BTC

feenixOmlette

I think there is a use case for steady state BTC. That is, once the hypothetical biggest idiot has bought btc, and there are no further idiots that want to buy, at that point btc value should theoretically freeze and increase no higher. However at that point if QE occurs and money is printed, btc will increase on that principle alone. And thus it just becomes an inflation hedge like digital gold anyway.

GIGAbtcHodl

You just accept the fact that it's volatile before you invest a single penny, you tell yourself that you are in for 5-10 years at least and that you won't sell even if your stack drops 50%, you work hard to be able to have more buying power to acquire more BTC, you DCA, you don't fall for FOMO, your emotions are not involved in investments. That should do for the start

giregam

There are only about 950,000 addresses with 1 BTC or more, and when you account for exchanges and lost keys, the number of actual individuals who own a whole coin is likely well under 700,000.

The-Happy-Mannequin

What's the point of BTC with a single entity that controls so much of the supply.

Shoe-dog1348

Around 1M accounts that hold over 1BTC. So assume less than 1M people. My bet is 900K

Nagemasu

I hate seeing claims about sales/ownership like this because it's impossible to calculate - they can only see transactions, not whether it was a buy/sell/transfer. The only way to get an *idea* is to take total BTC supply at the start, then monitor the known addresses of business/govt/fund entities and count how much they accumulated. At the end, compare how much new supply is available/has been mined, then do whacky math to assume what portion of network traffic was individuals selling instead of unknown addresses transferring.

__Ken_Adams__

I'm not talking about lending *against* bitcoin to loan out USD (or stablecoin). You're right, in that scenario the lender doesn't need BTC from anyone. I'm talking about lending BTC itself to the borrower, which is a thing.

EmeraldEnvyBop

Fair, SOL’s probably the closest thing to a “high beta BTC” right now. You in it for the tech (speed/fees + dev activity) or just riding the narrative and ETF hopium?

-M00NMAN

If I had to choose any other coin besides BTC it would be Solana

Atavacus

Better but Monero if that's what you're doing. BTC is captured honestly.

USAFtrader

I put my entire 401k (~174k) in BTC in 2024. Wild ride up to 361k and now at 239k

ourcryptotalk

I own 10 BTC but I won't tell it on Reddit

CryptoAdventureHQ

1 BTC is hard to get :( and there are even less people that can hold 1BTC with all the companies buying it. Strategy holds so many…

digitaldisorder_

And no telling how many people only bought $10 and sold it and then bought 10 BTC and then hodl. Who’s going to report $1.

ElderMight

If you don't have 1 BTC yet, it should all go to BTC. Get to 1 coin as fast as you can.

dataCollector42069

whats the point of switching to the BTC standard if one company is trying to buy 5% of the supply plus other whales. You are only getting them richer.

Logical-Tax-4462

MSTR can be wild ride though, goes both ways pretty hard. I've been watching it for while and when BTC drops even little bit MSTR just gets hammered way worse For that amount maybe split between direct BTC and some of these ETFs? The yields look nice but always check what's behind them first. I learned this hard way with some other "safe" crypto yields lol IBIT seems solid choice if you want exposure without dealing with wallets and all that

Intrepid-Gas7872

Between 600,000-900,000 people own at least 1.0 BTC so a good guess is 750,000 people

GreenStretch

I kept wondering about four years ago the last few days and finally checked. [https://coinmarketcap.com/historical/20220410/](https://coinmarketcap.com/historical/20220410/) BTC, BNB, and XRP are up from then. ETH, SOL, ADA, AVAX, DOGE, and DOT are down. Tether and USDC were in the top 12. And Terra was #9 at $92.58.

marcbolanman

He predicted BTC $250k by end of 2025, was clearly wrong, and now has pushed out his prediction to 2027. Cool story.

VastOk6864

I’ve been HODL 0.1 BTC since 2013. Doubt I’ll ever make it to a full coin.

angelwolf71885

There’s more then one crypto currency on there own chain just BTC is the dominant crypto

Secret-Ganache8718

Yes. It will be super cycle to 1m for BTC, and 0 for altcoins

RetiredAvocado

Everyone with 30000 BTC will talk up pumpy targets.

AutoModerator

Post is by: Bcom_Mod and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: /r/bitcoin_com/comments/1sls8fp/goldman_sachs_just_filed_for_a_bitcoin_income_etf/ Something shifted in the Bitcoin ETF landscape this week that's worth understanding properly, because the headline might not adequately capture why it matters. Goldman Sachs filed yesterday, for a Bitcoin Premium Income ETF. Structure: the fund gains exposure through existing spot Bitcoin ETPs, then systematically sells covered call options against that position: somewhere between 40% and 100% of its Bitcoin exposure at any given time. The premium collected from selling those calls gets distributed as income. Trade-off: capped upside. If Bitcoin rips past the call strike price, you don't fully participate. What you get in return is yield in an asset class that otherwise produces nothing. BlackRock filed a nearly identical product last week. Two of the three largest asset managers on earth, within days of each other, building income-generating Bitcoin products. The first wave of spot ETFs: IBIT, FBTC, MSBT, were essentially "Bitcoin, but in a brokerage account." Clean price exposure products. They attracted people who wanted BTC performance and could stomach the volatility. The income ETF is a fundamentally different pitch aimed at a fundamentally different investor. Retirees who need yield. Fixed-income allocators whose mandates require income-generating assets. Endowments with distribution requirements. The wealth management client who asks their advisor "what does it pay?" These people have been structurally excluded from Bitcoin exposure because Bitcoin pays nothing and swings 40-50% in a cycle. A covered call ETF changes both of those objections simultaneously: it generates yield, and the sold calls provide a partial buffer against downside volatility. [Goldman's fund won't hold Bitcoin directly](https://news.bitcoin.com/goldman-sachs-files-for-bitcoin-premium-income-etf-with-covered-call-strategy/), will be actively managed by named GSAM portfolio managers, and has a launch window of late June or early July after the 75-day SEC registration period. Active management is a meaningful detail here. Goldman is committing ongoing research resources, not just filing a passive wrapper. If you step back: we now have spot ETFs from BlackRock, Fidelity, Morgan Stanley, ARK, Bitwise. Income ETFs from BlackRock and Goldman incoming. Schwab and E\*Trade launching direct crypto trading in H1 2026. The entire distribution infrastructure of American finance is being wired up to Bitcoin simultaneously, in a bear market, while Fear & Greed sits at 11. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoMarkets) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

Post is by: Bcom_Mod and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: /r/bitcoin_com/comments/1sls2q5/bitcoin_funding_rates_have_been_negative_for_46/ This is the kind of data point that should stop you mid-scroll. Derivatives funding rates on Bitcoin perpetual futures have now been negative for 46 straight days. For the non-derivatives crowd: negative funding means short sellers are paying longs to keep their positions open. It's a direct measure of how many people are betting against the price continuing. When funding stays negative for this long, it means persistent, structural bearish positioning. Not a temporary dip in sentiment, but a sustained conviction among leveraged traders that the price is going lower. The last time funding was negative for this long? November-December 2022. Immediately after the FTX collapse. Which, if you remember, turned out to be the cycle bottom. BTC bottomed around $15,500 and went on to hit $126,000 by October 2025. The pattern is worth understanding. Extended negative funding doesn't just indicate bearish sentiment: it actively creates conditions for violent upward moves. Every short position in the market is a future forced buy. When the trigger comes, (a macro shift, a geopolitical development, a policy signal) all those shorts have to cover simultaneously, which amplifies any rally far beyond what spot demand alone would produce. This is exactly the mechanism behind the $600 million short liquidation event when the ceasefire was announced last week. BTC briefly touched $76,000 yesterday before pulling back to $74,000, unable to hold the breakout. The $75,000–$76,000 zone has dealers in deeply negative gamma, meaning their hedging flows will amplify whatever move comes next in either direction. Above $76K, the next meaningful resistance is $80,000–$80,600. None of this guarantees a recovery. The 46-day FTX comparison is one data point, not a playbook. The macro environment in late 2022 had a different texture: the rate hike cycle was approaching its peak, which gave the market something to look forward to. Right now the Fed is on hold with a 98% probability of no cut at either April or June meetings. That's a real difference. But the positioning data doesn't lie. [The market is loaded with shorts at a level historically associated with exhaustion rather than conviction. Someone has to be wrong.](https://news.bitcoin.com/goldman-sachs-files-for-bitcoin-premium-income-etf-with-covered-call-strategy/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoMarkets) if you have any questions or concerns.*

__Ken_Adams__

>Those words you said are literally all different words to enable another party to short the asset. No they're not. Shorting is very different than a BTC consumer loan. Shorting is borrowing btc to immediately sell it on the open market, with a requirement to rebuy it at a later time to pay back the btc in full and only after the position is closed. That is a very specific use case and all funds stay within the platform they were initiated on. It has the typical flow of how a "trade" works on an exchange, with an opening of a position & closing of the position. A BTC consumer loan is not the same thing. It is not considered a market "trade". It is not provided to be immediately sold on the open market. Funds involved do not stay on the lending platform, and like a standard consumer loan has an interest rate & is paid back in installments rather than after the position is closed.

silverous

This is underrated advice. The filter for whether to take a trade at all is more important than the entry timing. One framework that helped me: score the setup conditions before looking at the chart. Trend alignment across timeframes, volatility level, correlation with BTC, time of week. If the conditions score below a threshold, the trade does not exist regardless of what the chart looks like. The hardest part is accepting that sometimes the best trade is no trade. Especially in crypto where there is always something moving and FOMO is constant.

A_Honking_Goose

Pretty trash point then, he doesn't own BTC and he doesn't want to apparently he just wants exposure to the price how is not having BTC keys relevant to that in anyway?

maniloona

BTC has been on an uptrend since we got stuck at April 7, let’s hope this doesn’t jinx it lol

BB63_Htown

Lol, I've already made it in other ways. Def a newbie with BTC though. I plan to hold for 5 years at least. I get caught up watching it so closely now.

pablo_in_blood

Anything that can crack BTC would by definition be able to crack a ton of high-value targets sooner -- at that point, the tech/risk would become known, BTC protocols would be adjusted accordingly, and the world will keep on turning

norfbayboy

Why do you own BTC if "fiat is more efficient, widely whatever and takes a physical form when needed"?

ScaredofBeingPoor

Difference is eggs have real intrinsic value, meanwhile BTC only has value of what people say it is, just like centralized money.

Fantastic_Deer9843

ah now i get it. 1BTC= 100million Satoshi

Aggressive_Estate688

This sounds more like a custody problem than an investment one. Moving to MSTR just to avoid self-custody risk means giving up control completely. A better move is fixing the setup. Trezor stress usually comes from the seed phrase. Tangem removes that, no seed to manage, just backup cards, much easier to live with long-term. I’d keep the BTC and simplify custody instead of switching assets.

InvestAISavvy

Yeah the "3%" number is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Anyone who actually buys groceries or pays rent knows the real erosion is way worse than what gets reported. The methodological changes they've made to CPI over the decades — hedonic adjustments, substitution weighting — all conveniently push the number down. I remember the fact that M2 money supply roughly tripled since 2008 and somehow we're supposed to believe cumulative inflation was only like 45%? That gap is exactly why price-agnostic accumulation makes sense to a lot of people. You're not really buying BTC at $95K or whatever — you're just exiting a unit of account that leaks purchasing power by design.

thesatdaddy

Based on rough estimations i believe there's currently less than a million people worldwide who own 1 BTC

Afraid_Grocery3861

Bro wants people to adopt BTC, but also shames them when they're learning hard lessons (lessons Im sure you've also learned)

WorkerPlayful4192

Okay, then how you will captialise your BTC into something (let's say fiat) that can buy you things? Or you will HODL forever?

jinzo222

This is not good. The big banks will suppress BTC like how they suppress gold...

AcostaJA

Include at your check list the 24h BTC/usd* volume, it's the best indicator for bull run, if keeps at current levels by the rest of the week, the bull run and ATH are very close.

Hitachi22

That was just today, 9,500 BTC and yesterday they bought 7,500. https://strc.live/ticker/strc

No-Masterpiece2246

Plenty of new things being invented in this "Fintech" sector. Most of it is bullshit. Yes, BTC is being rehypothecated as we speak. Plenty of proof of work coins aren't taken over yet. Simply stated, those coins will probably be more valuable in the future. And DeFi will take over when exchanges become KYC hell and/or unusable.

BigTroutOnly

If only a good tood mattered. fiat is more efficient, widely and takes a physical form when needed. That said I do own BTC.

Vinnypaperhands

Watch oil. BTC seems to be heavily correlated to crude right now

unknowngloomth

No I don't know. I DCA BTC through zengo. They credit my BTC straight into my wallet

AnixAvocado

Great idea to finally see reviews from real people who paid with BTC.

ElGoorf

I think it's plausible that plenty of people who got into crypto early are still holding onto multiple BTC. I used to own a handful but sold it all off way too long ago.

Happy-Control-7669

This IS absolute shit .. more means for Wallstreet to mess around with BTC derivates and incentivize price Control. Or am i Reading the wrong?

simonfester

Around 1 million wallets have more than 1 BTC. https://www.bitcoinmagazinepro.com/charts/addresses-greater-than-1-btc/

Hitachi22

So STRC buys 10k BTC today alone and price still just goes sideways.

D--star

I have exposure to 1BTC but its mostly an etf

stellarfirefly

I think there’s a subtle distinction here. For standard wallet-generated addresses, yes, they are derived from a private key via a public key, so a corresponding private key always exists. However, Bitcoin doesn’t require addresses to be generated that way. It only requires that the locking script is valid. That means it’s possible to construct outputs (like OP\_RETURN or certain scripts) that cannot be satisfied by any private key at all. So in those cases, it’s true that no private key exists that could spend them. But for normal addresses, the issue is usually that the private key exists but is unknown, not that it doesn’t exist. Truly unspendable coins can occur when they’re sent to scripts that cannot be satisfied at all, such as OP\_RETURN outputs. Or the genesis block, presumably. My point was technically wrong in saying there don't exist unspendable address. But in the end, I think most lost Bitcoin wasn’t intentionally destroyed. In most cases, the private key still exists mathematically, but it’s been lost or was never known in the first place. Even when people send BTC to “random” or burn addresses, those addresses still correspond to some private key in theory. The difference is that no one has that key, not that it doesn’t exist. And that when most people think about "lost" Bitcoin, they're thinking about these coins.

speedingmedicine

Honestly I know this sub can be an echo chamber but from someone who has been into BTC from the early days I would say I don't think anyone ever imagined BTC, just hoped, that BTC would blow up this much. It might not be worth a million dollars a coin just yet but it is talked about in mainstream media, big banks are investing, average people can buy BTC ETFs. There is absolutely no arguing that BTC adaptation is speeding running. Unlike the early days I don't believe BTC will ever replace the dollar but there's no question about its value as a financial instrument. I do think 1 BTC will eventually be unobtainable for the average person probably in a nearer future than people believe.

KoalaOk3020

Morgan Stanley launched a new BTC etf last week, sure they bought a couple million the last few days.

-rosslyn26-

Ho la tua stessa sensazione. Il giorno che dovessero mai decidere di non accumulare più BTC, estinguere i debiti e riscattare le preferred più fastidiose, avranno comunque accumulato una tesoreria non da poco.

Serenity_Williamsa

BTC becoming productive is interesting tho, but i’m still cautious. if it keeps self custody intact then yeah it’s huge, but i’ve seen too many “yield” ideas blow up before so taking it slow

Crystal_Smitha

at some point you realize BTC is just playing a different game. now i keep most of my stack in gem wallet and don’t overcomplicate it, way less stress than constantly rotating

Arc_ClutchUp

How many people really have at least 1 BTC is a good question, most ppl will say about a million but the actual number is closer to 850,000-900,000

A_Honking_Goose

Your statement makes literally no sense if you actually read the comment. He brought no BTC, he brought shares

Reggi5693

It’s relatively easy to find how many wallets have more than one bitcoin. ChatGPT tells me this: Current best estimate • ~950,000 Bitcoin wallet addresses hold ≥ 1 BTC as of ~2025–2026  • Other recent data points: • ~983,000 addresses (2025 estimate)  • ~991,000 addresses (2023–2024 range) 

Few-Engineering9803

Those are rookie numbers, "he" just bought 20k+ BTC in 2 days. And we still have 3 more to go.

CryptoOnTheSidewalk

Are you mostly seeing this on smaller caps, or even with the big ones like BTC and ETH? And are these posts actually showing any track record, or just reacting to the latest move? A lot of that “confidence” is just hindsight mixed with noise, people post after a move and frame it like they saw it coming. If you check closely, most of them aren’t working off anything consistent, it’s just charts plus bias plus wanting to sound certain. The ones saying opposite things can both feel right short term because crypto moves fast and unpredictably. One practical thing, start tracking a few of these posters over time instead of single posts, you’ll notice pretty quickly who’s guessing and who at least has a repeatable approach. Big caveat, even the more disciplined traders get it wrong often, so treating any confident call like a guarantee is usually where people get burned.

blaziken8x

It's probably going to go back up in price when BTC goes up again (probably in 2-3 years).

BigTroutOnly

Fiat is required to know the relative buting power BTC. We can't barter or use BTC exclusively

Few-Engineering9803

Envious of someone with more wealth than you? On Reddit of all places??? No way! He's not personally sitting on all that BTC btw, that's not how it works.

stellarfirefly

The QC risk of Shor's Algorithm is that a private key may be created from the public key. It is true that those accounts that never spent, i.e. transferred out, any BTC are unspendable because no public key exists in the ledger. But if a single sat were sent out then the account goes into the "currently inaccessible" bin. Barring, of course, a future algorithm (quantum or otherwise) that similarly speeds up Electrum database lookups and making a broad scan feasible.

autoeroticassfxation

For most people it would put them in the position of having nearly all of their eggs in one basket. 1BTC is a lot!

Evening_Wolverine27

Yeah, that pretty much matches what a lot of people feel. BTC tends to hold up better through cycles since it’s the “base” asset, while alts usually take more of the damage in bear phases.

Kai-Xi-Fengshui

And I’m an estate agent - I’d sell my properties to buy BTC.

adiadore

I think you can check on BitInfoCharts. Around 1 mio addresses have +1 BTC.. but discount the exchanges and people with multiple addresses having more than 1 BTC in each

FunWithSkooma

the layer1 should stay as conservative as possible, every single idea to make BTC better should be done on layer 2 and beyond. Do not expect much improvement from layer 1, it there doing what it does best, if you want better scalability for Bitcoin, read mroe about lightning network, liquid network, Spark Protocol and Ark.

remithril

I do have more than 1 BTC thanks to the 2010 faucet. I've never sold these BTC and I am still stacking some by DCA

Blockchainauditor

Let's say the global economy is at $125 trillion today. And let's say that 21 million BTC or 21,000,000 BTC \* 1,000,000,000 decisat/BTC is 21,000,000,000,000,000 decisat. That's $.006 today per decisat. Even fiat fails, and based on that value today, would anyone be influenced by that?

Yodel_And_Hodl_Mode

> So therefore I would argue those need to be included in the supply when calculating people who own >1 BTC. If the BTC isn't in your wallet, you don't own it. The owner of the wallet owns it. I know that's not a comfortable concept to think about, but it's a fact. It's even true for ETFs. People who own shares of an ETF own an equivalent of an amount of Bitcoin... but they do not own Bitcoin. Here's the proof: They can't send that Bitcoin to their own wallet.

biophysicsguy

I'm someone who didn't take profits in Q4 and I personally don't care whether "cycle is alive" or "cycle is dead" is true. It doesn't matter. Whichever side is right, I win. If the cycle is dead and we've bottomed I'm still holding all my BTC and continuing to buy more, so I win. If the cycle is alive and we continue to drop until October (or whatever) then over the next 6 months my stack grows a shit ton, so I win. On the other hand, if you are in "cycle is alive" camp and you sold all your BTC to buy back later... and you're wrong? You missed the boat. You lose. Alternatively, if you are in "cycle is dead" camp and you think we already bottomed and are going to rocket higher any day so you leverage long... and you're wrong? You get liquidated. You lose. Stop gambling by trying to time the market people. Just stack sats.

FullOf_Bad_Ideas

> However, isn’t there a way to move the funds from LN to regular BTC network? So they should still be able to move funds around the world with ease, no? I never used LN, but I think you'd need to close channel to make it happen. And closing a channel is risky, funds can be lost or stolen. Iran has enemies so it would be dumb for them to try it. >Now that I think about it, I don’t think the transaction volume in LN would be that much of a concern tbh compared to privacy coins. 500M USD is not LN transaction volume. That's the number of BTC that are on LN channels overall. I think Lightning was designed for small transactions, like buying food, not collecting $100M USD of tolls per day for crossing through disputed territory. Average channel has just 0.08 BTC on it, which means big transactions would be probably impossible. LN daily transaction volume is around 36M USD per day, I think - there was a news article that they crossed 1B monthly volume, which I derived it from.

fucken_jim

You have NO control over that BTC, therefore the BTC MSTR have is not yours. If you only own MSTR shares, you have control of 0 BTC. Simple.

IInsulince

I think that is correct, and I think it also fits with what OP said about asymptotically approaching 21 million. I don’t have the details fresh in my mind at this point, but I know that due to like, either integer limits or floating point precision, we don’t technically, today, have a cap of 21 million BTC, it stops just shy by a handful of sats, and that’s due to precision issues. So the question for me becomes, if we adopt millisats somehow, does that “unlock” some of those remaining sats that are technically not producible with the current limit is “regular” satoshis?

poughkeepsee

Glassnode has info on number of addresses with 1+ BTC. Its behind a login screen and I don’t have interest in it but go ahead and check https://studio.glassnode.com/charts/addresses.Min1Count?a=BTC

macetheface

How many average people actually sit and watch CNBC? Feel like that's one of those types of channels you have on in the background at a Fidelity branch lobby. *'As of early 2026, CNBC averaged roughly 150,000 to 200,000 viewers during core U.S. business day hours'* That's...not a lot I'm sure if you took a poll and people answered honestly regarding how much BTC they own, they'll either say I've dabbled and own tiny amount or 'ive heard about it but don't own any'. Not going to get many that went all in.

nicolas_pixi

Everyone asks this at the start 😂 There’s no perfect option. I just stick to BTC + some stables. Solflare is easy for holding.

StaneNC

Owning 1 BTC is definitely fringe opinion.

aramirez07

Please refer to all past bear markets. This rally is par for the course. We get it: bear markets suck and everyone wants this rally to break us out of the larger down trend. But the most likely outcome (based on ALL prior bear markets) is that this rally gets shutdown and we will form an actual bottom 1 year after the prior cycle top (likely later this year). Based on all prior data, thats the most likely outcome. If BTC goes to the moon from here, wonderful, but highly improbable at this point.

macetheface

https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html 824061 wallets owning 1-10 BTC

donttakeitfrommebut

I dont know the structures in the USA, or have experience with LLCs. But in my opinion, if its not under your name it's not yours. If Strategy stops for whatever reason, they will pay you back in money, not BTC. Or it's their choice at least. Maybe I see this wrong but in my opinion; If the LLCs stop, do you get your 3 rental properties? In that case i consider you the owner. if you get money, i dont consider you the owner.

HwatWhatWut

Wow. TIL. I had no idea LN transaction volume was that small. That’s insane. However, isn’t there a way to move the funds from LN to regular BTC network? So they should still be able to move funds around the world with ease, no? Now that I think about it, I don’t think the transaction volume in LN would be that much of a concern tbh compared to privacy coins. Privacy coins are significantly less liquid and their market cap is too small for the coin price not to be affected quite a bit by the amount of capital this use case would require.

Adventurous-Still-68

I own 21 million BTC

oct_prime

.76 in BTC. An equivalent of like .3 in ETF form

geneius

Exactly. MSTR can sell or borrow against that BTC without asking shareholders, thus shareholders don’t own the coins.

Djidji1997

In fact, it’s a smarter move to buy MSTR now. Ride up the bull, sell and put it in STRC. Next bear accumulate in real BTC

Fit_Seaworthiness_37

You are completely right here! The global crypto currency market cap today is estimated to be between $2.56T - 2.63T with BTC having ~1.5T market cap. It is still significantly smaller than global Binds, Equities, and Cash.

Obscurrium

I have 9.8 BTC still stacking !

Alteran2211

My BTC is uo 16413% since 2012 sell?

crypt0kiddie

My best friend took his life about 10 years ago. He's a millionaire many times over as far as BTC goes. Nobody will ever get it, it's all lost..

crypt0kiddie

🙋🏻‍♂️ My average buy price is right around $17.2K. Purchased a decent size lump right after selling a house that was inherited. My OG buy price when I first started buying BTC was right around $39. I never thought that it was going to get as big as it did, I just purchased it for degenerate online gambling purposes! I have quite a bit of ETH, SOL and XRP also.

NombreCurioso1337

If someone donated me 1BTC then I would be one of them

pretendingtobebroke

MSTR is not an ETF, it's a company which happens to own a lot of BTC. Owning MSTR shares does not entitle you to BTC.

AutoModerator

Post is by: Derivlens_01 and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: /r/CryptoMarkets/comments/1sle8y5/btc_derivatives_dashboard_april_14_full_signal/ Running the full derivatives signal stack on BTC this morning. Here's what the data is showing: Overall Signal: BEARISH The system aggregated across liquidation clusters, OI trend, funding rates, and long/short crowding — bias is clearly leaning bearish today. What the signal layers are saying: Liquidation Cluster Map The heatmap shows notable cluster density below current price. When price moves toward those zones, liquidity gets swept — market makers know these levels. The concentration below suggests downside liquidation hunts are more probable before any meaningful recovery. Long/Short Positioning Longs are crowded. When retail longs pile in at the top of a move and the signal flips bearish, that's not a coincidence — it's distribution. The imbalance here is a red flag for continuation to the downside. OI + Funding OI remains elevated post-move, and funding has been trending toward neutral/negative. That's a sign open interest is being held by stubborn longs who didn't exit — often precedes a flush. LPI (Liquidity Pressure Index) Reading in the mid-range — not at an extreme yet, but the direction of the pressure combined with the bearish macro setup points to more downside before a proper reversal sets up. Execution Playbook (from the system) No clean long setup at current levels. Bias: wait for liquidation sweep into the lower cluster zone, then watch for reversal confirmation before re-entering. \--- The signals align more bearish than bullish today. Whether we see a full flush or just a slow bleed depends on whether BTC holds key support or loses it on volume. What's your read on BTC today — do you think we sweep the lows before any recovery, or is this range holding? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoMarkets) if you have any questions or concerns.*