A CoinMarketCap research column by Alice Liu said the latest crypto rebound was not fueled by borrowed money. The note, based on data as of 07:24 UTC on Oct. 16, said Bitcoin was at $82,160, up 1.45% over 24 hours, after briefly falling below $80,000 on Thursday and then recovering overnight.
Over the same 24-hour window, total crypto market capitalization rose 2.13% to $2.76 trillion. Global open interest moved the other way, falling 1.97% to $405.96 billion. Over 30 days, global open interest was down 22.98%.
Liu’s framework breaks the move into seven layers: leverage inside the rebound, the Thursday washout, liquidation ladder flips over two days, where positioning is being rebuilt, ETF flows and holder behavior, the dollar link, and the event calendar.
The rebound did not come with a leverage build
The main read-through from the report is simple: market value rose, while derivatives exposure shrank. Liu wrote that total crypto market capitalization gained 2.13% in 24 hours, but global open interest fell 1.97% in the same window. In her reading, that combination shows the advance was not driven by newly opened leveraged positions.
Bitcoin-specific metrics matched that picture. Its 7-day average funding rate was 0.32 basis points, placing it in the 6.7th percentile over the past 90 days. The latest print was 0.64 basis points. Bitcoin open interest stood at $52.69 billion, in the 54.4th percentile of the 90-day range, up just 0.36% over seven days, and equal to 1.19% of market capitalization.
Liu said this was the seventh consecutive edition in which she tracked the percentiles for Bitcoin open interest and funding. The previous readings were 92 and 84 on Sept. 21, 98.9 and 87.8 on Sept. 23, 80 and 11.1 on Sept. 27, 74.4 and 0 on Sept. 30, 50 and 2.2 on Oct. 12, 51 and 4.4 on Wednesday, and 54.4 and 6.7 in the current report.
In other words, open interest has hovered around the middle of the range for three straight reports, while funding has only inched up from zero. Both lines are still low, and the climb has been slow.
The note also said the leverage reset remained marked as complete. The cooling ratio was 0.025, meaning the latest day’s liquidation value was only 2.5% of the recent peak. Open interest had recovered 2.62% from its low, but was still 5.51% below the pre-spike level.
One data point was treated separately: the global blended funding rate came in at 0.0071, up 47.9% over 24 hours. Liu wrote that the percentage jump looked large only because the base was tiny. In her view, it rose from near zero to still near zero, so she did not use that figure to draw any conclusion.
Her bottom line was that the traders forced out during the drop had not yet returned. That leaves a market lighter than the price chart alone would suggest: not much is left below to be forcibly liquidated, and not much borrowed capital is pushing from above.
The Thursday washout was real, and Ether took the heavier hit
Before the rebound, the market went through a meaningful liquidation event. On Oct. 15, Bitcoin liquidations reached $211.6 million for the full trading day, with 79% coming from longs. That was 1.92 times its 30-day average and ranked in the 93.3rd percentile of the past 90 days.
Ether liquidations on the same day were $282.9 million, and 81% were long positions. That was 3.35 times Ether’s own 30-day average. Liu highlighted that Ether’s side of the washout was heavier, even though Ether’s market capitalization is only about one-fifth of Bitcoin’s.
Rolling 24-hour figures had already cooled by the time of publication. Bitcoin liquidations dropped to $87.8 million, with longs making up 58%. Ether fell to $73.3 million, with longs down to 38%. In the prior Thursday reading cited in the report, Bitcoin had been at $199.0 million with 90% from longs, while Ether was at $288.7 million with 92% from longs.
Within two days, forced selling had been cut by more than half, and the composition shifted from almost entirely long liquidations to a more two-way structure. Liu’s conclusion was that the washout had run its course.
The liquidation ladder flipped twice in two days
The third layer in the report looked at the distribution of potential liquidation fuel, and Liu said the structure had been unstable. Among Binance’s eight largest Bitcoin liquidation pools, Wednesday’s reading showed six above and two below, with about 36.17 billion in combined intensity above. On Oct. 15, that flipped to three above and five below. By the current reading, it had turned again to seven above and one below, with roughly 26.6 billion above and only 1.1 billion below.
The 7-day heatmap pointed in the same direction, though with less dramatic multiples. The strongest pressure point above was at $84,696, 3.02% above spot, with intensity of 37.5 billion. The strongest point below was at $80,962, 1.52% below spot, with intensity of 17.9 billion. The upper side was roughly twice the lower side.
Still, Liu stressed the scale. Bitcoin open interest was only 1.19% of market capitalization, far below the 10% line she uses as a threshold for derivatives to act as a primary market driver. The fuel for a squeeze exists, she wrote, but the quantity is small.
Because the ladder flipped twice in two days, she reduced its weight in this edition. In her view, it describes the current setup, not a stable structure that can be used to project direction.
Rebuilding is showing up on Hyperliquid, not in Chicago
The fourth layer asked where money was returning. Bitcoin open interest on Hyperliquid rose 6.97% over 24 hours to $3.40 billion. CME listed Bitcoin futures, by contrast, fell 0.58% over four hours and were up only 0.68% on the day, reaching $8.96 billion.
The report compared those figures with Wednesday’s readings, when Hyperliquid was up 0.69% and CME was down 0.38%. Liu said that meant growth on the on-chain perpetual side had accelerated tenfold in two days.
Even so, the absolute scale remained small. Hyperliquid’s 7-day futures order flow was still a net sell of $245.6 million, meaning open interest increased without the appearance of directional buying.
Spot data looked cleaner. Over a seven-day window, Upbit was the only spot venue showing net buying, at $10.8 million, and that flow was KRW-denominated. None of the other tracked spot venues showed net buying.
Liu marked this as a point of caution. A rebound supported by net buying from a single venue in a single currency zone raises questions about durability. She added that she did not have more data in this piece to develop that point further.
ETF outflows paused, but holders and spot sellers did not
The fifth layer examined three spot-demand sources: ETFs, long-term holders, and the spot order book. U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs saw a net inflow of $5.1 million on Oct. 15. The previous day had recorded a net outflow of $261.4 million, so the daily outflow did stop.
That said, the broader windows were still negative. Over three trading days, spot Bitcoin ETFs posted a net outflow of $80.6 million. Over five trading days, the net outflow reached $124.9 million, equal to 0.115% of assets under management.
The report also broke out fund-level differences. Over five trading days, IBIT logged a net outflow of $71.2 million, the largest among the products, while MSBT posted the largest net inflow at $6.7 million.
Long-term holders were still reducing exposure. Over the same five ETF trading days, they shed 49,970 BTC, a 0.30% decline, moving in the same direction as ETF net outflows.
Spot market structure looked weaker still. Over the most recent three trading days, net aggressive selling totaled $370.2 million. Order-book imbalance was 3.5% in favor of sellers. The Coinbase premium stood at -0.141%, in the 7th percentile of its 30-day range, with the trend still marked as deteriorating.
Liu’s synthesis was that only one source had stopped weakening, and it was the smallest one. ETF outflows paused for a day, but spot net selling was nearly three times the ETF outflow, and long-term holders were still distributing.
Bitcoin’s short-term link to the dollar tightened sharply
The sixth layer addressed what Bitcoin was tracking. Its 7-trading-day correlation with the dollar proxy was -0.71, while the 30-trading-day reading was only -0.21. Correlation with gold rose to 0.55 from 0.30. Equity links were largely unchanged, with the short-window reading at 0.63 for the S&P 500 and 0.58 for the Nasdaq.
Liu compared those figures with prior reports. On Oct. 12, the 7-day dollar correlation was still +0.17 and the 30-day figure was -0.15. By Wednesday it had moved to -0.60 and -0.20. In the current report it reached -0.71 and -0.21. The short window moved by nearly 0.9 in four days, while the 30-day window barely changed.
She had written in Wednesday’s edition that the dollar mattered more than the Nasdaq in the near term. Two days later, the dollar link had strengthened again, while the Nasdaq reading remained at 0.58 and did not catch up.
The macro backdrop in the note included September CPI at 3.7% year over year versus a 3.6% expectation, core CPI at 2.6% versus 2.5%, PPI at 6.3% year over year versus 5.3% expected and 1.3% month over month, and retail sales at 0.1% month over month versus a 0.3% expectation. Liu’s summary was that inflation came in hotter than expected on two fronts, while demand was weaker than expected.
Rates and liquidity data in the report showed a policy anchor at 3.88%, the 2-year yield at 4.82%, and the 10-year yield at 5.19%. Net liquidity was $5.87 trillion, up just 0.08% week over week, close to flat. Overnight financing stood at 3.88%. USD/JPY was at 158.34, up 0.34% on the week. Liu wrote that Japan’s short-end rates remained the only bright warning flag in macro liquidity, with a high risk rating and carry conditions marked for observation.
What the report says to watch next
Liu listed three signals to follow. First, whether Bitcoin open interest can truly rebuild from a level still 5.51% below the pre-spike point. So far it is only 2.62% above the low, while funding remains in the 6.7th percentile. Second, whether net aggressive selling in spot can narrow. Over the latest three trading days it totaled $370.2 million, and the Coinbase premium was in the 7th percentile of its 30-day range. Third, whether the liquidation ladder flips for a third time after moving from six-above two-below on Wednesday to three-above five-below on Thursday and seven-above one-below in the current reading.
The report also noted a calendar item. Based on Wednesday’s briefing, the Federal Open Market Committee blackout period would begin on Saturday, Oct. 17, ahead of the Oct. 27-28 meeting.
Price rebounded, positioning did not
Liu’s conclusion was that this was a rebound in price rather than a rebuild in positions. She returned to two sets of checkable numbers: total crypto market capitalization rose 2.13% over 24 hours while global open interest fell 1.97%, and Bitcoin funding remained in the 6.7th percentile with open interest at only 1.19% of market capitalization and still 5.51% below the pre-spike level.
She added one condition for revising that view. If open interest starts to rise clearly in the next report and funding rates climb at the same time, then the current assessment would need to be rewritten.
The note also reiterated that the Oct. 15 washout was real and heavier on the Ether side. Bitcoin liquidations reached $211.6 million, or 1.92 times its 30-day average. Ether liquidations hit $282.9 million, or 3.35 times its own average, even though Ether’s market capitalization is only about one-fifth of Bitcoin’s.
What rebuilding there was remained concentrated. Hyperliquid open interest was up 6.97% over 24 hours, CME was up only 0.68%, and Upbit in South Korea was the only spot venue to show net buying over the last seven days.
Her final point was that the dollar line remains the most effective short-term lens for explaining Bitcoin’s price. In four days, the short-window correlation moved from +0.17 to -0.71, while the 30-day window barely changed.