CryptoQuant Quicktake

Around $2.2B in net stablecoin outflows was recorded this month on Binance, which currently concentrates 70% of the stablecoin supply held on exchanges.
Since the start of the year, Binance has totaled $7B in net stablecoin outflows, confirming a sharp contraction in demand that has never really reversed over time.
When stablecoins leave exchanges this way, it suggests that liquidity continues to flee the crypto market rather than sitting idle awaiting redeployment.
Investors prefer to withdraw their funds, and exchanges see their stablecoin reserves shrink as demand keeps collapsing.
This behavior reflects persistent risk aversion rather than a simple rotation of capital between platforms.
Despite this, Bitcoin continues to hold above $60,000, amid a fairly tense geopolitical and macroeconomic backdrop, showing a form of price resilience in the face of drying liquidity.
It will become important for the market to see demand renew quickly, otherwise the correction could continue.
Written by Darkfost

The CLARITY Act remains one of the most important cryptocurrency bills in the United States, but its future is becoming increasingly tied to politics rather than regulation alone.
With the 2026 U.S. midterm elections scheduled for November 3, Republicans are eager to pass the bill before voters head to the polls. Enacting the legislation would allow them to highlight achievements such as clarifying crypto regulations, defining the roles of the SEC and CFTC, strengthening customer asset protection, and improving America's competitiveness in digital assets.
Democrats, however, are not broadly opposed to cryptocurrency. Instead, many lawmakers are calling for stronger ethics rules, enhanced consumer protection, tougher anti-money laundering (AML) measures, and greater oversight of government officials' potential conflicts of interest.
As Election Day approaches, bipartisan negotiations become increasingly difficult. If Republicans lose control of the House—or even the Senate—the bill could face significant revisions or delays. The most likely scenario today is a Democratic House and a Republican Senate, which would likely extend negotiations rather than end them.
Meanwhile, on-chain data tells a different story. Bitcoin active addresses remain close to one million, suggesting that network activity and user engagement remain strong despite political uncertainty.
For investors, the key is not simply whether the CLARITY Act passes, but what final form it takes. The outcome of the 2026 midterm elections may determine not whether crypto regulation exists, but how the next generation of U.S. digital asset regulation is ultimately designed.
Written by XWIN Japan

A low SSR is read as thick sidelined buying power. Whether that capital is genuinely sidelined, however, is not something the metric itself reveals.
A large share of the denominator has already been deployed elsewhere, and that share can be measured — not by purpose, but by position. Of $146.4B in stablecoin supply, exchange wallets hold $59.55B, or 40.7%. The remaining 59.3% sits off exchanges: in DeFi, in payment and transfer flows, in custody. Because SSR uses the entire denominator, it counts roughly 2.5x the immediately deployable capital as dry powder.
That share is not a constant. Since 2018 the exchange supply ratio has moved between 0.2 and 0.7 — a range wide enough that the same SSR reading points to two different markets depending on where in that range it was taken. A reading recorded when 70% of supply sat on exchanges and one recorded at 30% are not comparable quantities, even though the metric prints the same number. This is why lining today's SSR up against its historical levels does not hold as a like-for-like comparison.
None of this makes the metric wrong. It makes it incomplete on its own. Keeping the exchange supply ratio on the same screen as SSR restores the missing half of the reading: the position of the denominator matters before its size.
Next: what SSR looks like when the denominator is narrowed to exchange balances only.
Written by AbstractRyu

SSR is not a metric to discard, but one that should not be read alone. Every weakness in the previous three posts collapses into a single sentence: the metric does not tell you what its denominator is made of. The remedy is to fill in what the denominator hides, using metrics built on narrower definitions.
Two companions cover most of the gap. Exchange Stablecoin Reserve replaces the full denominator with capital actually deposited on exchanges, so supply that has already been deployed elsewhere stops being counted as dry powder. ETF Fund Flow observes the buying that never routes through stablecoins at all — demand that sits entirely outside the denominator.
What on-chain data cannot verify. Three points come up in almost every SSR discussion and none of them are reproducible on-chain: the purpose mix inside the denominator, the reality of the collateral behind it, and the direction of causality between issuance and price. The first depends on third-party aggregation, the second on issuer disclosure, and the third is not observable from either. Bringing them into an SSR read is fine — flagging that they rest on a different grade of evidence is what keeps the read honest.
Closing
Across this series the denominator turned out to be the whole argument. Only 40.7% of it sits where it could be spent; adjusting for that moves SSR from 11.5 to 28.1; and reflexivity and lag remain no matter how much data is added. None of that makes SSR useless. It makes SSR a metric to read at historical extremes, next to the position of the supply, and never as a standalone verdict.
The same SSR supports both a bullish and a bearish reading depending on what fills the denominator. Read the denominator, not the number.
Written by AbstractRyu

The previous post established that only 40.7% of the SSR denominator sits on exchanges. The natural follow-up: what does SSR look like if the denominator is narrowed to that portion alone?
Adjusted SSR = BTC market cap / exchange-held stablecoins, which is the same as reported SSR / exchange supply ratio. The reported figure is currently 11.5. Adjusted, it reads 28.1 — a gap of roughly 2.4x.
Panel 2 of the chart plots both. The distance between the two lines is the over-counting SSR carries by construction, and that distance is not a constant: it widens and narrows as the exchange supply ratio moves. The consequence is practical. Reported SSR can range sideways while adjusted SSR is trending, because the denominator is being redistributed underneath a total that barely changes. Over the window shown, the exchange share drifted from roughly 0.48 down to 0.41, and adjusted SSR climbed while the reported line stayed comparatively flat.
Two cautions on using it. CryptoQuant does not serve adjusted SSR as a metric — it is reproducible by dividing the two published series above, which is what the chart does. And the familiar SSR thresholds were calibrated on the reported series; carrying those same numbers over to the adjusted series would misread it by the full 2.4x.
Next: two biases that stay even after the denominator is fixed.
Written by AbstractRyu

The first two posts in this series dealt with the composition of the denominator — a problem that broader data coverage would ease. The two biases below are different. They come from the formula itself and survive any amount of additional data.
Reflexivity. SSR is BTC market cap divided by stablecoin supply, so when BTC rises the numerator expands and SSR rises with it, denominator unchanged. Reading that rise as exhausted buying power explains a price move with the price move. The metric has not observed anything new; it has restated the rally in a different unit.
Lag. New issuance lands in the denominator the moment it is minted, but conversion into actual bids takes time — the capital has to reach an exchange and then be spent. Treating rising issuance as a leading signal therefore puts the timing out of step: the denominator has already moved while the demand it is supposed to represent has not.
Neither bias is fixable by widening coverage or refining the data. They hold as long as the formula holds. What follows from that is a narrower job description rather than a discard: SSR is worth reading where the biases cannot pre-determine the answer — at historical extremes, where the reading is far enough from the middle that reflexivity alone cannot account for it.
Do not hang a position on a mid-range SSR reading. In that zone the metric is mostly restating price.
Written by AbstractRyu

The charts show a clear shift in NEXO’s market behavior across the different stages of MiCA implementation.
During the Pre MiCA phase, NEXO delivered strong upside, at one point accumulating gains close to 90%, although performance remained highly volatile.
The strongest period began after MiCA entered into force. NEXO’s cumulative performance exceeded 120% at its peak, making this the best phase in the comparison. This suggests that increasing regulatory clarity in Europe was initially interpreted positively by the market.
During the Stablecoin Rules phase, NEXO faced early pressure but later recovered and returned to positive performance. The token also traded near $1.50, one of the highest levels observed across the timeline.
The Full MiCA Application phase has been different. NEXO initially remained resilient, but later entered a prolonged correction. Performance in this phase is now roughly 40% below its starting point, while price declined from around $1.30 to the $0.70 region.
This weakness should not automatically be interpreted as a rejection of MiCA. Part of the regulatory expectations may have been priced in before full implementation, followed by a broader repricing once the framework became fully operational.
The key positive takeaway is that NEXO’s strongest expansion occurred while regulatory clarity was increasing.
If Nexo can convert compliance into stronger European access, product continuity, institutional trust, and renewed user growth, the current period may eventually be viewed as a valuation reset rather than structural deterioration.
Regulatory clarity has improved. The question now is whether it can translate into sustainable adoption.
Written by joaowedson

• Bitcoin is currently trading between the average cost basis of New and Old Whales. This suggests stress among New Whales, while the Old Whale cohort remains structurally in profit.
Written by Facundo Fama

On July 28, UMA printed an intraday high of $0.454 against an open of $0.358 — roughly 27% — before closing back at $0.358. Volume reached 8.48M that day, versus a 6-month mean near 1.26M and a typical recent range of 150K–500K.
The on-chain response arrived in the same session rather than after it. Binance — where the bulk of UMA’s spot liquidity sits and where flow shifts tend to surface first — recorded 1.17M UMA in inflows on July 28, against a trailing 7-day mean near 6.4K, alongside 114 inflow transactions compared with 1–2 on most preceding days. Net flow to the exchange reached +188K, the largest positive reading in the window.
Network data suggests the event was broad rather than isolated: active addresses rose to 276 from a 60–100 baseline, and tokens transferred hit 9.4M against a 6-month mean of 1.7M. Supply minted then spiked to 112K on July 29 — over 10× the recent daily pace and near the 6-month maximum.
Price did not hold. UMA closed at $0.334 on July 30, roughly 17% below the July 28 intraday high of $0.454, and later traded near $0.328. Notably, Binance’s UMA reserve in token terms stayed close to flat (+2.8% vs. 90 days) while its USD value fell 14% — which may indicate the drawdown reflects repricing rather than balances draining away.
The sequence — a failed expansion, exchange inflows arriving into strength, then a return toward range lows on stable reserves — resembles conditions that have historically preceded extended consolidation rather than immediate continuation. Whether this resolves as accumulation or further distribution may depend on whether inflow intensity fades back toward baseline over the coming sessions.
Written by CryptoOnchain

The number of daily BTC transactions has surged from 300,000–400,000 in January of this year to 550,000–900,000 in June and July, indicating a clear uptick in trading activity 📈
However, the number of active addresses hasn’t increased in tandem; instead, it has actually contracted slightly.
What does this mean?
It appears more like “existing capital being reallocated more frequently” rather than “a massive influx of new users.”
Exchange activity has also been relatively subdued: net outflows of about 1,000 BTC in June and about 6,000 BTC in July. Selling pressure is light, and there’s even a slight tendency toward accumulation, though the intensity doesn’t yet qualify as institutional-level aggressive accumulation.
In terms of valuation, the MVRV ratio sits between 1.15 and 1.25, which is significantly lower than last October’s peak—there is no overbought condition, but we also haven’t seen evidence of aggressive capital inflows yet.
Conclusion: The on-chain structure is neutral, with no panic selling; however, the divergence between rising volume and stagnant prices reminds us that a reversal is not yet in sight. Other data even suggests that the consolidation phase may extend throughout August.So for now, everyone should remain patient, avoid excessive trading, and wait quietly for favorable conditions to emerge.
Written by Sunny Mom

Bitcoin spot volumes on Binance and other major exchanges have dropped to very low levels, similar to those seen in 2023 coming out of the bear market.
This is a first signal pointing to the current lack of interest in Bitcoin.
Even though volumes are declining, it’s still interesting to note that altcoins now represent the largest share of volume on Binance.
In May, Bitcoin dominated trading and accounted for nearly 40% of volumes compared to ETH and altcoins.
Today, altcoins dominate volumes at over 60%, compared to just 22% for Bitcoin and 18% for ETH.
Investor boredom is setting in. Bitcoin has barely moved for weeks, and some seem to be favoring altcoins, likely hoping to take advantage of the little volatility present in the markets.
It’s worth noting that altcoins have corrected much more sharply than
Bitcoin, so some investors are betting they can outperform Bitcoin by positioning in altcoins instead.
A risky bet, but one that can pay off for those who manage to handle their positions strategically.
Written by Darkfost

The latest Binance Netflow/Reserve Ratio remains close to zero, indicating that Bitcoin inflows and outflows are small relative to Binance's total reserves. This suggests that the market is experiencing neither significant selling pressure nor aggressive accumulation.
Netflow volumes also remain modest compared to previous periods, when transfers frequently exceeded 15,000 BTC. This indicates that whales and institutional investors are not moving large amounts of Bitcoin to or from Binance.
At the same time, the lack of deeper negative netflow readings shows that there is no substantial withdrawal of BTC from the exchange, meaning supply is not tightening significantly. Likewise, weak positive netflows suggest there is no meaningful increase in exchange deposits that would signal large scale selling.
Overall, Binance's Netflow and Netflow/Reserve Ratio paint a neutral picture. Selling pressure remains limited, but there is also no strong reduction in exchange supply to support a sustained rally. As a result, Bitcoin continues to reflect a consolidation phase from a netflow perspective.
In short, on-chain exchange flows are not currently providing a strong bullish or bearish signal. The next meaningful move in Bitcoin is therefore more likely to depend on stronger demand, rather than changes in Binance netflows alone.
Written by PelinayPA

XRP’s derivatives market is operating with significantly lower leverage than during the major expansion phases of 2025, as open interest across leading exchanges remains well below previous peaks.
On July 31, XRP open interest in stablecoin-margined contracts on Binance declined to approximately $186 million, its lowest level since April 2025. Bybit recorded the largest position among the three leading exchanges at around $229 million, exceeding Binance by roughly $43 million, while OKX open interest stood near $49 million.
The figures indicate that leveraged XRP activity is currently concentrated mainly on Bybit and Binance, which together account for nearly 89% of the combined open interest across Bybit, Binance, and OKX.
Lower open interest suggests that XRP is trading with a lighter leveraged-position base compared with 2025. However, open interest alone does not determine the next price direction and should be evaluated alongside funding rates, trading volume, liquidations, and spot-market demand.
Written by Amr Taha

Becoming a wholecoiner, meaning an investor who holds more than 1 BTC, is becoming increasingly difficult over time.
Bitcoin's market cap keeps rising and holding a full 1 BTC isn't within reach of every investor.
Wholecoiners will keep becoming rarer over time.
But what this chart highlights here is more their activity, through their inflows on Binance, the exchange holding the largest BTC reserves with more than 654 000 Bitcoin.
The average annualized inflows of wholecoiners on Binance are reaching historically low levels, comparable to those of 2018.
Between 2021 and today these inflows went from 15 400 BTC to just 6 000 BTC, a reduction of more than 61%.
What's striking is the difference between the 2021 cycle and this one.
In 2021 these wholecoiners' inflows on Binance increased as Bitcoin's price climbed. During this cycle these average inflows have kept falling.
Inflows were 3 times higher than today during the bear market and a bit after.
This drop in activity suggests that as the number of wholecoiners indeed decreases, their inflows decrease as well.
This could also be linked to the arrival of ETFs, since a clear decline can be seen starting early 2024.
In any case, this situation reflects well the decrease in on chain activity of wholecoiners, who could become a species on the verge of extinction over time.
Written by Darkfost

When normalizing the path from the Halving to the cycle bottom, the 2024 cycle remains ahead of the bottoming windows seen in 2016 and 2020. What matters here is not just timing, but market psychology: the market is exhausted, yet it has not reached full capitulation.
For now, the cycle data only suggests that downside risk remains. It is still too early to conclude that a bottom has formed.
Don’t confuse “the price has fallen significantly” with “the market has bottomed.”
Written by Rei Researcher

Bitcoin’s Short-Term Holder Realized Cap fell to $249.7 billion on July 31, marking its lowest reading since October 7, 2024, when the metric stood at $244.4 billion.
The latest reading is the first move below $250 billion in nearly 22 months and leaves the metric just $5.3 billion above its October 2024 low.
The decline is also substantial compared with late-2025 levels, when Short-Term Holder Realized Cap exceeded $600 billion.
Since then, the metric has contracted by more than $350 billion, reflecting a major reduction in the realized capital base associated with recently active Bitcoin holders.
The divergence is notable because Bitcoin remained near $64,700, meaning the short-term holder capital structure has returned close to October 2024 levels while the market price is still above $64,000.
The downtrend developed throughout 2026 and accelerated in recent months, turning the July 31 reading into the continuation of a broader structural contraction .
Short-Term Holder Realized Cap measures the aggregate cost basis of coins currently classified within the short-term holder cohort.
Its decline does not represent an equivalent amount of capital leaving Bitcoin, but it does indicate a significant reset in the cost-basis structure of recently active supply.
Written by Amr Taha

XRP Withdrawal Transaction Share Hits Highest Since February 2021 as Binance Reaches 55.6%
XRP withdrawal transactions gained their strongest dominance in more than five years on July 31, as the seven-day share on Binance climbed to 55.6%, its highest level since February 2021.
The same shift appeared across the broader centralized exchange market, where withdrawal transactions reached 54%, also marking their highest share since February 2021. The synchronized move indicates that the change was not limited to a single trading venue.
At the same time, XRP deposit transaction shares fell to multi-year lows.
Binance’s deposit share declined to 44.3%, while the aggregate figure across all centralized exchanges dropped to 45.95%—the lowest readings for both metrics since February 2021.
This created an 11.3-percentage-point gap between withdrawal and deposit transactions on Binance, compared with approximately 8.05 percentage points across all exchanges.
Binance’s withdrawal share also stood 1.6 percentage points above the market-wide average, while its deposit share was roughly 1.65 percentage points lower.
The shift accelerated sharply during the final weeks of July rather than developing gradually, with withdrawal shares rising as deposit shares moved in the opposite direction.
The divergence is particularly notable because XRP was trading near $1.08, well below its previous price highs, suggesting that exchange transaction behavior was changing despite continued price weakness.
However, the metric tracks the number of deposit and withdrawal transactions, not the volume of XRP transferred or confirmed net exchange flows.
It therefore signals a major change in transaction structure but does not, by itself, prove accumulation, reserve declines, or net capital movement away from exchanges.
Written by Amr Taha

Ethereum open interest across all exchanges stood at $11.83 billion as of July 31, 2026, with price near $1,906, marking a modest recovery from the sub-$10 billion lows hit earlier in the summer even as the metric remains well below its 2025 peak.
Open interest tracked price closely through 2025, climbing from roughly $17-20 billion in early 2025 toward a peak above $30 billion in August-September as ETH pushed toward $4,500. Both metrics then declined together into year-end, before a sharper break lower in early 2026 pulled open interest down to the $10-11 billion range alongside a price drop from the $3,000s to the $2,000 area. A partial rebuild followed through spring, then another leg down in June pushed open interest back toward cycle lows before the current stabilization.
This pattern of leveraged positioning contracting roughly in step with price suggests deleveraging rather than a divergence-driven setup. The current $11.83 billion level sits closer to the depressed readings seen in February and April 2025 than to the elevated positioning of last summer, indicating that speculative leverage in ETH derivatives markets remains comparatively light relative to the size of the market earlier this cycle.
The honest read is that lighter open interest cuts both ways. It reduces the risk of a leverage-driven cascade in either direction, but it also signals reduced conviction and thinner liquidity, meaning price moves from here may be more sensitive to spot flows than to derivatives-driven momentum until positioning rebuilds meaningfully.
Ethereum's open interest stabilizing near $11.8 billion after months of contraction points to a derivatives market that has largely reset, leaving room for renewed leverage to build in either direction depending on how price behaves from current levels.
This reflects my own views. Not financial advice.
Written by Rich_dady

The FOMC left interest rates unchanged as expected, but the Fed’s tone was interpreted as more hawkish than markets had anticipated. Bitcoin volatility increased after the decision, yet derivatives and on-chain data show that traders had entered the meeting without a strong directional conviction.
Four indicators help explain the setup.
First, Bitcoin’s taker buy-sell ratio remained near 1.0, showing that aggressive buyers and sellers were almost evenly balanced. The market was waiting for a catalyst rather than positioning decisively.
Second, perpetual-futures activity showed only a mild short bias. Bears repeatedly failed to push Bitcoin below the $62,000–$63,000 support zone, indicating that selling pressure lacked conviction.
Third, funding rates remained positive. This suggested that underlying demand for long positions had not disappeared, although persistent positive funding also left crowded longs vulnerable to sudden liquidations.
Finally, exchange inflows stayed relatively low. There was no clear sign that holders were rushing to move Bitcoin onto exchanges for immediate selling.
Together, these indicators showed a market coiled ahead of the Fed: cautious, balanced, and waiting. The post-FOMC volatility did not emerge from strong bearish positioning, but from a neutral market rapidly repricing a more hawkish policy message.
Written by XWIN Japan

ETH has traded between 1,840 and 1,953 over the past two weeks, currently sitting near $1,908. The staking rate has crept steadily from 33.44% to 33.90%, suggesting continued gradual asset lock-up.
Over the same window, aggregate exchange netflow (netflow_all) has been negative on most days, while the Coinbase premium index has slipped further to -0.12 - a combination that may point to relatively softer US spot demand versus the broader market.
A more notable shift appears in the 90-day structural data: Binance - still the deepest and most closely watched venue for ETH stablecoin settlement - saw its stablecoin netflow (stable_netflow_binance_netflow_total) fall 518% week-over-week, 347% versus the monthly baseline, and 728% versus the quarterly baseline, among the largest structural moves across the 148 metrics tracked. Because Binance’s order book depth typically makes it the first place large flow shifts become visible, this reversal offers an early read on where stablecoin liquidity may be repositioning.
At the same time, weekly fees_burnt_total_usd rose roughly 48%, though it remains about 54% below its 90-day average, and large-holder exchange activity (inflow/outflow_top10) is trending lower across all three windows - weekly, monthly, and quarterly.
Taken together - thinning stablecoin liquidity on Binance, a weaker Coinbase premium, and declining large-holder exchange participation - these conditions resemble prior phases that historically preceded price consolidation ahead of a directional resolution. This combination doesn’t guarantee a bullish or bearish outcome, but it may mark a transitional zone worth monitoring as the next phase develops.
Written by CryptoOnchain