As of the week ending April 27, Bitcoin has once again risen upward, and the picture presented by the market is "prices are increasing," but the funds driving this round of increase are quite different from what many people imagine. On the surface, it appears to be another strong rally; looking deeper, it resembles more a surge led by the futures market, with the spot market absent.

CryptoQuant CEO Ki Young Ju's assessment highlights the underlying dynamics of this market movement: the driving force pushing Bitcoin upward now mainly comes from the demand in the futures and derivatives markets, rather than from spot buying on-chain or the concerted efforts of spot ETFs. Coupling this with the ongoing increase in open interest, it can be seen that leveraged funds are piling up more and more in the derivatives market, and sentiment and positions on the futures side are becoming increasingly aggressive.

In contrast, there is a "staleness" on-chain. From the on-chain data perspective, Bitcoin's apparent spot demand remains in net negative territory, and there is no clear net inflow overall: futures are accelerating while spot is still slowing down, and the dislocation of "strong futures, weak spot" is becoming increasingly evident. Even in the context of continuous inflows into spot ETFs and the fact that long-term bullish sentiment in the over-the-counter market has not stopped purchasing, this situation has not been reversed.

More dramatically, the enthusiasm on the traditional finance side is heating up. BlackRock's IBIT recorded about $983 million in net inflows in the past week, setting a new weekly high in nearly six months, and on paper, it looks stellar. However, the inflow of these funds has not left synchronized traces in the on-chain spot demand indicators—on-chain remains net negative, indicating a clear "transmission gap" between ETF funds and on-chain behavior.

Thus, this rally has been marked by a suspense: while the futures market has stepped on the gas, the on-chain spot has not really taken off yet. Is this the starting acceleration towards a new cycle, or a relay rebound that could be interrupted at any time by a reversal in leveraged sentiment? The upcoming story will be written on how the chasm between futures and spot will either be bridged or further torn apart.

Leveraged funds leading the charge: Open interest in futures continues to rise

If we break down this rally, the first to break out of the pack is clearly not the on-chain spot but the open interest in futures contracts. Since the week ending on April 27, Bitcoin futures open interest has continuously risen, manifesting as a steeper "funding curve" beneath the price curve: old contracts have not exited, and new chips are continuously being added, making the betting table increasingly lively.

Open interest represents the scale of contracts that have not been settled; it does not directly inform you whether prices will rise or fall, but it tells you something else—how much capital has chosen to stay at the table using leverage. Recently, this number has been steadily climbing, and coupled with the derivatives market's significantly heightened trading and position activity compared to earlier periods, the signals conveyed are very direct: what is truly driving this market forward is a batch of leveraged funds willing to amplify both returns and risks.

When the rise is led by futures, the logic of prices also changes. In a spot-driven market, buying means locking real money into the asset itself, as chips transition from fluctuation to accumulation; whereas when led by futures, it becomes more a bet on "future prices": using margin to leverage a larger position and betting on a direction over time. Prices can be pushed up in a short period, but this push relies more on funding sentiment and position structure; once the direction reverses, liquidation, position reduction, and forced liquidations can accumulate in a very short time, amplifying the inherent volatility.

This is also why, during stages when derivatives are extraordinarily active and open interest is continuously rising, the market's sensitivity to short-term funding flows and news becomes significantly heightened. Often, prices do not fluctuate due to sudden changes in fundamentals but are magnified on the board due to even slight loosening of leverage—the driving wheels belong to the same batch of funds, merely with the direction potentially switching at any time.

CryptoQuant CEO Ki Young Ju has provided a rather clear judgement during this upward movement: the current strength of Bitcoin is driven mainly by demand from the futures market, rather than being supported by spot or spot ETF demand. In contrast to the reality that on-chain apparent spot demand remains in net negative territory, he is not looking at a single indicator but a structure—on one side is strong futures demand and rising open interest, while on the other side is spot buying that has not yet fully recovered.

In his cyclical framework, the true declaration of the end of a bear market often comes with both spot and futures demand warming up simultaneously, creating resonance. The current scenario, however, resembles more a situation where leveraged funds have pulled prices up significantly, while the spot market is still observing from behind: the narrative can certainly continue in the direction of a "new cycle," but there lies another possibility—once this upward ramp constructed by futures loses funding support, in what manner and at what position will the market liquidate the leveraged positions that had surged ahead. Moving forward, it will be crucial to see which ending the "futures-driven" thread proposed by Ki Young Ju will steer the entire movement towards.

On-chain buy pressure missing: Spot demand remains net negative

On the futures side, open interest has been pushed up significantly, and the market looks very vibrant, but from a different perspective—CryptoQuant's on-chain data—the story loses its flavor: Bitcoin's on-chain apparent spot demand is currently net negative. To put it bluntly, the funds visible on-chain are either still observing from the sidelines or are overall trending towards outflows, rather than flooding in to scoop up positions.

This means that even though prices have strengthened in this round of upward movement, the typical bullish phase where "spot buying and long-term holding demand rise together" has not materialized on-chain. Long-term holders show no signs of collectively increasing their positions, and new funds have not formed a clear net inflow on-chain; the level of spot demand on-chain remains at an unhealthily low level. While prices rise on the board, the underlying spot foundation is weak.

This contrast creates a very clear chasm between futures and spot: on one side, open interest in futures continues to rise, with leveraged funds increasing significantly on contracts; on the other side, on-chain spot demand remains net negative, and spot buying has yet to recover. Ki Young Ju's identification of "this round of increase being mainly driven by futures demand" translates into this quite discordant scene on-chain—the price above is being pulled forward, while the spot funds below have not caught up to provide support.

More subtly, even if there are visible "incremental stories," they have not filled this gap. In the past week, BlackRock's IBIT recorded approximately $983 million in net inflows, setting a new weekly high in nearly six months; Michael Saylor has continued to buy relentlessly. But even if traditional institutions are increasing positions via the spot ETF and there are large single buyers continuously adding, CryptoQuant's conclusion remains: on-chain apparent spot demand is net negative, and spot buying has not yet fully returned.

This exposes a structural problem: the inflows into ETFs have not seamlessly translated into active on-chain spot demand. ETF funds circulate more within the system of market makers and custodians, and do not necessarily correspond to a synchronous increase in on-chain address activity; while buyers like Saylor, from a data volume perspective, are insufficient to alter the entire on-chain supply-demand landscape. The result is that while futures are progressing vigorously, on-chain spot remains persistently absent, making the source of power behind this rally hard to fully rely on.

IBIT alone attracts funds: Why hasn’t ETF enthusiasm ignited on-chain?

While futures are leading the charge, the spot side is not entirely stagnant. In the past week, BlackRock’s IBIT has become one of the few highlights: approximately $983 million in net inflows in a single week set a new high in nearly six months, almost "independently attracting funds" within traditional financial channels. Logically speaking, such a volume should leave a noticeable trail of watermarks on-chain—but the data presents the opposite answer.

During the same period, Bitcoin's on-chain apparent spot demand remains net negative. In other words, even if IBIT achieved a "strongest week in six months" on the funding level, there are still no corresponding net inflows visible on-chain; instead, there seems to be overall heavier outflows. This dislocation directly exposes a key reality: there is no simple one-to-one correspondence between ETF fund inflows and on-chain spot demand, but rather there exists a real "transmission gap."

The reasons lie primarily in the mechanism. Spot ETFs like IBIT do not see retail investors individually buying coins on-chain but complete their subscription and redemption through market makers and custodians. Large amounts of Bitcoin can match off-chain and then be concentrated in a few addresses by custodians; these flows on-chain often only manifest as a few large, infrequent address movements and represent a completely different language system from what we are accustomed to observing—"the increase in retail addresses, active on-chain buying." The ETF's fund pool can rapidly expand, but on-chain activity and small address data may remain sluggish at the same time.

Looking deeper, even if we do not analyze from a technical path but rather from a funding behavior perspective, the structure of "IBIT attracting funds alone, while on-chain remains net negative" could have several possible explanations:

● Some of the funds might just be a reallocation within the asset allocation sheets of traditional institutions—shifting from cash or other assets into IBIT, rather than bringing in a new batch of participants willing to directly hold Bitcoin on-chain. The numbers appear as "new inflows," but this demand is encapsulated within ETF shares and has not translated into synchronous increases in various on-chain addresses.

● Other funds might be entering with a hedging mindset: building positions by buying ETFs and then taking opposite positions in futures to manage risk or seek price differentials. In this combination, while ETF size expands and futures open interest rises, it does not necessarily mean that an equivalent amount of "pure bullish spot demand" is emerging on-chain, but resembles a complex structure of leverage and hedging.

● At the same time, on-chain participants, having gone through a lengthy adjustment period previously, still tend to be cautious. The continued net negative visible in on-chain apparent spot demand indicates that even with IBIT and "belief buyers" like Michael Saylor buying, more on-chain chips are still reducing positions at highs; the overall effect is that ETF increases are offset by the outflows from on-chain funds.

In summary of these factors, the current structure resembles more a situation where ETFs within the traditional financial system are siphoning attention and incremental chips, but this enthusiasm remains "trapped" within the large pools of market makers and custodians, not yet truly returning to the on-chain ecosystem itself. On the price level, you can see IBIT's figures rising and futures' open interest heading upwards, yet it is difficult to find equally powerful echoes in on-chain address activity and net inflow data.

This has important implications for assessing the new round of funding structure: when we see "some certain week ETF setting a new high," we must no longer instinctively equate it with the bullish market perspective of the previous cycle led by on-chain spot buying. The current upward movement resembles more the combination of "futures leverage + ETF channel" gaining traction, while on-chain spot remains absent. As long as this transmission gap exists, prices depend on the attitudes of a few concentrated funds and derivatives positions; should ETF inflows slow and futures sentiment reverse, a rally lacking broad on-chain buying support is hard to define as a truly stable long-term upward trend.

The bear market script is not entirely finished: Only the return of both demands signifies true reversal

In Ki Young Ju's framework, Bitcoin's true "resurrection" has a clear dividing line: it is not whether prices create new highs, but whether the two demand curves of spot and futures turn upward together. Only when on-chain spot buying returns to net inflows and simultaneous expansion of futures and derivatives positions occurs, creating a resonance, will he define that period as the true end of the bear market, and not merely a phase rebound stirred by sentiment.

Applying this "historical script" back to the present reveals the contradictions. The most remarkable aspect of the current rally for the week ending April 27 is found on the futures side: Bitcoin futures open interest continues to rise, and the trading and position demand in the derivatives market has significantly increased, with leveraged funds continuously amplifying their positions on the board. In contrast, the on-chain apparent spot demand remains net negative— viewed from an on-chain perspective, there is no clear net inflow of funds overall, and spot buying has not returned in force.

Even more striking is that despite a backdrop of BlackRock's IBIT obtaining approximately $983 million in net inflows, setting a new six-month high, these incremental funds have not "bloomed and borne fruit" in the on-chain data. ETF funds circulate more within the custodians and market makers' frameworks and have not synchronously driven on-chain address activity and widespread direct buying, forming a clear transmission gap between the ETF channel and on-chain demand. Thus, on the board, we see price strength and swelling futures positions, while on-chain remains in a position of "cautious observation."

In Ki Young Ju's historical experience, this asymmetric structure of "strong futures, weak spot" often appears in two types of scenarios: either a structural rebound in the middle of a bear market, or a tentative surge at the end of a bear market—prices driven up by futures leverage and a few channels, while broader spot confidence has not fully restored. This round's characteristics closely resemble this: the upward momentum primarily stems from derivatives and individual institutional channels, rather than broad on-chain fund inflows.

Therefore, labeling the current situation as having established a "long-term bull market" seems premature. The current scenario resembles a vigorous rebound in the latter half of a bear market: the futures side is leading prices upward and continuously raising the upper bound of the range; yet the scene that truly announces a script change—on-chain spot demand transitioning from net negative to persistent net positive, resonating together with the still active futures demand—has yet to unfold. Moving forward, the market will either await the "return of both demands" to validate this rally, or discover that it is still standing within a bear market structure when the futures enthusiasm wanes, merely having reached a higher stepping stone.

Trader's choice: Balancing risks in a futures-led market

From the trading seat's perspective, this round resembles giving control to futures: open interest is rising sharply, leveraged funds are continuously added to the board, while on-chain apparent spot demand remains net negative. The reason prices can rise is that someone is willing to push the chips higher on the futures side, not because of large-scale, sustained spot buying providing support underneath.

In this structure, going long does not simply bet on "Bitcoin will rise," but bets on three things: whether leveraged funds can continue to flow in, whether sentiment can remain optimistic, and whether sudden news will interrupt the progression. Futures and other derivatives naturally carry leverage, with amplified volatility, and the market can react more sensitively to every disturbance in funding flows, sentiment, and news—the implication being that even if the directional judgment is correct, an incorrect rhythm can easily throw someone out of the market.

For short-term and high-frequency traders, this is certainly a familiar "trader market": intraday fluctuations are amplified, stop-loss and take-profit spaces have expanded, and account performance relies more on execution discipline than long-term logic. The core of risk control is to acknowledge uncertainty: reducing position sizes, controlling leverage multiples, and accepting frequent small losses to secure survival rights against being liquidated in one go when sentiment flips.

For wave and allocation-type funds, the challenge is: in a "strong futures, weak spot" rebound, how much capital are you willing to commit? On one hand, the strong futures demand and continuously growing open interest suggest that the market is willing to bet on rising prices; on the other hand, the on-chain spot demand remains net negative, and the large net inflows into ETFs are not clearly reflected in on-chain indicators, leaving the absence of spot buying making this rally feel more "suspended." If choosing to participate, one must assume: either spot will catch up in the future, or one can safely exit before the futures enthusiasm wanes.

Looking ahead, what traders truly need to decide is how to allocate risks between the two paths:

● The first path is that spot demand gradually repairs itself and resonates with futures. According to Ki Young Ju’s framework, what truly declares the end of a bear market and the start of a full bull market typically involves both spot and futures demand strengthening simultaneously, rather than relying solely on one side. If in the future, the on-chain spot demand turns from net negative to persistently net positive, and spot funds outside of ETFs begin to visibly enter, then the current rally led by futures could retrospectively be viewed as a "low-position accumulation zone of the new cycle." Under this script, the risks taken now resemble the volatility costs of entering early, with the payoff being long-term upside potential.

● The second path is that the futures enthusiasm diminishes first, while the spot remains absent. Open interest stops increasing, or even declines, leveraged funds begin orderly or disorderly reductions, and there is not enough robust spot support below. Prices may not immediately collapse, but the upper space gets compressed, while the downward pressure might become steeper due to de-leveraging. For high-leverage bulls, this represents a structure of "slowly earning returns, sudden losses": accumulating bit by bit in the up phase, with real trouble often arising from a significant downturn.

Before either path becomes clear, the most pragmatic choice is not to "bet which one will definitely happen," but rather to adjust positions and leverage structures to ensure that whichever path emerges will not be fatal: treating this phase dominated by futures as a highly volatile, strongly emotional rebound rather than an already settled new cycle; only when you see the return of spot demand and clearer resonance with futures, should you lift your risk limits for a more distant future.

Join our community to discuss together and become stronger!
Official Telegram Community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。