有持續需求。而如果 IBIT 的流向與價格還是緊密連動，或流入中斷時剛好出現在市場高點，那本身就成為一種領先指標。

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，假設比特幣價格在區間高點盤整，鏈上交易也不熱絡，有些鏈上分析師可能擔心即將回調。但你打開 IBIT 的每日報告發現，該基金當天又增持了 2,000 枚比特幣——這是很可觀的流入。這顯示資金仍在進場，即使這一點在交易所上還不明顯。這或許會讓你重新考慮是不是該在高檔放空，畢竟貝萊德的「金絲雀」還在唱著多頭的歌。反過來說，若比特幣下跌，IBIT 又連續幾天出現資金淨流出，這就值得警戒——代表一個重要的安全網（機構逢低承接）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，貝萊德 IBIT 的資金流向，現已成為市場健康的核心指標。這體現了更廣泛的機構採納趨勢。當交易者談到「機構買盤」或「機構賣壓」時，越來越多都能指向 IBIT 的數據佐證。貝萊德所管理的比特幣絕對數量龐大，其資金進出幾乎等同於整體機構的資金流動。只要 IBIT 的金庫持續膨脹，多頭就有一項堅實的數據支撐；反之，若態勢逆轉，空頭也會嗅到機會。因此，務必密切留意每週動態——IBIT 是重達 800 磅的大猩猩，它往哪動，整個叢林（比特幣市場）都會感受到。

5. Bitcoin Held by ETFs (Supply Absorption): A New Era of Scarcity?

5. ETF 持有的比特幣（供給吸收）：一個稀缺性新時代？

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.

ETF 浪潮帶來的一項更具宏觀意義的觀察指標，是 ETF 持有的比特幣總量——進一步來說，就是流通 BTC 被這些投資工具吸收的百分比。這個指標代表比特幣供需關係的根本性轉變。當幣轉入 ETF 通常會由託管機構冷錢包保管，實質上在很長一段時間內等同於從流通供給中移除，直到有人贖回 ETF 份額為止（而如我們所見，這一情況常常很久才發生）。本質上，比特幣 ETF 創造了一條「單行道」流動性：牛市時有大量幣流入（鎖定供給），但資金流出往往較為遲緩，除非出現重大市場下跌或有套利誘因贖回。

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.

在 ETF 時代之後，觀察有多少 BTC 被鎖在 ETF 裡，有點像是在看新的「Hodl 波動」，但這次推動者是機構累積。相關數字急速攀升：到 2024 年底，也就是啟動不到一年，美國現貨比特幣 ETF 合計已替投資人鎖定鏈上 90 萬枚以上的比特幣。如前述，到 2025 年中，這個數字很可能突破 100 萬枚，貝萊德就佔了 70 萬，再加上富達、Grayscale 轉型 ETF 等機構的數十萬枚。換句話說，100 萬枚約佔流通比特幣總量（2025 年中是約 1,940 萬枚）的 5%。五分之一比特幣現在居於 ETF 內，十分驚人；反觀 2024 前幾乎是零（GBTC 本身性質有些不同）。有些單一基金吃下的流通幣比重更驚人——單是 IBIT 就佔約 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.

為什麼要追蹤這數字？因為比特幣越多被長期載體鎖住，開放市場可用的供給就越稀少。若需求不變或上升、流通供給又不斷鎖死，自然有利於價格——典型的稀缺性論述。這和黃金 ETF 啟動後對黃金市場的衝擊類似：2004 年 SPDR Gold Shares（GLD）上市後，短時間內就在金庫中累積數百噸黃金。有分析師認為這促成了 2000 年代金價的上漲，因為創造新需求並將供給移出市場。我們現在或許正在比特幣身上重演這一模式。每一次 ETF 份額的增發，也就是比特幣從流動性較強的環境（交易所、個人錢包）轉移到極少釋出的機構金庫。這可以降低下跌時波動（能被砸盤的數量減少），但如果某日金庫大量釋放，也會集中釋放風險。

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

目前為止，趨勢明顯是淨累積。就算偶爾有資金流出，從 2024 年 1 月到 2025 年 7 月，資金進場一直在上升，淨流入總額已經達到 500 億美元以上。不過，2025 年一個有趣現象是，這種累積並未讓價格立即大幅飆升。有些人原本以為市場消化 100 萬枚 BTC 會引爆供給危機與暴漲，實際上比特幣價格是比較溫和地上漲、也曾遇到周期性拋壓。為什麼？很可能是長期持有者與礦工趁高賣出。ETF 和新買家進場時，部分老玩家選擇獲利了結或調整部位。能佐證這一點的指標是幣齡數據（接下來的「已銷毀幣日」會談到）。本質上 ETF 吸收了許多舊幣賣壓，讓價格不至過快失控。Eric Balchunas 所說 ETF 把價格從深淵裡救了出來是一種解釋；另一種說法是 ETF 給大戶套現提供流動性，短期內反而降溫了本該爆發的漲勢。但反過來說：一旦這些弱手或套利賣家離場，比特幣供給就進到強手（ETF 代表的長期持有者）手中，這其實鋪墊了……potential supply shortages down the line if demand resurges while those ETF-held coins stay put.

因此，追蹤ETF持有總量與總供應量的比例，是衡量我們在這個「供應吸收」過程中走了多遠的一種方式。如果看到ETF持有的比例停滯在某個水位，這可能代表市場已趨於飽和——也就是大部分有意進場的機構都已經部位到位，額外需求正在放緩。如果持有比例繼續攀升，甚至加速上升，那可能預示著一種價格上升和資金流入的正向循環（這也是過往多頭牛市循環常見的模式：價格越漲，吸引更多資金進場，進而推升價格，依此類推）。有分析師曾推測過一種情境：比特幣有10%甚至更多的供應最終被鎖在ETF裡。這也引申出有趣的問題：到底是在什麼時候，市場上可流通的籌碼（即交易所的可交易硬幣）會少到因買盤流動性不足造成波動加劇？我們未來幾年也許就能見證這個時刻。

另外，也別忽視這些ETF持倉的分布——是多家發行商分散持有，還是集中在少數幾家手中？截至2024年下半年，光是貝萊德（BlackRock）一家便掌握了鏈上ETF比特幣資產的市佔率高達38%，而Coinbase Custody更是扮演了近九成這些資產的監管人。換句話說，大量比特幣等同於被單一託管機構守護（即便屬於不同客戶）。這種集中度是一把雙面刃：一方面高效，但另一方面也有「單點失效」的風險，如部分人所提醒的。不過從指標層面來看，撇除這些細節，ETF持倉數量本身，是最直接反映機構級HODL狀態的指標。

總結來說，比特幣ETF的「供應吸收」是一個從巨觀層面提供背景的關鍵數據。當你看到鏈上交易量下降，或是交易所儲備減少時，原因不見得只是市場冷清，更多時候可能是資金移往ETF。如果波動度降低，或許正是因為越來越多的供應已進入基金冷錢包；但如果某天波動又突然升溫，也很可能是這個趨勢臨時反轉。你可以把這個指標想成是關注「被華爾街持有的比特幣桶子」，隨著這個桶子越裝越滿，遊戲規則也隨之改變。

6. Coin Days Destroyed（CDD）：老玩家拋售還是繼續抱牢？

話題切換到經典的鏈上分析指標，「Coin Days Destroyed（CDD）」在ETF時代獲得了新意義。這個指標已經存在多年，深受鏈上分析師歡迎，因為它能深入長期持有人行為。但為什麼在談ETF時代時還要專門提及CDD呢？很簡單，因為新一波大型買家（像是ETF）到場，給了老HODLer一次難得的出貨機會——而CDD就是我們用來觀察這類動態（是否發生過或未發生）的工具。

簡單介紹什麼是CDD：它追蹤每一天有多少「硬幣日」被銷毀。每枚比特幣只要一天沒動，就累積一天的「幣日」；持有100天再移動1 BTC，就等於銷毀100個「幣日」。如果50 BTC放了200天才移動，就是50*200=10,000幣日被銷毀。銷毀天數越多，代表長期沒動過的老幣動起來了。CDD數值高，說明很多長期持有（所謂「聰明錢」或老手）的比特幣被移動——往往暗示這些人正在賣出或重新配置資產。

健康的多頭市場，理論上最好不要出現極端的CDD高峰；理想狀況是大多HODLer抱到最後高點才選擇出場（此時CDD還算溫和）。反過來，CDD突然飆高，很可能是「分散」信號——老玩家開始利用流動性賣出套現。而在熊市或市場底部時，CDD通常很低，因為大多數長期持有者還在繼續抱牢（只有不耐煩的短線散戶早早賣掉，堅定持有者都還在）。

那麼，自從ETF問世以來，CDD出現了什麼變化？一開始，2024年ETF大量流入期間，CDD還算正常，只有些許增加，談不上警訊。但隨著行情在2025年延續，比特幣不斷創歷史新高（從$70,000、$80,000、$90,000一路向十萬美元大關邁進），我們開始看到CDD指標出現明顯跳升，足以引發分析師的警覺。例如在2025年7月，CDD出現了罕見的暴增，令許多專業人士示警老HODLer正在大規模移動資金，預期價格有大幅回調的風險。尤其是該月初，有一批2011年以來靜置了14年的老比特幣突然活躍：大約80,000枚比特幣移動，寫下近年CDD最大單一紀錄。這可能是早期大戶或巨鯨的一次動作，由於這批幣持有時間超長，瞬間銷毀的幣日數巨大，也是有史以來第二高的CDD事件（僅次於2024年5月的更大紀錄）。

分析師對上述情境相當謹慎。回顧美國CryptoQuant的數據，2022年至2025年中，CDD每當超過2,000萬這個總體指標時，僅發生過五次，前四次都與價格大幅回撤同步。這次2025年7月的高峰即是第五次，引發了市場是否將有大規模賣壓出現的討論。事後來看，這批8萬枚比特幣中不少被懷疑流入了交易所，或至少是換了新主人（可能是場外OTC甩賣，甚至有可能是機構接手做ETF託管）。關鍵點在於：CDD明確發出了老供應流動的信號。

這也展現了CDD與ETF資金流的互補之處。我們看到的局面常常是：ETF數據告訴我們新資金大量進場（ETF份額瘋狂增發），而CDD同時提示大量老資金在出場。這兩者可以同步存在，結論就是—— 拉鋸，價格走勢會有壓力。某種程度上可以說，「聰明錢」長期玩家把貝萊德等機構帶來的流動性當作套現的機會。當2011年帳戶的比特幣轉移至新錢包，這些比特幣也等同進行了一次「歷史重置」——未來可能又會有一段時間不再流動，進入新一輪強手HODL階段。

對交易者和觀察者來說，ETF時代下解析比特幣市場，牢記追蹤CDD至關重要——它能看出「誰」才是驅動行情的主力。如果CDD持續低檔，代表長期持有者依然有信心、繼續抱牢（看漲訊號，預期還有更高價格）；若CDD上升，則有可能是真正老玩家悄悄撤退（看空預兆）。2025年7月即是後者，果然隨後不久，比特幣出現了顯著修正，驗證了「過往CDD尖峰後常有價格急跌」的經驗法則。

觀察CDD與供應吸收的互動也很有意思。有一位Bitwise分析師分享的圖表顯示，近年比特幣價格自2020到2024呈穩定上升，但只要CDD（經供應校正後）指數每每出現高點，不久就容易遇上價格拉回。ETF大舉買進，恰好又提供了流動性給這類高峰（像2024年5月比特幣首次突破7萬美元大關那波，相信就是一次紀錄級CDD事件）。

可以說，Coin Days Destroyed比以往更有資格充當市場敘事的「檢查員」。當市場一片叫好，認為機構瘋狂搶進時，CDD卻有可能揭露OG巨鯨是否趁機撤退。如果沒有（即使ETF狂買，CDD卻很低），這反而極為看多——連老HODLer都還再撐、預期還有更高位。如果有（CDD巨幅飆高），行情可能已經建立在較脆弱基礎上，新資金撐不住就會拉回。

目前我們看到的情況是兩者兼備——確實有部分老供應正在分散。畢竟，比特幣並未一飛衝天直上20萬美金，過程中每遇到老幣釋出供應，就會經歷拉回調整。展望未來，把CDD和ETF資金流放在同一個儀表板上非常重要，它們就像一體兩面。高ETF流入+高CDD=大量老帳戶幣轉移給新主人（短線上漲空間有限）；高ETF流入+低CDD=供應真正進一步稀缺（漲勢較強，直到新瓶頸出現）；萬一ETF流出、CDD又同步飆高——這將是雙重利空（所幸迄今仍未大規模出現）。

總而言之，Coin Days Destroyed依然是一窺比特幣「鑽石手」與「紙手」行為的最佳指標之一。ETF時代並未削弱其重要性，反而替它帶來更多故事線（比方說巨鯨在ETF需求下選擇套利出貨）。CDD完美結合了傳統鏈上分析與機構資金流，讓我們即使華爾街登台，也不致遺忘比特幣戲碼裡的原始演員。

7. Cumulative Volume Delta（CVD）背離：解讀「訂單流」的玄機

並非所有關鍵數據都和長期HODLer或機構有關，也有不少是觀察短期市場動態。有一個頗受交易員青睞的指標正日漸流行——叫做Cumulative Volume Delta（CVD），尤其是關注不同市場分區間的CVD背離（spread/ divergence）。簡單來說，CVD衡量的是一段時間內淨買入與淨賣出的量，它會把主動買盤（市價單掛單吃掉賣方）和主動賣盤（市價單砸向買方）間的差額，反覆累加。CVD如果持續上升，代表買方主導（主動買入量大於賣出）；相反，如果CVD下滑，賣方主導。那這有什麼價值？因為它揭示了究竟是哪些人（買或賣）在推動價格，以及價格走勢是否真的有主動單實質支撐。

在比特幣ETF時代下，有一個很關鍵的CVD應用方法，就是比較不同交易場所或市場類型的CVD……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.

舉例來說，許多分析師會觀察現貨CVD與永續合約CVD的對比。如果BTC價格上漲，理想狀況下你會希望看到現貨市場與期貨市場同時顯示淨買入（CVD上升）—這代表市場有廣泛的共識。然而，有時會出現分歧：想像價格緩慢上升，但現貨CVD持平、而期貨CVD上升（或反之）。這可能意味著這波行情主要是由衍生品交易者（使用槓桿）推動，而現貨買家（或許更「真實」的需求）缺席—這樣的漲勢可能較為虛弱，若衍生品交易者臨陣退縮，行情就可能反轉。相反地，如果現貨CVD急升但價格卻沒怎麼動，這可能代表有大量資金正在現貨交易所累積，尚未反映在突破走勢中—潛在的多頭壓力鍋。

A concrete example: In April 2025, as Bitcoin approached the hefty $95,000 resistance level, market observers noticed something peculiar. Binance’s spot CVD remained relatively flat even as price inched up toward $95K, which indicated that the upward price action was not coming from an onslaught of aggressive buyers lifting offers. Instead, it appeared passive limit orders were nudging the price – in other words, there were buyers, but they were sitting on bids and letting price drift up, rather than FOMO-ing in. Meanwhile, on every push up, sell orders met the price (CVD flat suggests sellers absorbed the buys). This kind of CVD divergence – price making higher highs while CVD (buy volume) doesn’t make higher highs – often precedes a short-term reversal. In that case, analysts warned that the market would need to “auction through significant ask liquidity at $95K” to sustain the rally. Essentially, unless we saw a wave of aggressive buying show up (which would push CVD up decisively) to eat through the sell walls at $95K, the rally could stall. Indeed, $95K proved tough to crack initially, validating the CVD divergence signal that there was hidden selling pressure despite the optimistic price movement.

具體例子：以2025年4月為例，當比特幣逼近$95,000的重大壓力位時，市場觀察者發現了一些異常現象。Binance的現貨CVD即使價格緩緩攀升至$95K，也幾乎持平，這表示這波上漲並非因大量積極買家掛單追價所推動。相反地，看起來是被動限價掛單在引導價格—也就是說，雖然有買家，但他們蹲守在買方，讓價格逐漸上漲，而不是FOMO地追高。同時，價格每次推升時都被賣單消化（CVD持平暗示賣家吸收了買盤）。這種CVD分歧—價格創新高但CVD（買量）未創高—通常預示短線反轉。在這種情況下，分析師警告市場必須「通過 $95K 的巨量賣壓拍賣」才能維持漲勢。也就是說，除非我們看到買盤決斷進場（讓CVD明顯上升），吃掉$95K的賣牆，否則漲勢可能停滯。事實上，$95K一開始就證明難以突破，驗證了CVD分歧的信號—即便價格樂觀，上方仍有隱性賣壓。

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).

交易員越來越多地納入這些訂單流細節。CVD另一種用法是比較不同交易所或地區的相對強弱。例如，可以追蹤美國交易所如Coinbase的CVD，對比亞洲主要交易所或DEX，看看哪一方（世界哪端、哪種平台）主導買賣。一個TradingView社區腳本甚至把現貨CVD減去永續CVD，做出「現貨vs永續CVD分歧」指標—正值意味著現貨市場比永續更偏多（淨買入更多），負值則表示永續比現貨更強勢。這頗具洞見：由現貨帶動的上漲（現貨CVD領先）通常被視為更有機（也許是資金從法幣轉進BTC）；而由永續帶動的上漲則可能是槓桿投機（回調也可能更快）。

In the ETF era, one could theorize that spot markets would take on more importance because ETFs ultimately transact in spot. If, say, BlackRock’s APs are buying, they’re buying on spot exchanges or via OTC, not via perpetual futures. So one might expect spot CVD to show strength during periods of heavy ETF inflows. And in fact, some analysts did note that the character of certain price moves in 2024–2025 felt more “spot driven” – for instance, when Bitcoin broke above $70k, there were signs of stablecoin inflows and spot buying (CVD climbing) fueling it, rather than just a short squeeze on futures. This is a departure from some prior rallies (like in 2019 or 2020) where BitMEX and other futures platforms led the charge with high leverage.

在ETF時代，有人推測現貨市場的重要性將提升，因為ETF最終都會在現貨端進行交易。例如，若BlackRock的APs在買入，他們是在現貨交易所或OTC買進，而不是用永續合約。所以可以預期在ETF大量流入時，現貨CVD應該會明顯強勢。事實上，一些分析師也指出，2024-2025年某些價格走勢明顯更「現貨驅動」——像比特幣突破$70k時，就出現穩定幣流入與現貨買盤（CVD上升）的跡象，這不是單純期貨空頭擠壓。這與過去部分行情（如2019、2020年由BitMEX與其他期貨平台高槓桿推動）大不相同。

However, the presence of sophisticated arbitrage also means futures quickly catch up, so watching the spread between spot and futures CVD is a dynamic affair. A widening spread (where one is rising and the other falling) is a warning of divergence. Savvy traders use it to sniff out potential reversals or confirmations. For example, a bullish CVD divergence would be if price makes a low but CVD makes a higher low – indicating selling pressure is diminishing even though price hit a similar low, which could precede a bounce. And a bearish divergence is like the April 2025 scenario: price higher high, CVD lower high – buying momentum not keeping up with price, watch out below.

但由於現今套利機制成熟，期貨價格也會迅速跟上，因此觀察現貨與期貨CVD的差距是一個動態過程。這兩者之間的分歧若擴大（一者上升、一者下跌），就是警訊。精明的交易者會利用這一點推敲可能的反轉或確認信號。例如，看多CVD分歧是指價格創新低，但CVD卻創較高低—代表賣壓減輕，儘管價格到了類似低點，可能隨後反彈。而看空分歧則像2025年4月那樣：價格創新高、CVD卻創低高——買盤動能追不上價格，須小心回檔。

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，交易員特別重視的另一指標是「被動買盤」與「積極買盤」的區分。ETF時代後，有時可觀察到被動買家（可將他們視為耐心的累積者）推動行情，卻不會讓CVD出現大幅飆升。這會反映為價格緩步上行，但CVD斜率平緩，表示買家蹲守在買價，讓賣方主動成交，而不是積極追價。有些人認為這是機構行為—機構通常不會追價，而是放冰山單、用程式算法分批成交等。因此，比特幣有時會在成交量不顯著但持續的情況下盤堅（CVD斜率偏低），這和過去零售FOMO暴衝有明顯不同。這未必會觸發傳統動能信號，但跟過往型態的差異非常值得留意。

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背後市場所蘊藏的買/賣壓力X光。在ETF時代，越來越多大型玩家與新場域（如去中心化交易所、或透過ETF接入CME期貨）加入市場，這種X光視角能幫助辨識誰才是真正的主導者。這波上漲有「真實」買量支撐嗎？大跌時是恐慌性拋售，還是單純缺乏買方？這些問題都能透過CVD分析找到答案。上一輪熟練鏈上指標的交易者，現在開始鑽研如CVD這類訂單流數據，持續維持自己的優勢。

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.

特別要注意跨市場的比較：現貨vs期貨、東方vs西方、DEX vs CEX。CVD出現分歧時，可能預示某一方的主導敘事已領先於整體共識。例如，若DEX交易（例如鏈上一筆大換匯）出現大量買盤CVD，而中心化交易所未反映，或許有DeFi巨鯨正在低調吸貨，但全球價格尚未反映——這是套利機會，還是潛在信號？這就是新時代分析師須重視的細緻問題。實質上，CVD價差分析已成為解讀短線價格行為的關鍵指標，這是一般量能與K線圖無法呈現的。重點在於資金流的「質」，不僅是「量」，而CVD恰好就是觀察這個「質」的窗口。

8. DEX vs CEX Basis Gaps: Monitoring the DeFi-CeFi Price Disconnects

8. DEX vs CEX 基差價差：追蹤DeFi與CeFi價格脫鉤

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）與鏈上交易興起後，為加密貨幣市場增添了新維度：鏈上市場與傳統中心化交易所（CEX）有可能出現短暫的價格差距。在ETF時代後，尤其當監管和大型機構參與時，觀察DEX與CEX的基差（價格差或價差）越來越重要。基本上，這指標就是檢查比特幣（或包裝比特幣）在DeFi場域與中心化場所的價格是否有所不同，以及這代表什麼意義。

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?

過去，加密貨幣市場經常出現地區性或不同場域的價格差，例如多年以前韓國的「泡菜溢價」，當時由於資本管制與本地需求，比特幣在韓國交易所的價格遠高於全球均價。又如美國機構大量買進時，Coinbase價格有時會較Binance稍高。DEX與CEX之間的價格差是更近代的新現象：以Uniswap這類以太坊DEX，或dYdX、GMX等去中心化永續平台為例，比特幣（或其衍生品）與Binance、Coinbase上的價格會脫鉤嗎？

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.

大多時候，套利者會讓兩地市場緊密對齊—但當它們沒對齊時，就具備訊號意義。一個持續存在的基差，通常顯示套利存在摩擦或需求壓力不同。舉例：若DeFi用戶突然大量買入（譬如有人在Uniswap上用USDC兌換大筆WBTC），WBTC在DEX上的價格就可能高於全球平均價格。理論上，套利者會買進CEX的BTC、換成WBTC，然後在Uniswap高價賣出WBTC，藉此賺取利差並拉平價格。但這種套利有成本（如GAS手續費、處理時間延遲、流動性限制），所以小幅價差時常存在。這些價差的幅度與持續時間值得關注。如果發現WBTC在DEX上價格長期高於Coinbase BTC 0.5%，表示鏈上需求大於套利者能供應—這對短線價格是利多訊號（套利者終究會在CEX買入，推升CEX價格）。反之，若DEX或去中心化永續平台BTC價格折價、甚至有異常延後，可能反映DeFi領域的流動性吃緊或避險意識升溫。

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

具體場景例如：假設監管打擊或中心化交易所出現故障（實際上也曾發生），交易者可能湧向DEX作為替代方案。如果Binance暫停BTC提現（假設情境），就可能看到DEX價格上拉，因為投資人願意付出溢價在鏈上取得BTC流動性。這個價差意味著：市場願意為防審查、隨時可用的交易方式多付代價。此外，在極端波動時，GMX等去中心化永續合約，有時資金費率或價格針尖會異於中心化平台，因為其計價機制或預言機架構有別。期貨的基差就是期貨價與現貨價的差異，而「DEX基差」可指去中心化永續合約隱含價格與CEX現貨價格的差異。例如，若某DEX永續價格比現貨高出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.

顯示鏈上存在大量槓桿做多，與主要市場相比明顯偏高——這可能不可持續，有可能即將修正，或者對於能夠在去中心化交易所永續合約做空、現貨買入的人來說，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，美國本地交易者可能會偏好使用去中心化交易所購買比特幣敞口（為了避開 KYC，或因為他們已經撤離某些中心化交易所）。這會在鏈上池中形成可見的需求區塊。反之，當美國 ETF 獲批時，或許一些離岸或 DeFi 交易者預期 ETF 將掌握價格發現主導權，提前拋售手中持倉，短暫造成 DEX 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.

我們還需要考慮包裹比特幣與原生比特幣的因素。WBTC（以太坊上的包裹比特幣）或其他鏈上的類似包裹代幣，若出現價差，需透過託管方贖回。理論上，WBTC 應與 BTC 價值 1:1 對等。實際上，大多時候也確實如此，但如果託管方信心動搖或市場出現擠兌，WBTC 就可能以小幅折價交易（過去因市場擔憂託管風險時曾短暫發生）。反過來，WBTC 出現溢價時會激勵套利方鑄造更多 WBTC（鎖定實體 BTC 發行 WBTC），這與 ETF 溢價時 AP（授權參與者）套利的行為相當。觀察穩定錨定情況，其實就是另一種 DEX 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).

那麼交易者如何使用這個指標？主要用來檢視市場壓力與跨市場需求。正常情況下，DEX 與 CEX 的價差很小；若價差明顯，常代表市場失衡。例如，如果持續看到去中心化交易所的 BTC 價格較高，可能代表加密原生世界的資金（也許是山寨幣獲利、DeFi 收益）正在獨立於傳統金融資金流入 BTC。若價格偏低，也許有什麼問題（如大額鏈上賣家，或 DeFi 清算連鎖反應致價格先下跌，直到套利者進場平抑）。

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.

可以舉一個小事件來說明：過去某個 DeFi 協議出現漏洞時，大家曾經能在該平台短暫以低於市場價買到 BTC，最後雖然套利機器人迅速抹平這個價差，但動作快的人仍然賺到。這類小例子強調了「全局市場觀」的重要性。ETF 時代並未抹去 DeFi 這個「西部世界」的影響力——甚至可以說，反而讓市場變得更精采。大型機構會跨 CME、Coinbase 等傳統市場做套利，但加密原生玩家會在 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，要觀察的關鍵在於：每當比特幣出現劇烈行情時，不妨檢查 DEX 世界。去中心化交易所和借貸平台價格有跟上市場嗎？還是有點落後？如果比特幣大漲而 DEX 流動性又薄弱，可能會導致 DEX 價格稍顯落後——這就是套利機會，或顯示 DeFi 交易者對此有懷疑。反過來，如果比特幣大跌，但鏈上價格實際上撐得比較久（也許是 DEX 交易者較慢驚慌賣出），那可能提示底部將近，因為套利者會隨即進場掃貨。

This metric might not have a straightforward number like “Bitcoin ETFs hold X% of supply,” but rather manifests as spread percentages and anecdotal observations. Nonetheless, it’s become part of the toolkit. In the post-ETF market, we can’t ignore any sector: centralized institutional flows, on-chain HODLer flows, and yes, the DeFi flows all intermingle. The savvy trader keeps an eye on each realm and especially on the seams between them – because that’s where money can sometimes slip through the cracks, even if only briefly, and those cracks tell stories.

這個指標不像「比特幣 ETF 持有供應佔比 X%」這麼直覺明確，更多是價差百分比和經驗法則的組合。但它已成為觀察工具的一部分。在後 ETF 時代，我們不能忽略任何一個版塊：中心化機構流、鏈上長期持有者動向，還有 DeFi 流動性，這些都環環相扣。老練的交易者會同時關注各版圖，特別是它們之間的縫隙——因為有時候，資金就是在這些細縫間短暫流竄，而這些細縫又蘊藏著市場故事。

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

9. 網路價值交易比（NVT）指標：ETF 時代重新思考「比特幣本益比」

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 熱潮與機構進場之前，像 NVT 這種鏈上指標，曾是許多加密分析師的頭條指標。NVT（網路價值交易比），常被形容為比特幣對應股票的本益比（P/E Ratio）。算式是比特幣市值（網路價值）除以每日鏈上交易量（通常取移動平均平滑處理）。簡單直覺是：如果比特幣價格相當高，和鏈上實際轉帳價值相比過於高估，就像股票高本益比一樣容易高估；反之，價格明顯低於鏈上實際使用量，則可能低估。

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 通常預示市場浮躁。例如，價格迅速上漲但交易量未同步，NVT 就會暴漲，代表價格已經脫離基本面。低 NVT 則可能暗示殺盤或明顯低估（有大量價值轉移但價格卻低迷）。像 Willy Woo 這樣的分析師推廣 NVT，還進一步改良成「NVT Signal」（用移動平均信號捕捉週期表現）。事實上，NVT 高點確實常常接近主要頂部，低點則貼近谷底。

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.

然而，早在 2010 年代末，大家就發現 NVT 的效用減弱。主因是比特幣的大量活動已轉向鏈下或 Layer-2 解決方案及交易所。存放在交易所的幣可以私下換手，無需每次都登記上鏈。當交易所或 ETF 等託管方持有大量存底，內部轉帳也不再以鏈上「交易」顯示。於是 NVT 開始出現上漂現象——也就是網路價值似乎成長遠快過鏈上交易量，導致比特幣在 NVT 標準下一直偏向高估。實際上，這只是計量盲點：指標中的「T」（交易量），越來越多經濟活動已移至鏈外，記不進來。

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 時代強化了這種現象。現在數十億甚至更多美元的比特幣，可以透過 ETF 份額於紐約證交所或其他股票市場換手，這些交易完全不會記為鏈上的 BTC 轉移。一個投資人只需賣出 IBIT 份額給另一人，就能脫手 5,000 萬美元的比特幣敞口——實際比特幣照樣鎖在託管機構，鏈上一筆轉帳都沒有。NVT 分母幾乎不動，但價格（因此市值）卻會受到影響。結果：NVT 比例可持續攀高而留在高檔，已和過去代表的意義大不相同。

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.

分析圈普遍已經注意到這個轉變。有些人調整 NVT（如放長平均期、排除非經濟性交易等），但總的來說，近年來 NVT 經常偏高，源自鏈下交易量增長。正如一份《Bitcoin Magazine Pro》報告簡明指出：「NVT Signal 起初適合抓周期頂，但隨著越來越多幣轉移鏈下，NVT 效用逐步下降。」另一處則提醒，「投資者交易量愈來愈大部分已經轉向鏈下，特別是交易所」，使得標準 NVT 持續上漂，需調整。

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.

實務上，若你檢視過去十年的 NVT 圖表，會發現 2015 年定義的「高」NVT，和 2025 年相比完全不同。基線已經改變。因此，一句「NVT 到 150，比歷史平均高得多，比特幣一定要崩」，這種直線推論就會產生誤導——高 NVT 可能只是鏈下交易主導下的新常態而已。

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.

那麼 NVT 是否就此沒用了？也不是。而是分析師現在更謹慎使用 NVT，通常會結合其他指標。有些人只取判定有經濟意義的鏈上交易量（排除自發自收、找零等），甚至結合 Layer-2 數據。但有了 ETF，即使這樣也很難呈現全貌。NVT 昔日是鏈上分析寵兒，如今則慢慢退居配角。

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.

雖然如此，NVT 仍有凸顯極端情境的功能。如果 NVT 突然暴衝到史無前例的高點，仍有機會反映投機和實用性的極端背離。但所謂「實用性」如今可能要納入鏈下交易的替代指標。例如，可以設計一種改良版 NVT 將 ETF 交易量（以 BTC 計價）合併納入分母，會變成很有意思的複合指標，雖然目前尚未廣泛應用。

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.

對一般加密讀者來說，重點是：後 ETF 時代 NVT 指標必須要重新調校。如果你看到誰在 Twitter 上畫 NVT 線圖就大喊多空，請先看看他有沒有反映結構變遷。正如 NVT 概念創始人 Willy Woo 所言，早在 2019 年交易所與託管成長時，「調整」就勢在必行，ETF 影響只是這條趨勢的延續。

One could illustrate this with a hypothetical: Suppose Bitcoin’s market cap is $2 trillion (future scenario) and on-chain volume is, say, $5 billion a day. NVT = 400. In the past, that ratio might be unheard of, and suggest Bitcoin is wildly overvalued relative to network usage. But what if, at the same time, there are $50 billion a day of Bitcoin ETF shares trading on stock exchanges, and another $20 billion in CME futures, etc.? The network is heavily used, just not in the way NVT originally measured. The “earnings” of the Bitcoin network (if we analogize transactions to earnings) are partially happening in parallel financial systems.

你可以用假想情境來說明：假設比特幣市值到達 2 兆美元（未來某時），每日鏈上交易量 50 億，那 NVT = 400。這在過去會被認為是不可思議的高估，顯示市值嚴重脫離網路實用。但同時如果每日有 500 億美元 ETF 份額在交易所換手、還有 CME 期貨等 200 億，實際上網路利用率超高，只是不被舊版 NVT 所計算。比特幣網路的「盈餘」（若類比成股票本益比）已部分在平行金融體系消化。

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.

那麼交易策略該怎麼調整？許多人轉向其他指標，如 MVRV（下一節會講）、活躍地址數目或不同版本的「真實成交量」估算。NVT 並未被完全棄用，但討論時必強調其侷限性。市面上已有「調整版 NVT」或「NVT 黃金比」等變種參考長線趨勢。但整體而言，ETF 時代多少已讓 NVT 作為獨立估值指標變得過時。

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，網路價值交易比（NVT）不再是過去那種簡單明確的比特幣估值標尺。這提醒我們：隨著生態改變，衡量方式也必須與時俱進。近期高企的 NVT，不一定就意味著災難——它部分反映了市場的演化：有更多價值...Here is your requested translation. As per your instructions, markdown links are not translated.

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.

在基礎層之外進行的轉帳。某種程度上，高 NVT 甚至可以視為一種成熟的「特徵」而不是缺陷；這代表網路能以相對較少的鏈上交易，承載龐大的市場價值，因為這些鏈上交易往往反映了批次處理或鏈下匯總的價值（例如，一筆包含 1000 枚比特幣的 ETF 創建，鏈上可能只出現一筆交易，但這 1000 枚比特幣實際上會在鏈下以較小單位分配給數千位投資人）。所以看待 NVT 時要有所保留。極端值或趨勢依然值得觀察，但必須放在這些新發展的背景中來解讀。

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 Ratio）：舊指標的新詮釋

Another stalwart of Bitcoin analysis that warrants a fresh look post-ETF is the MVRV ratio – Market Value to Realized Value. If NVT was the “P/E of Bitcoin,” MVRV is something like the “price vs book value” of Bitcoin, or perhaps more accurately an indicator of average holder profit. It’s calculated by dividing Bitcoin’s market cap (market value) by its realized cap (the total value of all coins based on the price when they last moved). Realized value is like an aggregate cost basis of the network; it adds up, for each coin, the price at the time it last transacted. Thus, MVRV > 1 means the market is above the average cost basis (holders in profit on average), MVRV < 1 means below cost basis (holders at a loss on average).

比特幣分析中另一個值得在 ETF 問世後重新檢視的指標，就是市值與實現價值比（MVRV Ratio）。如果說 NVT 是比特幣的「本益比」，那麼 MVRV 有點類似比特幣的「市價對帳面價值比」，更貼切地說，是衡量持有者平均獲利的指標。其計算方式是將比特幣的市值（market cap）除以實現價值（realized cap，意指所有比特幣按照最後一次移動當時的價格核算總價值）。所謂實現價值有點像是網路的總體成本基礎；也就是對每一枚比特幣，累算其最後一次交易的價格。因此，MVRV > 1 表示市價高於平均成本（多數持幣人處於獲利狀態），MVRV < 1 則表示低於成本（多數持幣人處於虧損）。

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 對於判斷市場極端狀態非常有效。過去牛市頂峰時，MVRV 常常達到 3、4，甚至更高——意味著平均持幣者自上次移動以來，其比特幣已經上漲了三到四倍（潛在利潤巨大，通常是市場亢奮的徵兆）。反之，熊市深谷時，MVRV 會跌到 1 以下，甚至殘酷時期低至 0.5－0.7——意味市價比平均成本價低 30~50%，這通常標誌著割肉及低估。這很直觀：當 MVRV 很高，大量潛在利潤存在，常常導致投資人獲利了結（賣出），觸發修正。當 MVRV 很低，多數人都虧損；賣壓枯竭後，市場進入上升階段。

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 時代怎麼影響 MVRV 呢？乍看之下，不像 NVT 那麼直接，因為 MVRV 仍是源自鏈上成本基礎資料，只要幣在鏈上移動就會更新。但要注意：隨著 ETF 吸收供給，許多比特幣確實在鏈上移動（從賣家進入 ETF 託管），它們的實現價值被更新到現價。這意味隨著 ETF 從長期持有人手中購買比特幣（例如某些幣之前在 $20,000 長期沉睡，現在於 $60,000 移轉），實現價值的總額也大幅上升。當實現價值逼近市值時，MVRV 比例就下降。換言之，即便價格上漲，但因為大量老幣移動給新買家，使得分母（realized cap）也提升，MVRV 不會飆到過往那麼高。

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.

換句話說，2024～2025 年期間透過 ETF 大規模將幣重新分配給新買家，可能壓抑了本輪 MVRV 的高峰。雖然市值創新高，但由於許多過往沉睡的比特幣在轉移中「重新定價」，實現價值也同步飆升。這或許解釋為何 2025 年中，隨著比特幣價格屢創新高，MVRV 並沒有像以往那樣飆高。例如，2025 年 6 月有資料指出，MVRV Z-score（相關指標）只是在溫和水準，約 2.4，遙遙低於過往頂部常見的 5 或 7。這種強勢上漲中指標仍低於往年極端值，說明不斷有比特幣移動、實現價值持續更新，使該比例溫和。根本上，是因為有大量新買家（ETF 等）承接，讓本來的舊幣可以出場、實現利润，市場沒能推高到危險的極端 MVRV。這意味牛市也許會持續走階梯式上升，而非一舉噴發式天花板——起碼可以這麼解讀。

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 仍然很有用，尤其當市況逆轉時。試想一種情境：價格大幅修正，但大家並未大量賣出（因為先前分配後，實現價值仍維持在高檔）。這樣，市值就有可能再次低於實現價值，MVRV 低於 1。這如同過往熊市，有機會是世代難逢的抄底良機。ETF 的存在會否改變這情勢，目前還不得而知：若真有如此價格下跌，ETF 會出現贖回潮嗎（比特幣外移，令 realized cap 回落）？有可能，但未必成比例——有些機構持有者可能選擇長期抱牢，使 realized cap 居高不下。

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.

另一個常見問題：ETF 託管的比特幣算在 realized cap 嗎？答案是肯定的，因為在轉到基金託管人時，就是一次鏈上移動，會建立一個新的成本基礎。之後如果繼續被託管而未在鏈上移動，realized cap 就不再變化。所以 ETF 長期持有時，這部分幣的實現價等於購買價格。如果市場跌破這水準，這批幣就處於未實現虧損——過去來看，長線持有者普遍不願長期忍受虧損，有些會割肉認賠。但機構持有者若時間格局長，或許可以耐得更久，令 realized cap 維持高檔，而 MVRV 可以跌得更深。這也許會讓底部判斷跟以往不同，可能更劇烈，也可能需要不同門檻。

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.

還有個細微改變：現今 realized cap 包含很多以較高價格（ETF 廣泛買入時）發生轉移的比特幣。這讓熊市時 MVRV 的下限墊高，因為供給成本位已經往上。早期循環時，大量早期持有者的成本價很低，熊市裡市值可以貼近 realized cap。現在 realized cap 較高，更接近市值，也許未來熊市 MVRV 就不會再深跌 1 以下。雖仍在推測，但頗具道理。

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.

不管怎樣，觀察 MVRV 依舊是在宏觀情緒與循環階段判斷上重要的指標。只不過要明白，這一輪有大量比特幣重分布（如我們已經看到），使指標「重設」了。在 2025 年中，即使比特幣摸到 10 萬美元，MVRV Z-score 卻顯示市場還沒到往昔那種極端，這也給多頭信心，認為還「有餘力」可上。如評論所言，既然長期持有者已大舉賣給 ETF，市場集體拋壓也許會比以往少——這可能推升最終高點，或讓之後回檔不這麼猛烈。

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.

反過來講，若有朝一日我們看到 MVRV 再次攀升到歷史極端（比如大於 3.5 或 4，Z-score 進入紅色區間），那仍將是一個重大警訊，市場過熱。在那時，ETF 流入量可能趨緩，場內人全部都是賺錢狀態——極其脆弱的處境。這時要觀察 ETF 是否出現淨流出（如 2024 年底一度出現過），以及尚未出場的長期持有者是否也開始認賺離場。

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 時代並未讓 MVRV 失效，只是它變得更溫和。它就像是一根可靠的溫度計，但患者體質不同，讀數也就隨著變了。MVRV 依然非常值得列入頂級觀察指標之一——用來辨識市場是否過熱或過度低估。重點在於情境脈絡。結合以上多種指標來看：若 MVRV 高企，同時 ETF 流入停滯且 CDD 激增，那就進入明顯的危險區；反之，若 MVRV 低、ETF 仍持續買入，且 CDD 極低（強手堅守），那在歷史上往往就是強烈買點。

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 這一對「鏈上老指標」，加上新時代 ETF 與市場結構數據，才能拼湊出最完整的全貌。即使現在投資群體從密碼朋克的極客到華爾街西裝筆挺的機構人士相容並蓄，MVRV 依然在鏈上數據和投資行為之間搭起了橋樑。

Final thoughts

結語

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.

比特幣市場歷來是一段不斷演化的歷史──從密碼朋克實驗、散戶投機狂熱、挖礦淘金潮，到如今這個 ETF 之後的新紀元。我們正親眼見證另一場重大變革：傳統金融運作邏輯與原生區塊鏈透明數據的深度融合。這也帶來了一套全新的工具箱，協助我們理解市場價格與情緒的驅動邏輯。

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

我們介紹的十大重點指標，正可組成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 創建與贖回流量揭示機構資金進出的巨浪動力。
AP 套利價差則是 ETF 需求與市場效率的即時氣壓計，提示大型玩家何時「易賺錢」進場（或退場觀望）。
儲備證明時差維持體系誠實，確保帳面狀況與鏈上真相一致，這一新議題將加密貨幣的透明性與傳統金融規模結合在一起。
貝萊德 IBIT 等基金流入已成為「華爾街比特幣」的心跳，簡明而有力地映照大戶胃口。
ETF 持有總供給量追蹤多少比特幣已遷入機構金庫，這種變化緩慢的數據最能說明長線供給動態。
**Coin Days Destroyed（幣日銷毀）**繼續記錄最老持有者的行動，常常揭示每輪行情的前奏與尾聲——他們何時死抱不離、何時閃退離場。
CVD（累積成交量差異）分歧深入訂單簿，分析價格上漲/下跌到底是實質買賣堆積，還是被動空氣行情。
DEX 對 CEX 價差提醒我們，並非所有交易腳本都一致——當去中心化、中心化市場價差擴大之時，蘊藏著訊號與套利機會。
NVT 比例提醒我們謙卑——任何單一指標，都不再萬能，尤其當遊戲規則已經改變。比特幣的

（如需繼續後續段落，請告知！）Here is the translation formatted as you requested:

“fundamentals” can be expressed in more ways than just on-chain tx volume.
「基本面」可以用比單純鏈上交易量更多的方式來表達。

MVRV ratio stands as a trusty compass for where we are in the market cycle, albeit one now constantly recalibrated by the churn of coins into new hands.
MVRV 比率 是判斷市場週期位置的可靠指標，儘管現在這個指標會隨著大量幣流入新持有者手中而持續被校準。

For the common crypto reader, arming oneself with these metrics is empowering. It cuts through the noise of hype and fear. Instead of just hearing “BlackRock is buying” or “whales are selling” as nebulous narratives, you can see it in the data: BlackRock’s AUM ticking upward, Coin Days Destroyed spiking as whales move coins, CVD lines diverging on your chart during a suspicious pump. Each metric is like a different camera angle on the same match – one shows the offense, one the defense, one the crowd’s reaction, one the coach’s strategy. Only by watching them all do you get the full picture of the game. 對一般加密貨幣讀者來說，掌握這些指標就像獲得了力量，能夠穿透炒作與恐懼的雜音。與其只聽到「貝萊德正在買入」或「巨鯨在賣出」這類模糊敘事，你能從數據中直接看見：貝萊德資產規模持續上升、巨鯨轉幣時 Coin Days Destroyed 飆升、可疑拉盤時 CVD 線在圖表上分歧。每一個指標都像觀看同一場比賽的不同攝影角度——有的看進攻、有的看防守、有的見觀眾反應、有的觀察教練戰術。只有關注全部，你才看到完整比賽畫面。

And indeed, Bitcoin’s grand game has new star players. BlackRock’s product suite – led by the IBIT ETF – has proven to be a sort of canary in the coal mine for many of these signals. When IBIT saw relentless inflows, we saw strength in price (even as some older metrics like NVT looked high). When IBIT paused or outflows hit, it coincided with correction warnings from other indicators. The canary isn’t causing the shifts, but it often feels them first. It validated, for example, that long-term holders were selling, by absorbing their coins – without those ETF inflows, perhaps the price would have fallen off a cliff; with them, the selling was cushioned. Watching BlackRock and its peers is now simply part of watching Bitcoin. 而事實上，比特幣這場大賽出現了新的明星選手。以 IBIT ETF 為首的貝萊德產品線，已成為眾多指標中的「礦坑金絲雀」。當 IBIT 持續流入時，我們看到價格走強（即使 NVT 等老指標顯示估值偏高）；當 IBIT 停住或出現淨流出時，正好與其他指標的修正訊號同時出現。金絲雀本身不會引發變動，但往往最先感受到風險。舉例來說，它證實了長期持有者正在賣出——因為 ETF 承接了他們的幣；若沒有這些 ETF 資金流入，價格或許早已暴跌；有了它們，賣壓得到緩衝。如今，觀察貝萊德及同行，已成為觀察比特幣不可或缺的一部分。

It’s also a story of convergence: on-chain purists and Wall Street analysts are now looking at some of the same charts, albeit from different angles. A crypto veteran might check exchange reserves and CDD to infer if accumulation or distribution is happening, while an ETF analyst checks fund flows and premiums – but they’re diagnosing the same market through different instruments. More than ever, a savvy analyst will blend these approaches. 這也是一個趨同的故事：鏈上純粹派和華爾街分析師，如今也在看同一組圖表，儘管他們角度不同。加密老手也許會查詢交易所庫存和 CDD 判斷是吸籌還是分派，ETF 分析師則看資金流向和溢價——但他們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適合將這些方法整合運用。

The post-ETF era has made the market more complex but also more mature. No single metric will give you the answer (if it ever did). But taken together, these metrics provide a multi-dimensional view. They explain why classic signals like MVRV or NVT may flash differently now – not because they’re broken, but because the market’s underlying mechanics have broadened. They underscore the rising influence of regulated, large-scale products without eclipsing the importance of grassroots network activity. ETF 上市後的時代，讓市場變得更複雜也更成熟。沒有任何單一指標能給你所有答案（即便以前曾能）。但綜合觀察，這些指標能提供多維度的視角。它們解釋了為什麼經典信號如 MVRV 或 NVT 現在可能亮出不同的訊號——不是因為指標失效，而是市場結構更豐富了。它們突顯合規且大規模產品影響力上升，但基層網絡活動的價值依舊不容忽視。

For traders and hodlers alike, paying attention to these ten metrics can be the difference between seeing the iceberg ahead or just the tip. Is a rally backed by real demand or hollow leverage? The data will tell – perhaps ETF creations are soaring and spot CVD is strong (bullish), or maybe price is spiking while CDD also leaps (bearish distribution sign). Are we nearing a euphoric top? Check MVRV against historical red zones and see if ETF inflows are drying up. Is a dip a buying opportunity? Look if MVRV is near past lows, and if long-term holders are dormant (low CDD) while, say, ETFs are still quietly adding – a divergence between price and accumulation that spells opportunity. 不論是交易員還是長抱族，關注這十項指標，可能是看見冰山全貌與只看到冰山一角的差別。一波上漲是由真實需求推動，還是單純槓桿炒作？數據會告訴你——也許 ETF 新創數激增且現貨 CVD 強勁（偏多），又或許價格急漲時 CDD 也飆升（偏空分派跡象）。我們是否接近亢奮的頂部？檢查 MVRV 是否進入歷史紅色區間，ETF 流入是否逐漸枯竭。回調是不是買點？看看 MVRV 是否接近過去低點，長期持有者是否處於休眠狀態（低 CDD），而 ETF 仍在悄悄增倉——價格和吸籌的背離，正是機會所在。

In closing, Bitcoin’s journey has always been about blending the old and the new – it took the old concepts of money and trust and reinvented them with new technology. Now the cycle repeats: we take old metrics and marry them with new market realities. The result is a clearer, more nuanced narrative of what’s driving Bitcoin at any given time. Whether you’re a day trader, a long-term believer, or just a curious observer, keeping these metrics on your radar will help you cut through the hype and headlines. The post-ETF era is here, and it comes with more data than ever – use it wisely, and you’ll navigate this exciting chapter of Bitcoin with confidence and clarity. 最後，比特幣的旅程始終在於新舊融合——它用新科技重新賦予貨幣與信任舊有概念新的生命。現在循環再起：我們將經典指標與新市場現實結合，能獲得更清晰、更細緻的比特幣驅動邏輯。不論你是日內交易者、長期信仰者，或僅是好奇觀察者，把這些指標納入你的觀測清單，都能幫你穿透炒作與頭條。ETF 時代已經來臨，數據前所未有地豐富——聰明運用，你將能更有信心、更清楚地迎來比特幣激動人心的全新篇章。