Rolling 24 hours, $BTC -1.11%. This is the change in the spot quote over a one-day window, not a conclusion about the weekly trend. A short-term pullback and a long-term technical position can coexist; using one to judge the other can easily conflate different observation windows.
According to a report by Jinse Finance (Beijing time, November 9, 2026), Alex Thorn, head of research at Galaxy, said that after staying above the 50-week moving average for seven consecutive weeks, Bitcoin has just closed below it again. The report also noted that two similar instances occurred in 2011–2012 and 2019–2020; based on weekly closing prices, the bear market did not go on to make new lows in either case.
This historical comparison is worth noting, but two instances are not enough to determine how things will end this time. It describes the weekly position and historical examples; it is not evidence of capital inflows, nor can it prove that prices will not continue to fall. The 24-hour decline at present likewise does not tell us who is selling, and ETF or institutional fund flows cannot be inferred from prices. There are no verifiable figures for net ETF flows in this cycle, so I won't fill in the gaps with speculation.
I would check two things separately: whether subsequent weekly closes remain below the moving average, and whether clear ETF net-flow data is available for the same period. The first tells us whether the price structure is persisting; the second is more directly relevant to fund flows. The moving average is a reference point, not a substitute for fund-flow data; a short-term decline cannot serve as proof of a historical comparison based on weekly data.
According to a report by Jinse Finance (Beijing time, November 9, 2026), Alex Thorn, head of research at Galaxy, said that after staying above the 50-week moving average for seven consecutive weeks, Bitcoin has just closed below it again. The report also noted that two similar instances occurred in 2011–2012 and 2019–2020; based on weekly closing prices, the bear market did not go on to make new lows in either case.
This historical comparison is worth noting, but two instances are not enough to determine how things will end this time. It describes the weekly position and historical examples; it is not evidence of capital inflows, nor can it prove that prices will not continue to fall. The 24-hour decline at present likewise does not tell us who is selling, and ETF or institutional fund flows cannot be inferred from prices. There are no verifiable figures for net ETF flows in this cycle, so I won't fill in the gaps with speculation.
I would check two things separately: whether subsequent weekly closes remain below the moving average, and whether clear ETF net-flow data is available for the same period. The first tells us whether the price structure is persisting; the second is more directly relevant to fund flows. The moving average is a reference point, not a substitute for fund-flow data; a short-term decline cannot serve as proof of a historical comparison based on weekly data.
