Every few months, a new headline declares a looming Bitcoin liquidity crisis. The narrative usually points to thinner order books on centralised exchanges, choppy ETF flows, or episodic deleveraging as proof that the market is running out of depth. This year has been no exception. But leading digital-asset manager CoinShares Debunks Bitcoin has pushed back, arguing that what looks like a drain is actually a redirection of liquidity across new market rails, not a structural collapse.
In this in-depth analysis, we unpack why CoinShares dismisses the doomsday claims, detail how liquidity has migrated from traditional venues to ETFs, OTC desks, and corporate treasuries, and clarify how episodic liquidation waves differ from genuine systemic liquidity failures. We also explore the implications for traders, long-term allocators, and builders who need a clear, data-anchored view of the market’s plumbing.
Why “Crisis” Headlines Keep Coming Back
A narrative built on narrow metrics
Most liquidity crisis headlines draw on a few legacy signals: shallow order books on centralised exchanges, rising spreads during volatility spikes, or declining spot volumes. Those indicators do matter, but they represent just one set of access rails among many. CoinShares’ research emphasises that liquidity is not disappearing so much as changing venues—migrating from public exchange order books to exchange-traded funds (ETFs), OTC block trading, and long-term self-custody.
Volatility ≠ structural failure
Another driver of crisis talk is the conflation of forced liquidations with structural liquidity loss. When leverage builds, even a modest price move can trigger margin calls that cascade through perps and lending venues, creating the impression of a market “air pocket.” CoinShares’ team has broken down recent liquidation waves precisely in those terms: violent, yes; structural, no.
CoinShares’ Core Claim: Liquidity Is Moving, Not Dying
From exchange order books to ETFs and treasuries
CoinShares argues that Bitcoin liquidity is finding different routes. The early years of Bitcoin concentrated activity on a handful of exchanges. Today, a significant share of capital accesses BTC via spot ETFs and professionally intermediated channels rather than retail-heavy exchanges. ETF market makers source or hedge exposure through multiple venues, including OTC desks and authorised participants, which can dampen exchange-visible volumes while sustaining ecosystem-wide liquidity.
The self-custody effect
A parallel shift is long-term investors withdrawing coins to self-custody. That lowers the immediately floatable supply on exchanges, which, again, can look like “dried up liquidity.” But this is not a crisis; it’s a sign of maturing investor behaviour and growing conviction.
Putting Liquidation Waves in Perspective
What the October–November shakeouts really showed
In recent months, the crypto market endured multi-billion-dollar liquidation spurts that knocked prices down swiftly. CoinShares’ research unpacked these episodes as leverage events, catalysed by macro headlines and positioning excess, not by a fundamental breakdown in market plumbing. Their analysis pointed to rapid deleveraging across derivatives and lending venues, after which the market structure normalised and institutional inflows into regulated products resumed.
Macro liquidity and Bitcoin
A separate wrinkle is the macro liquidity cycle. When global dollar liquidity tightens—whether from Treasury cash rebuilds, quantitative tightening, or risk-off regimes—risk assets feel it, and Bitcoin is no exception. Analysts have highlighted specific U.S. liquidity drains that weighed on digital assets this year. But macro headwinds are not the same as a Bitcoin-specific liquidity crisis.
How to Measure Bitcoin Liquidity in 2025 (Without Fooling Yourself)
Look beyond single-venue spot volume
Screen-visible spot volume is the most convenient metric—and the easiest to misread. A more complete picture triangulates:
-
ETF primary/secondary activity and creations/redemptions that reveal demand transmitted through regulated wrappers.
-
OTC block volumes and prime-broker facilitation that warehouse risk and provide depth away from lit books.
-
Derivatives open interest and basis to gauge leverage and hedging demand.
-
On-chain velocity and UTXO age bands that show whether long-term holders are distributing or staying put.
-
Exchange reserves to understand the immediately floatable supply available for market-order absorption.
CoinShares’ stance is that viewing these in concert shows redistributed liquidity, not a terminal decline.
Different rails, different latencies
ETFs and OTC desks operate with different time constants than retail order books. ETF flows batch through creation/redemption cycles; OTC desks match blocks and may internalise flows across clients. Translating these rails back into “exchange depth” is not straightforward, but the presence of these rails is precisely why a narrow exchange-only lens is obsolete.
The ETF Era: Why “Hidden” Liquidity Is a Feature, Not a Bug
Regulated wrappers broaden access.
The advent of spot Bitcoin ETFs in major markets did more than create a new ticker to trade; it professionalised parts of Bitcoin’s flow. Pension funds, RIAs, and treasury managers who cannot hold native BTC can hold ETFs, bringing in larger, steadier allocations. The associated AP/market-maker ecosystem arbitrages price gaps, adds two-sided depth, and coordinates large creations or redemptions without pinging retail order books.
Liquidity migration improves resiliency.e
When liquidity pools diversify across ETFs, OTC, and exchanges, market resilience can improve. Single-point failures matter less, and the system doesn’t rely on a few centralised venues staying perfectly functional during volatility surges.
But What About the Bear Cases?
“Exchanges are empty; that’s bearish”
Lower exchange balances can constrain immediate tradable supply, but that dynamic cuts both ways. It can amplify upside when demand shocks arrive and minimise reflexive sell pressure from weak hands. CoinShares’ point is not that thin order books never matter; it’s that they’re insufficient to diagnose a crisis.
“Liquidations prove liquidity is gone”
Liquidations prove leverage was too high, not that liquidity ceased to exist. After forced unwinds, the market often finds a new equilibrium with healthier positioning, and liquidity returns where it’s treated best. CoinShares’ breakdowns of recent events consistently separate positioning stress from structural impairment—a distinction that crisis headlines blur.
“Macro drains show crypto can’t handle tightening”
Macro liquidity drains can suppress risk appetite across equities, credit, and digital assets alike. That is a top-down headwind, not a Bitcoin microstructure failure. When macro conditions ease, risk appetite returns—often first through regulated wrappers that institutions can scale quickly. The macro lens is vital, but it doesn’t validate a Bitcoin-specific liquidity crisis.
The Bigger Picture: Global Liquidity and Bitcoin’s Market Share
From global M2 to digital scarcity
Another reason CoinShares rejects the scary narrative: global liquidity dwarfs crypto’s market cap. In their macro work, CoinShares examines how even tiny shifts in the allocation of the world’s monetary base or gold market share could materially re-price Bitcoin. The takeaway isn’t that price only goes up, but that the system’s capacity to absorb flows is enormous when you look beyond a single venue’s order book.
Institutional adoption as a structural tailwind
Institutional demand now arrives via mandate-friendly rails. Model portfolios include BTC exposure through ETFs; treasury committees consider diversified reserves; wealth platforms add crypto sleeves. Each of these channels pulls activity off the exchanges and into a layered professional market infrastructure. That’s liquidity maturation, not decay.
Trading and Allocation Implications
For traders: re-learn the plumbing.
If you’re an active trader, treating exchange books as the sole proxy for Bitcoin liquidity will mislead you. Depth is increasingly cross-venue and time-batched. ETF flows can lag price moves intraday but catch up via creations/redemptions. OTC desks may show meaningful size when screens look thin. During deleveraging, basis and funding can whipsaw before stabilising as real money steps in through regulated products. Adjust your playbook:
-
Map ETF flow windows and AP behaviour to your trading hours.
-
Monitor derivatives basis and funding for signs of crowded positioning.
-
Watch exchange reserves and on-chain distribution to infer float.
-
Expect occasional air pockets during leverage resets—but don’t confuse those with permanent scarcity.
CoinShares’ commentary on liquidation waves and institutional flows strongly supports this more nuanced approach.
For allocators: separate noise from structure
If you’re a multi-asset allocator using ETFs, the liquidity you care about is the capacity of APs and market makers to create and redeem shares without undue tracking error. On that score, the ecosystem has scaled considerably. Volatility episodes remain—this is Bitcoin—but the rails that enable block-size access are substantially more mature than in prior cycles. Align your sizing with mandate constraints and liquidity windows, and resist extrapolating “thin” exchange snapshots into allocation decisions.
Media Literacy for Crypto Liquidity
Learn to decode crisis narrative.s
Many crisis stories cite genuine stressors—macro drains, leverage flushes, thinner books—but they over-generalise to a systemic diagnosis. A better reading distinguishes:
-
Where liquidity resides (exchanges vs. ETFs vs. OTC).
-
Why it appears or disappears (positioning vs. macro vs. structural).
-
How it returns (regulated inflows, AP arbitrage, long-term buying).
CoinShares’ public research, podcasts, and post-mortems repeatedly make this distinction, which is why they dismiss the blanket “Bitcoin liquidity crisis” label. The market is evolving, not evaporating.
Case Study: A Liquidation Wave Isn’t a Liquidity Crisis
Consider a week when derivatives funding is rich, open interest is elevated, and macro news hits. Prices gap down, forced sellers trigger a chain of , and spot volumes spike as traders de-risk. Exchange books look thin, spreads widen, and Twitter pronounces a liquidity crisis. Then, within days, you see:
-
ETF inflows rebuild as allocators buy the dip through regulated wrappers.
-
OTC desks report steady two-way flow as market makers re-hedge.
-
Basis normalises, and open interest resets lower.
This is the pattern CoinShares highlighted in recent research recaps: sharp deleveraging, followed by functioning rails absorbing risk and restoring balance. The fact that order books appear fragile at the trough doesn’t negate the presence of liquidity elsewhere; it merely reflects which rails the marginal buyer prefers at that moment.
The Bottom Line: Evolution, Not Emergency
CoinShares’ central point is refreshingly simple: Bitcoin’s liquidity architecture has evolved, and measurement must evolve with it. Looking only at centralised exchange order books and calling “crisis” misunderstands how ETFs, OTC markets, and institutional flows now intermediate risk. Liquidation waves are painful but cyclical. Macro liquidity matters but is exogenous. Put these together, and the alarmist claims don’t hold up.
As the market matures, expect more liquidity to live in regulated wrappers, more block flow to route off-screen, and more long-term supply to sit in self-custody. That doesn’t make Bitcoin illiquid; it makes it institutionalised.
Conclusion
The phrase “Bitcoin liquidity crisis” makes for clickable headlines, but it collapses several distinct phenomena—macro cycles, leverage resets, and venue migration—into a single, misleading diagnosis. CoinShares’ analysis rejects that simplification. Liquidity has not vanished; it has reorganised across ETFs, OTC desks, and balance-sheet holders, while exchange-visible depth reflects only one slice of a broader, deeper pool. For traders, this demands a more sophisticated liquidity map. For allocators, it argues for patience, diversification of access rails, and an awareness of how global liquidity ultimately dwarfs crypto’s footprint.
In short, crisis claims are overstated. The better story is one of market maturation, new rails, and a more resilient liquidity stack.
FAQs
Q: If exchange order books look thin, doesn’t that prove Bitcoin is illiquid?
Not by itself. Exchange books show only screen-visible depth. In today’s market, large blocks route through OTC desks and ETF creations/redemptions, which don’t show up as top-of-book bids and offers. Evaluating liquidity requires a cross-venue lens.
Q: How are liquidation waves different from a liquidity crisis?
Liquidation waves result from excess leverage and fast price moves that trigger forced selling. They are episodic and typically followed by normalisation of basis, funding, and flows. A true liquidity crisis would imply persistent dysfunction across venues, which recent selloffs did not exhibit.
Q: Don’t macro liquidity drains show Bitcoin can’t absorb flows?
Macro drains can weigh on all risk assets. That’s a top-down constraint, not a Bitcoin-specific microstructure failure. When conditions ease, flows often return via regulated wrappers and professional intermediaries.
Q: Why does CoinShares emphasise ETFs in its argument?
Because spot ETFs have become a major access rail for institutions. Their APs and market makers provide two-sided depth and arbitrate price discrepancies, expanding liquidity beyond what exchange books alone can reveal.
Q: How does global liquidity factor into Bitcoin’s outlook?
Viewed against global M2 and gold’s market cap, Bitcoin’s addressable market is huge. Even small allocation shifts can drive large price impacts, which is inconsistent with a narrative of permanent liquidity scarcity.
Read more: Crypto Today: Bitcoin, Ethereum, XRP Climb Pre-Fed
