The cumulative history of addresses on the chain is transferred to the cost analysis: BTC is difficult to be redistributed, and the multi-party game of ETH will intensify
As we all know, decentralized blockchain systems such as Bitcoin and Ethereum have formed their own unique bookkeeping logic due to their anonymity and difficulty of tampering. Because there is no strong constraint of KYC by financial institutions in the real world, the identity of the actual transferee can only be obtained indirectly through cumbersome and uncertain technical means, so the address on the chain (not the owner) is regarded as an independent information node and the address flows into Tracking value transfer with outflow data has become a helpless move to understand the macro market of Bitcoin and Ethereum, and it is also a necessary means.
The industry media platform "The Defiant" once quoted the data analysis results of the blockchain data company "Into The Block" on August 14, 2019, pointing out that as of that day, only about 8% of the historical accumulative transfer costs of BTC addresses were higher than The price on that day was US$11,102, but about 70% of ETH addresses’ historical accumulative transfer cost was higher than the price of US$207 on that day.
Obviously, a large number of ETH addresses are in deep out-of-the-money according to this simple logic, and the data at that time showed that the cumulative cost of the largest proportion of addresses was between US$269 and US$328, and this profit take-off range A wall of selling pressure was naturally formed. As of the press time of this article, known as the "market slow bull" half a year later, the price of ETH was still hovering near the lower edge of this selling pressure range.
The situation of Bitcoin is completely different. The historical cumulative cost of the largest proportion of addresses is in the range of $800 to $3,900, which is far below the recent market fluctuation range of $9,000-10,000. The early industry founders made a lot of money (deep in-the-money) , The entire market is in a new game process that can go up and down, and is less affected by historical cumulative costs. As the first-generation veteran product of the blockchain industry, such a cumulative cost distribution of addresses also means that the wealth of the Bitcoin world is difficult to be redistributed on a large scale at this stage, and early participants have huge advantages in capital operation.
On the contrary, the cost distribution of ETH has shown at least two forces. The early founders below $150 and the second-generation investors near $300 mean that the market has completed a round of wealth redistribution, and the multi-party game in the future will be more complicated. , its price has fallen deeply below the $300 range in the past two years, which has shown that the second-generation entry capital in this range does not have a good control over the market, and the huge "no-cost" ICO chips thrown after the end of 2018 are also Obviously can't escape the relationship.
Finally, the transfer of on-chain address history into cumulative cost statistics has its inherent flaws, and it is by no means a theoretically unbreakable market indicator:
First, after a person invests, he transfers money to another address of his own, which will cause the cost calculation of the two addresses to be completely different. However, the investment decision of the investor may be based on the overall consideration of the two addresses. It is completely impossible to distinguish from this kind of analysis that recognizes the address but not the person, and a large number of similar transfer aggregation behaviors will also objectively cause a bimodal trend in the distribution of address costs;
Second, taking ICO chips as an example, the price of ETH is nominally the cost of capital for investors when investing for entrepreneurial entities. Even in the event of poor management, bankruptcy and liquidation, the ETH mental cost of a large number of ICO projects in a certain period is likely to be "0", which also makes the similar cumulative cost analysis of addresses on the chain meaningless;
Third, the currency-based net inflow entities in the system ecology, such as mining farms and top exchanges, as large currency holders, do not follow simple market price costs for their operating income, which poses a challenge to the practical significance of such address transfer analysis.
To sum up, the transfer data of addresses on the chain must be further differentiated and more refined analysis tools are needed to release its huge market value.
