Rolling 24 hours, $BTC -1.41%. The price retreat is the change we can confirm over this period, but price alone cannot tell me where capital came from or where it went. What’s more worth unpacking today is the distribution data for long-term holders and ETF net flows: one describes the recent distribution behavior of holders, while the other tracks fund inflows and outflows over a specific period. They shouldn’t be conflated into a single measure of “market selling pressure.”
According to an October 29, 2026 report by BlockBeats, CryptoQuant analyst Axel Adler Jr. noted that the 30-day rolling distribution volume of Bitcoin long-term holders fell by 22% over the past week. The report also noted that although Bitcoin’s price remains above long-term holders’ average cost basis, their unrealized profit cushion is narrowing. A decline in distribution volume means this metric is falling; it does not mean that all long-term holders have stopped selling. A thinner profit cushion is simply another factor worth watching.
On the same day, BlockBeats cited Farside data showing that U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs saw total net inflows of $137.3 million yesterday, including $136 million in net inflows to IBIT. These are net flows in U.S. dollars, not the amount of BTC purchased, and they correspond only to the “yesterday” reporting window mentioned in the article. The simultaneous occurrence of net inflows and a rolling 24-hour price decline is not enough to prove that one caused the other; ETF flows also do not represent the direction of capital across the entire market.
So I’d check these figures separately: the rolling distribution volume of long-term holders is a measure of coin distribution, ETF data tracks net flows in U.S. dollars over a specific window, and market data shows price changes over a rolling 24-hour period. The available material does not provide complete data on changes in BTC holdings or net flows across the entire market, so I won’t combine these figures into a conclusion about supply and demand. When reading reports about capital flows, it’s usually more reliable to first ask whether they’re counting coins, dollars, or holdings at a particular point in time than to rush to explain a price decline.
According to an October 29, 2026 report by BlockBeats, CryptoQuant analyst Axel Adler Jr. noted that the 30-day rolling distribution volume of Bitcoin long-term holders fell by 22% over the past week. The report also noted that although Bitcoin’s price remains above long-term holders’ average cost basis, their unrealized profit cushion is narrowing. A decline in distribution volume means this metric is falling; it does not mean that all long-term holders have stopped selling. A thinner profit cushion is simply another factor worth watching.
On the same day, BlockBeats cited Farside data showing that U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs saw total net inflows of $137.3 million yesterday, including $136 million in net inflows to IBIT. These are net flows in U.S. dollars, not the amount of BTC purchased, and they correspond only to the “yesterday” reporting window mentioned in the article. The simultaneous occurrence of net inflows and a rolling 24-hour price decline is not enough to prove that one caused the other; ETF flows also do not represent the direction of capital across the entire market.
So I’d check these figures separately: the rolling distribution volume of long-term holders is a measure of coin distribution, ETF data tracks net flows in U.S. dollars over a specific window, and market data shows price changes over a rolling 24-hour period. The available material does not provide complete data on changes in BTC holdings or net flows across the entire market, so I won’t combine these figures into a conclusion about supply and demand. When reading reports about capital flows, it’s usually more reliable to first ask whether they’re counting coins, dollars, or holdings at a particular point in time than to rush to explain a price decline.
