The price is up, but that doesn’t mean we know who is buying. Binance’s rolling 24-hour spot snapshot shows $BTC +0.45% (rolling 24 hours). This describes price action over that period; the gain alone cannot tell us where the money came from, and no single news story should be treated as the direct cause of the rise.
According to a report by BlockBeats on October 21 (Beijing time), Alex Thorn, head of research at Galaxy Research, said that since the second half of October, Bitcoin’s returns have been driven mainly by the Asian trading session, while the European session has weighed on overall performance. The chart cited in the report runs through October 20 and measures returns from October 1: cumulative returns were 3.9% during the Asian session, 1.1% during the U.S. session, and -5.5% during the European session. Over the same period, a buy-and-hold position held around the clock returned -0.7%. These figures describe returns across different trading sessions; they are not net ETF flows, nor do they directly indicate where the money came from.
I’d treat these figures as a clue to watch, not an answer about cause and effect. Session-by-session returns can show differences in price performance, but they can’t replace evidence about buying and selling direction, orders, or the source of funds. The start and end dates and the way time zones are divided can also affect how the figures are read. There isn’t enough evidence to reduce “the Asian session performed better” to a claim that money from a particular region was buying.
Next, I’d want to check how performance develops using the same methodology, then see whether net ETF flows or trading-volume data corroborate it. If all we have is a breakdown of prices by session, the conclusion should stop at “performance varied across trading sessions.” There’s no need to rush to find a neat-sounding story to explain the gain.
According to a report by BlockBeats on October 21 (Beijing time), Alex Thorn, head of research at Galaxy Research, said that since the second half of October, Bitcoin’s returns have been driven mainly by the Asian trading session, while the European session has weighed on overall performance. The chart cited in the report runs through October 20 and measures returns from October 1: cumulative returns were 3.9% during the Asian session, 1.1% during the U.S. session, and -5.5% during the European session. Over the same period, a buy-and-hold position held around the clock returned -0.7%. These figures describe returns across different trading sessions; they are not net ETF flows, nor do they directly indicate where the money came from.
I’d treat these figures as a clue to watch, not an answer about cause and effect. Session-by-session returns can show differences in price performance, but they can’t replace evidence about buying and selling direction, orders, or the source of funds. The start and end dates and the way time zones are divided can also affect how the figures are read. There isn’t enough evidence to reduce “the Asian session performed better” to a claim that money from a particular region was buying.
Next, I’d want to check how performance develops using the same methodology, then see whether net ETF flows or trading-volume data corroborate it. If all we have is a breakdown of prices by session, the conclusion should stop at “performance varied across trading sessions.” There’s no need to rush to find a neat-sounding story to explain the gain.