Bitcoin faces shaky support as institutional buying wanes

For most of 2025, Bitcoin’s the plan seemed inescapable, backed by an unlikely alliance of corporate treasurers and exchange-traded funds.

Companies issue shares and convertible debt to buy the token, while ETF inflows quietly absorb the new offering. Together, they created a durable demand base that helped Bitcoin defy the tightest financial conditions.

Now, that foundation is beginning to change.

In a November 3 place on X, Charles Edwards, founder of Capriole Investments, said that his bullish outlook has weakened as the rate of institutional accumulation has decreased.

He noted:

“For the first time in 7 months, net institutional buying fell below daily mined supply. Not good.”

According to Edwards, this was the key metric that had kept him optimistic, even as other assets outperformed Bitcoin.

However, with the current situation, he noted that there are now approximately 188 corporate treasurers holding sizable Bitcoin positions, many with limited business models beyond their token exposure.

Bitcoin treasure buying slows down

No company defines corporate Bitcoin trading more than MicroStrategy Inc., which recently shortened its name to Strategy.

U Michael Saylor-led software maker, which turned into a Bitcoin treasure company, now holds more than 674,000 BTC, solidifying its position as the largest single corporate holder.

Its buying pace, however, has slowed sharply in recent months.

For context, Strategy added about 43,000 BTC in the third quarter, which is its lowest quarterly purchase this year. This number is not surprising, considering that the company saw some of its Bitcoin purchases drop to just a few hundred coins during the period.

CryptoQuant analyst JA Maarturn explained that the slowdown could be related to the falling NAV of the Strategy.

According to him, investors paid a hefty “first NAV” for every dollar of Bitcoin on Strategy’s balance sheet, effectively rewarding shareholders with leveraged exposure to BTC’s upside. This premium is compressed from the middle of the year.

With less valuation wind, the issuance of new shares to buy Bitcoin is no longer as accretive, removing the incentive to raise capital.

Maarturn said:

“Capital is more difficult to raise. Share issue premiums have fallen by 208% [to] 4%”.

Meanwhile, the cooling extends beyond MicroStrategy.

Metaplaneta Tokyo-listed company that modeled itself on the pioneer of the United States, recently traded below the market value of its own Bitcoins after a strong drawdown.

In response, it is authorized a stock purchase while introducing new guidelines for raising capital to grow their Bitcoin treasury. The move signaled confidence in its balance sheet, but also highlighted waning investor enthusiasm for “digital asset treasury” business models.

In fact, the slowdown in the acquisition of Bitcoin treasure has resulted in a merger between some of these companies.

Last month, wealth management firm Strive announced his acquisition of Semler Scientific, a smaller BTC treasury company. This deal would allow these companies to hold nearly 11,000 BTC at a premium that has effectively become a scarce resource in the sector.

These examples reflect a structural limitation rather than a loss of conviction. When the equity or convertible issue no longer commands a market premium, capital flows dry up, naturally slowing down corporate accumulation.

ETF flows?

Spot Bitcoin ETF, long seen as automatic absorbers of new supply, show similar fatigue.

For most of 2025, these financial investment vehicles dominated net demand, with creations consistently outstripping redemptions, especially during Bitcoin’s rise to record highs.

But at the end of October, his streams became choppy. Some weeks saw a shift to negative territory as portfolio managers rebalanced positions and risk banks cut exposure in response to interest rate expectations.

This volatility marks a new phase in the behavior of Bitcoin ETFs.

The macro backdrop has tightened, and hopes for rapid rate cuts have faded; real incomes have risen, and liquidity conditions have cooled.

However, demand for Bitcoin exposure remains steady, but now comes in bursts instead of 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 those gains were returned as redemptions rose to more than $2 billion.

The model suggests that Bitcoin ETFs have matured into genuine two-way markets. They still provide deep liquidity and institutional access, but they no longer behave as one-way accumulation vehicles.

When macro signals falter, ETF investors can exit as quickly as they enter.

Market Implications for Bitcoin

This evolving scenario does not automatically mean a downturn, but implies greater volatility. With the absorption of the company and the ETF, the price action of Bitcoin would be more and more driven by the traders of shorter and the macro sentiment.

In such situations, Edwards argues that fresh catalysts, such as monetary easing, regulatory clarity, or return of appetite for equity market risk, could restore institutional supply.

However, as the marginal buyer appears more cautious for now, this leaves price discovery more sensitive to global liquidity cycles.

As a result, the effect is twofold.

First, the structural supply that once acted as a plan weakens.

During periods of under-absorption, intraday swings can amplify because there are fewer stable buyers to dampen volatility. Mid-April 2024 mechanically reduced new supply, but without consistent demand, scarcity alone does not warrant higher prices.

Second, the correlation profile of Bitcoin has changed. When balance sheet accumulation cools down, the asset can also follow the broader liquidity cycle. The increase in real yields and the strong phases of the dollar could pressure prices, while the conditions of ease could restore its leadership in risk manifestations.

In essence, Bitcoin is reentering its macro-reflexive phase and is behaving less like digital gold and more like a high beta risk asset.

Meanwhile, none of this negates the long-term narrative of Bitcoin as a scarce and programmable asset.

Rather, it reflects the growing influence of institutional dynamics that once insulated it from retail-led swings. The same mechanisms that have elevated Bitcoin into mainstream wallets are now more closely tied to the gravity of the capital markets.

The next few months will test whether the asset can support its store value attraction without corporate automatic flows or ETFs.

If history is any guide, Bitcoin tends to adapt: ​​when one demand channel slows, another often emerges – whether from sovereign reserves, fintech integrations, or renewed retail participation during macro easing cycles.