November 13 2025
For most of 2025, support for Bitcoin, rooted in an unusual combination of corporate treasuries and exchange-traded funds (ETFs), remained unshakeable. Companies issued shares and convertible debt, among other things, to acquire the token, while ETF inflows quietly absorbed new supplies. This synergy created a sustainable demand base that enabled Bitcoin to withstand the tightening financial conditions. However, this foundation is now beginning to shift.
On November 3, Charles Edwards, founder of Capriole Investments, pointed out that his optimistic outlook has weakened as the pace of institutional accumulation has slowed. He noted: "For the first time in seven months, net institutional buying is below daily mined supply. Not good." These metrics were central to his optimism, even as other assets outpaced Bitcoin.
According to Edwards, there are currently approximately 188 corporations holding significant Bitcoin positions, many without significant business models beyond their exposure to the token.
No company embodies the corporate Bitcoin strategy better than MicroStrategy, which recently shortened its name to "Strategy." Led by Michael Saylor, this software developer has transformed itself into a Bitcoin treasure trove and now holds over 674.000 BTC, making it the largest single-shareholding corporate owner. However, acquisition activity has slowed dramatically in recent months.
For example, Strategy added approximately 43.000 BTC in the third quarter, the lowest quarterly figure this year. This figure can be explained by the fact that the company only acquired a few hundred coins in that quarter.
CryptoQuant analyst JA Maarturn explains that the decline may be related to the company's declining net asset value (NAV). Investors once paid a substantial "NAV premium" for every dollar of Bitcoin held on Strategy's balance sheet, rewarding shareholders with leverage on BTC's upside potential. This premium has declined since mid-year. With these valuation advantages gone, issuing new shares for Bitcoin purchases is no longer as advantageous, reducing the incentive to raise capital.
Maarturn notes: "Capital is harder to obtain. The premium percentage for share issuance has fallen from 208% to 4%."
The cooling of purchases extends beyond MicroStrategy. Metaplanet, a Tokyo-listed company modeled after its American predecessor, recently traded below the market value of its own Bitcoin holdings after a sharp decline. In response, the company authorized a share buyback program and introduced new guidelines to raise capital for expanding its Bitcoin treasury. This move demonstrates confidence in its balance sheet but also highlights waning investor enthusiasm for "digital-asset treasury" business models.
The reduced influx of Bitcoin treasury acquisitions has led to mergers between some of these firms. Last month, asset manager Strive announced its acquisition of Semler Scientific, a smaller Bitcoin treasury firm. This deal allows these firms to collectively hold nearly 11.000 BTC, a premium that is effectively becoming a scarce resource in the sector. These examples point to a structural limitation rather than a loss of conviction. When equity or convertible issuances no longer yield a market premium, capital inflows dry up, slowing corporate accumulation.
Spot Bitcoin ETFs, long seen as automatic absorbers of new supply, are now showing similar signs of fatigue. For much of 2025, these investment vehicles dominated net demand, with creations consistently exceeding redemptions, especially during Bitcoin's price surge to record highs.
However, towards the end of October, inflows became erratic. Some weeks even saw a shift into negative territory as portfolio managers rebalanced their positions and risk services trimmed their exposures in response to shifting interest rate expectations. This volatility marks a new phase in the behavior of Bitcoin ETFs.
The macroeconomic backdrop has tightened; hopes for rapid rate cuts have faded, while real yields have risen and liquidity conditions have cooled. Despite this, demand for Bitcoin exposure remains robust, but it is now coming in spurts rather than steady waves. Data from SoSoValue illustrates this shift. In the first two weeks of October, digital asset investment products attracted nearly $6 billion in inflows. However, by the end of the month, some of these gains had reversed, with redemptions surging to over $2 billion. These patterns suggest that Bitcoin ETFs have developed into true two-way markets. They still offer deep liquidity and institutional access, but they no longer act as one-way accumulation vehicles. When macro signals falter, ETF investors can exit as quickly as they entered.
These elements of the evolving situation don't automatically imply a downturn, but they do indicate increased volatility. With reduced absorption by companies and ETFs, Bitcoin's price will increasingly be driven by short-term traders and macro sentiment. In such situations, Edwards argues that new catalysts, such as monetary easing, regulatory clarity, or a return of risk appetite to equity markets, could rekindle institutional bids.
Nevertheless, with marginal buyers still seemingly cautious, price discovery remains more sensitive to global liquidity cycles. This has two effects. First, the structural bid, which once acted as a floor, weakens. During periods of underabsorption, intraday fluctuations can increase because there are fewer consistent 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 balance sheet accumulation cools, the asset could rejoin the broader liquidity cycle. Rising real yields and strong dollar phases could put pressure on prices, while dovish conditions could restore its leadership in risk-friendly rallies.
In summary, Bitcoin is returning to its macro-reflexive phase, behaving less like digital gold and more like a high-risk asset. This, however, does not detract from Bitcoin's long-term narrative as a scarce, programmable asset. Instead, it reflects the growing influence of institutional dynamics that once insulated it from the retail swing. The same mechanisms that propelled Bitcoin to the mainstream now tie it more closely to the gravitational pull of capital markets. The coming months will test whether the asset can maintain its role as a store of value without automatic inflows from corporations or ETFs. Historically, Bitcoin does adapt: when one demand channel wanes, a new one often emerges, be it from sovereign reserves, fintech integrations, or renewed retail participation during monetary easing cycles.
What role do institutional investors play in the Bitcoin market?
Institutional investors have played a crucial role in stabilizing the Bitcoin market by making significant purchases, which helps support the price. However, their declining inflows could lead to increased volatility.
How do ETFs affect the Bitcoin price?
ETFs offer an easy way for investors to gain exposure to Bitcoin, and buying them can stimulate demand and drive up the price. However, a decline in ETF deposits could lead to price pressure.
What does the decline in corporate investment in Bitcoin mean?
A decline in corporate investment could indicate reduced interest among companies in holding Bitcoin as an asset, which could impact demand and put downward pressure on the price. This decline could also lead to mergers and acquisitions among smaller companies in the space.
Bitcoin (BTC)
Ethereum (ETH)
XRP (XRP)
