A negative CVD indicates that aggressive sell orders are outweighing aggressive buy orders, but concluding from this that “selling pressure will continue to suppress prices” requires additional evidence. My assessment is that this CVD data can confirm the direction of taker activity, but cannot by itself prove that short positions are increasing or that the decline will continue.
According to a November 8 report by PANews, CryptoQuant analyst Axel Adler Jr. said that BTC’s CVD had turned negative since October 14, falling to 105,300 BTC. This means the volume of aggressive selling exceeded that of aggressive buying; over the same period, the price fell from $84,000 to $76,000. The analyst therefore concluded that bears remained in control. It is important to distinguish the facts from the interpretation: a falling CVD is a statistical result, while “bearish dominance” is the analyst’s attribution. The material provided does not include data on short positions, funding rates, or net ETF flows for cross-validation.
My observation is that CVD tracks only the difference between aggressive buy and sell trades, reflecting who is “taking” liquidity. It is not directly equivalent to the size of open short positions, nor does it cover executions of resting orders or all changes in positions. Therefore, a negative CVD can coincide with falling prices, but is not enough on its own to determine how much selling pressure remains.
Based on this, two scenarios are worth watching: if CVD recovers but prices do not rise, that would suggest aggressive buyers are absorbing supply, while overhead supply remains heavy; if prices stabilize while CVD remains negative, the price may be supported by index-related activity or large resting orders rather than a return of aggressive buying. Both scenarios depend on whether spot market depth and net ETF flows improve at the same time. The material provided does not include these two sets of data, so this cannot currently be verified.
It is worth monitoring whether CVD bottoms out and recovers, whether net ETF flows turn positive, and how spot order-book depth changes. This article is for analysis of market mechanics only and does not constitute investment advice.
$BTC
#BTC #CryptoMarket
Sources:
PANews (originally published Nov. 8 at 15:50 Beijing time)
https://www.panewslab.com/zh/articles/01a1ba23-9368-75c1-881f-a2ca4d7def4d
According to a November 8 report by PANews, CryptoQuant analyst Axel Adler Jr. said that BTC’s CVD had turned negative since October 14, falling to 105,300 BTC. This means the volume of aggressive selling exceeded that of aggressive buying; over the same period, the price fell from $84,000 to $76,000. The analyst therefore concluded that bears remained in control. It is important to distinguish the facts from the interpretation: a falling CVD is a statistical result, while “bearish dominance” is the analyst’s attribution. The material provided does not include data on short positions, funding rates, or net ETF flows for cross-validation.
My observation is that CVD tracks only the difference between aggressive buy and sell trades, reflecting who is “taking” liquidity. It is not directly equivalent to the size of open short positions, nor does it cover executions of resting orders or all changes in positions. Therefore, a negative CVD can coincide with falling prices, but is not enough on its own to determine how much selling pressure remains.
Based on this, two scenarios are worth watching: if CVD recovers but prices do not rise, that would suggest aggressive buyers are absorbing supply, while overhead supply remains heavy; if prices stabilize while CVD remains negative, the price may be supported by index-related activity or large resting orders rather than a return of aggressive buying. Both scenarios depend on whether spot market depth and net ETF flows improve at the same time. The material provided does not include these two sets of data, so this cannot currently be verified.
It is worth monitoring whether CVD bottoms out and recovers, whether net ETF flows turn positive, and how spot order-book depth changes. This article is for analysis of market mechanics only and does not constitute investment advice.
$BTC
#BTC #CryptoMarket
Sources:
PANews (originally published Nov. 8 at 15:50 Beijing time)
https://www.panewslab.com/zh/articles/01a1ba23-9368-75c1-881f-a2ca4d7def4d
