For most of 2025, Bitcoin’s rock-bottom price seemed unshakable, supported by an unlikely alliance between corporate finance and exchange-traded funds.
Companies issued stocks and convertible bonds to buy the tokens, but ETF inflows quietly absorbed the new supply. Together, they have created a durable demand base that helps Bitcoin counter tight financial conditions.
Now, that foundation is beginning to change.
Charles Edwards, founder of Capriol Investments, said in a Nov. 3 post on X that his bullish outlook has weakened as the pace of institutional accumulation has slowed.
He pointed out:
“For the first time in seven months, net institutional purchases are less than daily mined supply. Not good.”
According to Edwards, this was a key indicator that kept him optimistic, even though other assets were outperforming Bitcoin.
However, in the current situation, he pointed out that around 188 corporate treasury companies currently hold large Bitcoin positions, many of which have limited business models other than token exposure.
Bitcoin government bond purchases slow down
No company defines corporate Bitcoin trading more than MicroStrategy Inc, which recently shortened its name to Strategy.
The software maker led by Michael Saylor has transformed into a Bitcoin treasury company and currently holds over 674,000 BTC, solidifying its position as the largest single corporate holder.
But that purchasing rhythm has slowed sharply in recent months.
For context, Strategy added approximately 43,000 BTC in Q3, which is the lowest purchase amount for a quarter this year. This number is not surprising considering that the company reduced some of its Bitcoin purchases to just a few hundred coins during the period.
CryptoQuant analyst JA Matern explained that the slowdown could be related to the strategy’s declining NAV.
He said investors used to pay a high “NAV premium” for every dollar of Bitcoin on Strategy’s balance sheet, effectively rewarding shareholders with leveraged exposure to BTC’s appreciation. That premium has been compressed since mid-year.
With fewer valuation tailwinds, issuing new shares to buy Bitcoin is no longer accretive, weakening the incentive to raise capital.
Maartan pointed out that:
“It is more difficult to raise capital. Equity issue premiums have fallen from 208% to 4%.”
Cooling, on the other hand, extends beyond MicroStrategy.
Metaplanet, a Tokyo-listed company modeled after its U.S. predecessor, recently traded below the market value of its Bitcoin holdings following a significant selloff.
In response, the company authorized a share buyback and introduced new funding guidelines to expand its Bitcoin treasury. While the move signals confidence in the company’s balance sheet, it also highlights investors’ waning enthusiasm for the “digital asset treasury” business model.
In fact, the slowdown in Bitcoin Treasury acquisitions has resulted in some of these companies merging.
Last month, asset management company Strive announced the acquisition of Semler Scientific, a small BTC treasury company. This transaction allows these companies to hold nearly 11,000 BTC at a premium, effectively becoming a scarce resource in the sector.
These examples reflect structural constraints rather than a loss of belief. When equity and convertible bond issuance ceases to command a market premium, capital inflows dry up and corporate accumulation naturally slows down.
ETF flow?
Spot Bitcoin ETFs, long seen as automatically absorbing new supply, are showing similar fatigue.
For most of 2025, these financial investment vehicles dominated net demand, with creation consistently exceeding redemptions, especially during the period when Bitcoin soared to all-time highs.
However, in late October, the flow became intermittent. Some weeks veered into negative territory as portfolio managers readjusted positions and risk desks reduced exposure in response to changes in interest rate expectations.
This volatility signals a new phase in Bitcoin ETF activity.
The macro environment is tense, and expectations for rapid interest rate cuts are fading. Real yields have risen and liquidity conditions have cooled.
Nevertheless, demand for exposure to Bitcoin remains strong, but it is now arriving in bursts rather than steady waves.
SoSoValue data shows this change. In the first two weeks of October, digital asset investment products saw nearly $6 billion in inflows.
But by the end of the month, some of the gains were canceled out as redemptions rose to more than $2 billion.
This pattern suggests that Bitcoin ETFs have matured into a true two-way market. Although they still provide deep liquidity and access to institutions, they no longer serve as a one-way means of accumulation.
When macro signals wobble, ETF investors can exit just as quickly as they enter.
Bitcoin market impact
This evolving scenario does not automatically cause a recession, but it does mean increased volatility. As corporate and ETF absorption slows, Bitcoin price movements will become increasingly driven by short-term traders and macro sentiment.
In such a situation, Edwards argues, new triggers such as monetary easing, regulatory clarity, and a revival of risk appetite in the stock market could reignite institutional bidding.
However, price discovery is more susceptible to global liquidity cycles as marginal buyers appear to be more cautious at the moment.
As a result, the effect is twofold.
First, structural bidding, which once functioned as a drag, is weakening.
During periods of underabsorption, intraday volatility can be magnified as fewer stable buyers are present to dampen volatility. The halving in April 2024 will mechanically reduce new supply, but without stable demand, scarcity alone will not guarantee price increases.
Second, Bitcoin’s correlation profile is changing. As balance sheet buildup cools, assets may once again track broad liquidity cycles. While rising real yields and a strong dollar could weigh on prices, easing conditions could allow them to regain control of the risk-on rally.
Essentially, Bitcoin has re-entered a macro-reflexive phase, behaving more like a high-beta risk asset than digital gold.
On the other hand, none of this negates Bitcoin’s long-term story as a rare and programmable asset.
Rather, it reflects the increasing influence of institutional dynamics that were once kept away from retail-driven change. The same mechanisms that propelled Bitcoin into mainstream portfolios now tie it more closely to the gravity of capital markets.
The coming months will test whether the asset can maintain its store-of-value appeal without automatic inflows of companies and ETFs.
If history is any guide, Bitcoin tends to adapt. When one demand channel slows, others often emerge, such as sovereign reserves, fintech consolidation, or new retail participation during macro-easing cycles.
(Tag translation) Bitcoin
