On-chain analytics platform Glassnode has provided insights into why the Bitcoin price recently dropped below $70,000. The platform suggested that the flagship isn’t yet seeing enough demand, which could send its price to new highs.
Demand For Bitcoin Is Still Modest
In one of its latest market reports, Glassnode mentioned that “the rate at which new capital is flowing into the Bitcoin network has slowed down considerably from its peak.” They made this assertion based on the Realized Cap metric, which measures the value of each Bitcoin based on the last time it was traded. Glassnode claimed that Bitcoin’s Realized Cap is currently at $574 billion.
Related Reading
The platform further revealed that the injection of liquidity into Bitcoin has cooled off since the flagship crypto hit an all-time high (ATH) of $73,750. This is in stark contrast to the period before Bitcoin hit that ATH, with Glassnode noting that the flows into Bitcoin back then were “extremely sharp, culminating at a value of $3.38 billion daily.”
Meanwhile, Glassnode stated that the Realized Cap “remains in positive profit-dominated territory and is returning towards an equilibrium position.” However, they noted that Bitcoin’s modest demand was still able to spark this recent rally thanks to the “declining sell-side headwinds from mature investors.”
Basically, Glassnode suggested that things were looking up for Bitcoin but that it could be way better if there were more capital inflows. There could indeed be an increase in capital inflows soon enough, considering that the Spot Bitcoin ETFs have broken their streak of net outflows and are once again recording impressive net inflows into their funds.
Data from Farside Investors shows that these funds have already seen almost $700 million in net inflows this week. Specifically, these Bitcoin ETFs recorded a net inflow of $305.7 million on May 21 alone. That day was also BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) most profitable day yet, with the fund taking in $290 million.
Some Positive Key Takeaways
Glassnode also assessed some other vital on-chain metrics, which provided some positives for Bitcoin’s future trajectory. The platform noted that there has been a “large decline” in Bitcoin’s Sell-Side Risk Ratio, which “suggests the market has found a degree of equilibrium over the course of this correction.”
To assess market volatility, they also measured the percent range between the highest and lowest price ticks over the last 60 days. They concluded that “volatility continues to compress to levels typically seen after lengthy consolidations and prior to large market moves.”
Related Reading
Meanwhile, Glasnode revealed that 2.14M BTC out of the Short-term holder (STH) supply, currently at 3.36M BTC, fell into an unrealized loss following the recent market correction. They claim that this suggests that many of the BTC held by this category of investors are held at an unrealized loss, which reduces the risk of top-heaviness developing.
Featured image created with Dall.E, chart from Tradingview.com
much elon, such doge.. wow such drama what is even happen… apparently these guys are going to make this a series. hopefully other dimensions and times accept dogecoin. https://t.co/Hvi4uFGNu9— Dogecoin (@dogecoin) May 6, 2022
(SocialLY brings you all the latest breaking news, viral trends and information from social media world, including Twitter, Instagram and Youtube. The above post is embeded directly from the user’s social media account and LatestLY Staff may not have modified or edited the content body. The views and facts appearing in the social media post do not reflect the opinions of LatestLY, also LatestLY does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.)
A couple of weeks ago, a hacker with a heart of gold sold a fake Banksy NFT for 100 ETH and then gave the money back. They advertised the auction through Banksy’s official site. If the NFT was fake, someone hacked that site. Which seemed unlikely. Also, there is the issue of the alias that the scammed NFT collector uses. Pranksy, a play on words referencing the elusive graffiti artist Banksy mixed with the word “prank.” Which is what this whole situation was, a prank.
Too many coincidences. Suspicious, we posed our theory:
“Was Pranksy targeted by Banksy and his team? If Banksy wanted to create worldwide headlines and comment on the NFT boom at the same time, a notorious art collector was the missing ingredient. Pransky’s prominence in the NFT community mixed with his name makes him an ideal target.”
It seemed to fit, but the case of the fake Banksy NFT never ceases to amaze.
Security Experts Warned Banksy About His Website’s Vulnerability
Luckily for us, the BBC is on the case. They interviewed Sam Curry, “a professional ethical hacker from the US and founder of security consultancy Palisade.” There seem to be too many “ethical hackers” in this story, but ok… Curry told them:
“I was in a security forum and multiple people were posting links to the site. I’d clicked one and immediately saw it was vulnerable, so I reached out to Banksy’s team via email as I wasn’t sure if anyone else had.
“They didn’t respond over email, so I tried a few other ways to contact them including their Instagram, but never received a response.”
These things happen. How many emails does Banksy’s team get? Did it pass their spam folder? Can we be sure they read it on time? The suspicious thing, though, is Mr. Curry’s description of the site’s vulnerability. It:
“allowed you to create arbitrary files on the website” and post your own pages and content.
So, the flaw permitted the hackers to do exactly what they needed to do to advertise the fake Banksy NFT auction and not much more, huh? Interesting.
ETH price chart on FTX | Source: ETH/USD on TradingView.com
Banksy Isn’t Responsible For The Fake Banksy NFT, Experts Say
Neither the artist’s official website nor the Pest Control website even acknowledge the fake Banksy NFT. Something doesn’t feel right here. The BBC felt our uneasiness and tried to put our concerns to rest. They consulted two Banksy experts and they both thought that the shoe didn’t fit. According to them, the elusive graffiti artist is not the mastermind behind the whole event. This is not a “Banksy stunt.” Professor Paul Gough, “principal and vice-chancellor of Arts University Bournemouth,” goes first:
“I don’t see it as a Banksy prank. The timing for me doesn’t work right, the context doesn’t feel appropriate. He’s just done his ‘Spraycation’ stunt where he bombed 10 sites in East Anglia, and put out a video on social media about it.
“That is a pretty major stunt and takes a lot of organising by a very professional crew, so I just don’t think the timings right here so soon after that.”
Here’s the Spraycation video, dated August 13th, 2021:
It does seem like a “major stunt.” Does that mean that the fake Banksy NFT operation is out of the question? Or did Banksy went to work immediately after finishing his spraycation? Did the elusive graffiti artist strike again in the digital realm?
Second at bat is John Brandler, a Banksy collector, who provides another reason why the situation is not an original Banksy:
“Banksy’s stunts are not malicious and they don’t hurt people.”
Good point, but let’s be honest, the incident didn’t really hurt Pranksy. The NFT collector got his ETH back, was the subject of worldwide headlines, and still got to keep the fake Banksy NFT. It may be worth something, someday.
Or is this the last we’re going to hear about the fake Banksy NFT?
Featured Image: Screenshot of the fake Banksy NFT | Charts by TradingView