Bitcoin’s return to levels seen earlier in the cycle is sharpening attention on whether current demand is strong enough to absorb coins moving from older holders into newer institutional hands. Recent X posts from Ki Young Ju, CEO of CryptoQuant, and Julio Moreno, CryptoQuant’s head of research, frame the market as a test of demand rather than a simple macro-driven selloff.
Bitcoin Change of Hands Tests Market Demand
Ki Young Ju described the current Bitcoin distribution phase as “a massive change of hands,” with long-time holders and miners selling into a market increasingly shaped by U.S. traditional finance, investors, and spot ETFs. His argument centers on ownership composition: if coins are moving from early adopters and legacy miners to entities with deeper pools of capital, the market may be undergoing a structural transition rather than a terminal loss of momentum.
“I believe that the selling by Bitcoin OGs and long-time miners is part of a major shift in hands, transferring to US traditional financial institutions, investors, and ETFs. So, I disagree with the claim that Bitcoin won’t do well anymore once the shift is complete and there’s no more liquidity coming in.”
Ju linked that view to holder behavior and realized capitalization, noting that Bitcoin is trading around the same price as two years ago while the internal ownership profile has changed materially. He wrote that the six-month to two-year holder cohort, which entered during the current cycle, now accounts for 53% of realized cap, up from 15% two years earlier. In the prior cycle, he added, Bitcoin bottomed when that cohort reached 68%, a comparison he used to argue that short-term holders are gradually becoming longer-term holders.
“For any asset, what ultimately matters is who holds it. If the people holding it now are entities that can bring in even greater liquidity going forward, then I think we can look forward to the next rally at any time.”
Institutions Absorb Supply as Sellers Press Price
The most striking part of Ju’s analysis is the scale of reported absorption compared with price performance. He wrote that Bitcoin investors’ average cost basis is around $53,000 and that historically bear markets ended only after price fell below the realized price. He said he previously thought that level would be difficult to revisit because of institutional inflows and limited selling by MSTR, but added that current price action points to unusually strong sell pressure.
Ju cited MSTR’s Bitcoin activity as one example of supply removal. Since January 2023, he wrote, MSTR bought 711,206 BTC and sold only 32 BTC, implying 711,174 BTC removed from circulation. He also wrote that since Bitcoin was also at $63,000 in March 2024, ETFs absorbed 509,102 BTC while MSTR bought 650,706 BTC, totaling 1,240,808 BTC absorbed even as price returned to the same level.
“More BTC than Satoshi’s stack, nearly half of exchange reserves, has been absorbed, and price is still back at the same level. Bitcoin investors’ average cost basis is around $53K. Historically, bear markets ended only after the price fell below the realized price.”
Julio Moreno, CryptoQuant’s head of research, framed the correction more directly as a Bitcoin-specific demand issue. In an X post reposted by Ju, Moreno wrote that overall Bitcoin demand, including speculative and spot demand, is contracting at a monthly pace of 232,000 BTC. He argued that the move should be analyzed through Bitcoin-native data rather than broader risk-market signals.
“The ongoing price correction is completely related to Bitcoin demand conditions and has nothing to do with stocks (all-time highs), oil or macro (e.g. manufacturing activity is growing faster). It’s better to pay attention to data directly related to Bitcoin.”
The debate now turns on whether the market is seeing temporary pressure from older sellers or a deeper weakening in demand. Ju’s view is that Bitcoin can enter another upward cycle if institutional ownership provides a stronger demand base, though he also acknowledged that some cypherpunk values may be diluted in the process. Moreno’s demand data, meanwhile, suggests that near-term price action remains closely tied to whether new buyers can continue absorbing supply at scale.
AI Transparency Note: This article was prepared with the assistance of an AI system based on the sources listed and was reviewed, edited, and approved by a human editor before publication. All quotes, data points, and factual claims are intended to be grounded in the cited source material; however, errors cannot be ruled out entirely.