For most of 2025, Bitcoin’s bottom seemed immovable, supported by an unlikely alliance of corporate bonds and exchange-traded funds.
Companies issued stocks and convertible bonds to buy the token, while ETF inflows quietly gobbled up new supply. Together they created a sustainable demand base that helped Bitcoin weather the tightening financial conditions.
Now that basis is starting to shift.
In a November 3 after on
He noted:
“For the first time in seven months, net institutional purchases have fallen below daily mine supply. Not good.”
According to Edwards, this was the key metric that had kept him optimistic even as other assets outperformed Bitcoin.
However, with the current situation, he noted that there are now roughly 188 government bond companies holding significant Bitcoin positions, many with limited business models beyond their token exposure.
Bitcoin Treasury purchases are slowing
No company defines business Bitcoin trading better than MicroStrategy Inc., which recently shortened its name to Strategy.
The Michael Saylor-led software maker, which has transformed into a Bitcoin treasury company, now owns more than 674,000 BTC, cementing its position as the largest single company holder.
However, the purchasing rhythm has slowed down significantly in recent months.
For context, Strategy added approximately 43,000 BTC in the third quarter, which is the lowest quarterly purchase this year. This number is not surprising, as the company saw some of its Bitcoin purchases drop to just a few hundred coins during the period.
CryptoQuant analyst JA Maarturn explained that the slowdown could be related to the Strategy’s declining NAV.
According to him, investors once paid a hefty “NAV premium” for every dollar of Bitcoin on Strategy’s balance sheet, effectively rewarding shareholders with exposure to BTC’s upside. That premium has fallen since mid-year.
With fewer valuation tailwinds, issuing new shares to buy Bitcoin is no longer as valuable, reducing the incentive to raise capital.
Maarturn commented:
“Capital is harder to raise. Equity issuance premiums have fallen from 208% [to] 4%.”
Meanwhile, cooling extends beyond MicroStrategy.
Metaplanet, a Tokyo-listed company modeled on the American pioneer, recently traded below the market value of its own Bitcoin holdings after a steep drop.
In response, it approved a share buyback while introducing new guidelines for raising capital to grow its Bitcoin treasury. The move showed confidence in the balance sheet, but also highlighted investors’ waning enthusiasm for ‘digital asset treasury’ business models.
In fact, the slowdown in Bitcoin treasury acquisitions has resulted in a merger between some of these companies.
Last month, asset manager Strive announced the acquisition of Semler Scientific, a smaller treasury company of BTC. This deal would allow these companies to own nearly 11,000 BTC at a premium that effectively becomes a scarce resource in the industry.
These examples reflect a structural limitation rather than a loss of conviction. When equity or convertible bond issuance no longer yields a market premium, capital inflows dry up, naturally slowing corporate accumulation.
ETF flows?
Spot Bitcoin ETFs, long seen as automatic absorbers of new supply, are showing a similar fatigue.
For much of 2025, these financial investment vehicles dominated net demand, with creations consistently exceeding redemptions, especially during Bitcoin’s rise to record highs.
But by late October, their flows have become choppy. Some weeks saw a shift into negative territory as portfolio managers rebalanced positions and risk departments reduced exposure in response to shifting interest rate expectations.
That volatility marks a new phase in the behavior of Bitcoin ETFs.
Macroeconomic conditions have tightened and hopes for rapid interest rate cuts have faded; real yields have risen and liquidity conditions have cooled.
Nevertheless, demand for Bitcoin exposure remains high, but it now comes in bursts rather than steady waves.
Data from SoSoValue illustrates this shift. In the first two weeks of October, digital asset investment products attracted inflows of nearly $6 billion.
However, by the end of the month, some of these gains had been reversed as redemptions increased to more than $2 billion.
The pattern suggests that Bitcoin ETFs have evolved into true two-way markets. They still offer deep liquidity and institutional access, but no longer behave as one-way accumulation vehicles.
When macro signals falter, ETF investors can get out as quickly as they come in.
Market Implications for Bitcoin
This evolving scenario does not automatically mean a downturn, but it does imply greater volatility. As absorption by companies and ETFs decreases, Bitcoin’s price action would be increasingly driven by short-term traders and macro sentiment.
In such situations, Edwards argues that new catalysts such as monetary easing, regulatory clarity or the return of risk appetite in equity markets could reignite the institutional bid.
But because the marginal buyer appears more cautious for the time being, price developments are more sensitive to global liquidity cycles.
As a result, the effect is twofold.
First, the structural bid that once served as a floor is weakening.
During periods of underabsorption, intraday swings can become larger as there are fewer steady buyers to dampen volatility. The April 2024 halving has mechanically reduced new supply, but without consistent demand, scarcity alone does not guarantee higher prices.
Second, Bitcoin’s correlation profile is shifting. As accumulation on the balance sheet decreases, the asset can once again follow the broader liquidity cycle. Rising real rates and strong dollar phases could put pressure on prices, while easing conditions could restore the country’s leadership in risk-on rallies.
Essentially, Bitcoin is once again entering its macro-reflexive phase, behaving less like digital gold and more like a high-beta risk asset.
Meanwhile, none of this debunks Bitcoin’s long-term narrative as a scarce, programmable asset.
Rather, it reflects the growing influence of the institutional dynamics that once protected the country from retail-driven fluctuations. The same mechanisms that lifted Bitcoin into mainstream wallets now tie it more tightly to the gravity of the capital markets.
The coming months will test whether the asset can maintain its appeal as a store of value without automatic inflows from companies or ETFs.
If history is any guide, Bitcoin tends to adapt: when one demand channel slows, another channel often emerges – be it through sovereign wealth reserves, fintech integrations, or renewed retail participation during macro easing cycles.