Key Takeaways River’s data shows each Bitcoin bear market has been shallower than the last. The current 53% drawdown is the mildest in Bitcoin’s history so far. CryptoQuant’s Ki Young Ju says
Where are we in this Bitcoin cycle? Three different data points offer three different answers, and the most honest read comes from holding them in tension rather than picking one. One says the worst is structurally behind us. One says the bottom signal hasn’t appeared yet. And a third introduces a new kind of holder that complicates both.
River’s historical comparison makes a clean structural argument. Every Bitcoin bear market has been less severe than the one before: 93% in 2011, 87% in 2013-2015, 84% in 2017-2018, and 77% in 2021-2022. The current 2025-2026 cycle has fallen about 53%, from $126,000 to roughly $58,000, around nine months in.
Historical Bitcoin bear market data shows a clear structural trend: each cycle’s percentage drawdown has been shallower than the last The mechanism River points to is straightforward: each cycle adds more high-conviction holders who treat dips as accumulation opportunities rather than exit signals, which structurally raises the floor. At 53%, the current drawdown is already the shallowest in Bitcoin’s history by a wide margin, and it’s still ongoing. The thesis is that the floor keeps rising because the buyer base keeps deepening and maturing.
CryptoQuant CEO Ki Young Ju offers the counterweight, and it’s a signal call rather than a price call. His 4-Year Rolling Realized Price Risk/Reward Ratio marks three prior cycle bottoms with sharp vertical spikes, in 2015, 2019, and 2022-2023, each representing a moment of extreme realized-loss concentration that historically marked the floor. The current chart shows no such spike yet.
The 4-Year Rolling Realized Price Risk/Reward Ratio – Source: Ki Young Ju / CryptoQuant That’s the basis for his caution: the specific capitulation signature that has defined every prior bottom simply hasn’t appeared. It doesn’t mean the bottom isn’t in, it means the indicator that confirmed every previous floor is, for now, silent. Set against River’s data, the tension is real: one says the drawdown is already historically shallow, the other says the on-chain capitulation event that usually ends a cycle hasn’t happened.
The third angle adds a category of holder that didn’t meaningfully exist in prior cycles: nation-states. The US leads with 328,372 BTC, largely seized assets from law enforcement, followed by China at roughly 190,000 BTC and the UK at 61,245 BTC, then a long tail including El Salvador (7,694), the UAE (6,420), Bhutan (around 4,973), and Kazakhstan (around 3,544).
Sovereign Bitcoin holdings in 2026: The US, China, and the UK lead global rankings This connects directly to River’s thesis. Government holdings are arguably the newest and most structurally significant layer of high-conviction capital. The US Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, formalized under the current administration and overseen by White House Bitcoin Chief Patrick Witt, is the largest sovereign position globally. When governments hold Bitcoin on national balance sheets, they become structurally incentivized not to sell, which is exactly the high-conviction dynamic River describes. For context, the US position is worth roughly $20 billion at $60K, significant, but still a sliver of the vast global asset base that bulls argue Bitcoin is competing for.
The sovereign-accumulation narrative has an important crack in it, and history supplies the example. In June and July 2024, the German government sold its entire seizure of 49,858 BTC, coins confiscated in January 2024 from the operators of the defunct piracy site Movie2K, offloading the full amount over roughly three weeks across major exchanges for about $2.88 billion at an average of $57,900 per coin. The sale wasn’t strategic. It was mandated by legal protocol requiring the liquidation of seized volatile assets, and Bitcoin went on to roughly double in the months after.
READ MORE:
Why an AI Bubble Burst Could Fuel the Crypto Bull MarketThat distinction matters for reading the whole narrative. The US, El Salvador, the UAE, and Bhutan hold Bitcoin as a deliberate policy choice. Germany held it by accident, as seized property under a legal framework that required selling rather than holding. The widely referenced “race to 1 million BTC” among governments is really a race between two very different categories: conviction holders and accidental custodians. Only the first reinforces River’s shallower-floor thesis. The second can flip from holder to seller overnight, not on sentiment, but on statute.
So where are we in the cycle? The honest answer is that the three signals don’t resolve into one. River’s drawdown data genuinely shows a maturing market with a rising floor, and the arrival of sovereign holders strengthens that read, but only the ones holding by choice. Ki Young Ju’s indicator genuinely shows that the capitulation event marking every prior bottom hasn’t fired, which is a real reason not to assume the low is in. And the government layer cuts both ways: a structural source of conviction capital, shadowed by the reminder that seized holdings can be force-sold regardless of price.
The useful thing might be not to pick a winner among the three, it’s to know what may tip the balance. A capitulation spike on Ki Young Ju’s ratio could suggest the bottom is forming the way it always has. A continued absence of one, paired with the holding shallow, could strengthen River’s “this cycle is different” case. And the behavior of government holders, whether more convert seized coins into strategic reserves or are forced to liquidate them, is the new variable worth watching that prior cycles never had. The map is clearer than the destination.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Consult a professional before making investment decisions.The post Is Bitcoin’s Bottom In? The Data Can’t Agree appeared first on Coindoo.
