Executive Summary
● 2025 concluded with violent decoupling of crypto from equities (correlation: -0.299), signaling regime shift from risk-on leverage to geopolitical sensitivity. Directional hedge funds suffered -23% YTD; market-neutral strategies returned +14.4% amid basis decay.
● A $19.13 billion liquidation cascade, precipitated by tariff announcements, exposed liquidity fragility despite a record $126,000 Bitcoin nominal price. Auto-deleveraging on offshore venues amplified the 14% intraday drawdown to $105,000.
● ETF institutionalisation masked deteriorating order-book ecology. Market makers withdrew; bid-ask spreads widened. The market became simultaneously “legitimate” and “fragile”.
● Recovery mandates a reversal in stablecoin flows, an expansion of the futures basis, and geopolitical de-escalation. Asset class fundamentals are not the driving force. Prudence dictates structural monitoring and patience rather than aggressive redeployment of capital.
The digital asset ecosystem concludes 2025 in a state of profound structural contradiction.
While the year opened with triumphalist narratives surrounding the inauguration of a pro-crypto administration and the codification of sovereign strategic reserves, the fourth quarter has delivered a structural shock of magnitude unobserved since the credit contagion events of 2022.
Yet the character of this crisis diverges sharply from its predecessor.
The 2025 collapse was not a failure of solvency, unlike the counterparty insolvencies that characterised Three Arrows Capital and FTX. Instead, it reflected a failure of liquidity architecture. Geopolitical dislocation and the brutal inadequacy of market depth, despite record nominal valuations, drove a violent repricing.
The defining metric of 2025 is the decoupling: Bitcoin and equities, diverging at a correlation of -0.299 in Q4, signal a fundamental fracture in the asset class’s institutional narrative.
This report provides a structural diagnostic of the year’s events for UHNW allocators and family office capital deployment committees. It maps hedge fund exposures across strategy profiles, forensically analyses the mechanics of the 10 October crash, and establishes a non-advisory monitoring framework to identify stabilisation signals for 2026.
Key findings:
- Directional hedge funds have suffered their worst performance since 2022 at approximately -23% YTD.
- Market-neutral basis funds returned +14.4%, yet face structural basis decay as ETF arbitrage compresses yields.
- The October 10 liquidity cascade, a $19.13 billion leverage liquidation, revealed market fragility at nominal highs despite Bitcoin’s record price near $126,000.
- The decoupling of crypto from equities represents a regime shift, not a cyclical anomaly.
The Macro-Structural Backdrop: Two Forces in Collision
The paradox of 2025 emerges from the collision of institutional infrastructure growth with geopolitical fragmentation. Understanding the chaos of Q4 requires first mapping the contradictory forces that defined the year.
The Trump Trade and the Institutional Trap
The year opened with measurable euphoria surrounding the political pivot in Washington.
The January 2025 inauguration marked the climax of a decade-long institutional weakening of regulatory resistance.
The administration acted with strategic precision.
This included establishing the President’s Working Group on Digital Asset Markets on 20 January. Another key action was the symbolic pardon of Ross Ulbricht on 21 January. Most important was the Executive Order creating a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve on 6 March.
The market priced in the certainty of an unprecedented sovereign buying program.
Bitcoin rallied toward $100,000 on this narrative, drawing in cascading amounts of retail and institutional leverage.
However, the implementation created what must be characterised as a “bull trap”.
The Strategic Reserve Executive Order explicitly mandated a “budget-neutral” approach, relying on the recycling of forfeited assets rather than new fiscal injections. Consequently, the anticipated wall of sovereign capital never materialised in the open market. The market was left with leveraged positioning predicated on a put option that did not exist.
At Bancara, we view this as a fundamental failure of institutional risk management. Allocators relied on the equivalent of a Federal Reserve guarantee of price support without sufficient confidence in the underlying policy execution. This undue reliance proved catastrophic.
Institutional Infrastructure vs. Liquidity Fragmentation
The paradox of 2025 is that institutional infrastructure grew while market fragility increased.
The sanctioning of spot Bitcoin Exchange Traded Funds conferred a facade of legitimacy. Substantial passive capital flow through authorised custodians suggested the dawn of a new era of stability.
Yet these flows masked a deteriorating order-book ecology.
Market makers, cognizant of macro risks and regulatory uncertainty, withdrew from their traditional role as liquidity providers. Bid-ask spreads widened. Order book depth at key price levels contracted. The market was simultaneously “institutionalising” (via ETFs) and “fragmenting” (via the retreat of traditional liquidity architects).
This division engineered a critical flaw: the market lacked inherent buyers during periods of distress.
When leverage is flushed, there must be buyers to absorb supply.
In the October crash, these buyers did not exist.
The ETF capital flows cited as the foundation of the surge were inherently passive. They did not intervene during the market decline.
(Bitcoin Price Trajectory 2025: The Euphoria-to-Dislocation Arc)
Crypto vs. The S&P 500
For the post-2020 era through mid-2025, Bitcoin traded as a leveraged proxy for the Nasdaq 100.
When technology equities surged, cryptocurrencies experienced an even more dramatic ascent. Conversely, when tech stocks were divested, crypto assets declined at an accelerated rate. This predictable correlation offered investors a concise working hypothesis: crypto represents technology sector exposure with enhanced volatility.
In Q4 2025, this framework collapsed.
The S&P 500 appreciated approximately 16% year-to-date. The Nasdaq surpassed 20%. Conversely, crypto assets experienced a significant decline.
By December, the correlation between Bitcoin and the S&P 500 had shifted to a structural inversion, registering -0.299.
The mechanism of this decoupling is instructive.
Equity volatility in late 2025 was driven by deregulation themes and AI resilience. Crypto volatility was driven by the 100% tariff announcement on Chinese imports.
These are not equivalent shocks.
The tariff shock directly targeted the supply chain of mining hardware (dominated by Chinese manufacturers Bitmain and MicroBT) and severed the capital flows from Asian OTC desks that historically provide foundational liquidity.
During a liquidity crisis, capital flows shift not into so-called “digital gold” but into physical gold. Gold’s price appreciation to approximately $4,500 per ounce was propelled by central bank accumulation and proactive geopolitical hedging, while Bitcoin experienced significant losses.
This crucial finding indicates Bitcoin does not serve as a safe haven when liquidity is fragmented. It is a risk-on asset, dependent on collateral velocity and global capital flows. When those flows contract, Bitcoin becomes a liability, not insurance.
The Anatomy of the 10 October Dislocation
The defining event of 2025, the catalyst for the year’s catastrophic fund performance, demands forensic analysis. The mechanics of this crash illuminate structural vulnerabilities that persist into December 2025.
The Precipitating Event
10 October 2025 opened with Bitcoin trading near its all-time nominal high of approximately $126,000. Open interest in perpetual futures hovered at record levels near $220 billion. The retail market vernacular popularised the term “Uptober”. This reflected the market expectation for a substantial price increase to $150,000 during the month of October.
President Trump’s sudden announcement of a “tariff bombshell” served as the exogenous catalyst. This policy included 100% levies on all Chinese imports along with export restrictions on critical software. Equity markets reacted with the customary flight to safety.
The cryptocurrency market, however, experienced a structurally violent reaction.
The tariff announcement transcended a simple economic tax. It was perceived as a direct attack on the flow of capital from Asia into Western derivatives markets.
The speed of the repricing was dictated by leverage in the system.
The Liquidation Cascade: $19.13 Billion in Hours
The breach of the critical technical support level at $120,000 triggered a mechanical chain reaction. The market was saturated with long positions, highly leveraged at 10x, 20x, and even 50x, all predicated on an assumed breakout above $130,000.
In the span of hours, over $19.13 billion in leveraged positions were liquidated across centralised and decentralised exchanges.
This represents the largest single-day liquidation event in the history of the digital asset market.
Bitcoin experienced a rapid devaluation, dropping from approximately $126,000 to an intraday nadir of $105,000. This represented a 14% contraction in value over a matter of minutes. Altcoins, which function as leveraged proxies for Bitcoin’s price movement, sustained disproportionate damage. Ethereum recorded a decline between 12% and 20%. Smaller-cap digital assets endured drawdowns that frequently surpassed 50% to 70% during the trading day.
At Bancara, we stress that this was not a 2022-style contagion (solvency failure) but a 2025-style structural breakdown (liquidity failure). The assets were secure. The problem was the absence of buyers.
Thin Liquidity Bursts and the Vacuum Mechanism
A critical forensic detail: despite record nominal prices, the depth of the order books had contracted sharply. Market makers, anticipating regulatory shifts and macro volatility, had widened spreads and withdrawn inventory.
When the liquidation engine began to sell collateral, there was a “demand vacuum”.
The sell orders sliced through the order book with minimal resistance, causing price gaps. Slippage amplified losses, triggering further liquidations in a cascade. The ETF inflows that had supported the rally were passive in nature; they provided no bid support.
The outcome was a market “fragile at the highs”. A minor macro shock possessed the potential to trigger a major reversal.
Auto-Deleveraging and the Offshore Dysfunction
The cascade was further exacerbated by Auto-Deleveraging (ADL) on offshore derivatives platforms.
Unlike traditional clearinghouses, crypto exchanges utilise Insurance Funds to manage counterparty risk. When liquidations surpass the capacity of the Insurance Fund, exchanges implement ADL. This mechanism automatically closes the positions of profitable traders to effectively cover the losses incurred by bankrupt long positions.
On 10 October, profitable short positions were forcibly liquidated by the exchange to ensure systemic solvency. This action eliminated the natural sellers who would have covered at lower prices. The result was a chaotic deleveraging environment, rendering effective risk management impossible.
A $2 billion ADL event across multiple venues confirms that the market plumbing was insufficient to contain the pressure.
The agreed risk parameters were exceeded.
This event transformed the planned liquidation into a chaotic event.
Hedge Fund Strategy Bifurcation: A Map of the Damage
The performance divergence among crypto hedge funds in 2025 is stark and informative.
The “rising tide lifts all boats” era has ended, replaced by a regime where structural alpha is scarce and directional beta is lethal.
Directional Funds: The Beta Trap
Directional funds, which take net-long or net-short positions based on fundamental or technical analysis, have experienced their weakest performance since 2022. Estimated aggregate losses stand at approximately -23%.
This underperformance reflects two distinct mechanisms:
False Breakouts: Throughout Q3 and early Q4, Bitcoin made multiple attempts to breach key resistance levels. Each rally drew in trend-following algorithmic funds. Each rally was subsequently sold into by long-term holders distributing coins, triggering sharp reversals.
Directional managers consistently suffered reversals. They were stopped out at market lows, subsequently re-entering at elevated prices. This resulted in a pattern of buying strength and selling weakness, which is the exact opposite of profitable trading strategy.
The “Alt Season” Collapse: Fundamental funds positioned for outperformance in Layer-1 alternatives and DeFi protocols were decimated when Bitcoin dominance rose and altcoin correlations converged to one.
The “flight to quality” within crypto meant abandoning the risk curve. Managers found themselves holding illiquid tokens with no bid in a risk-off environment, forced to liquidate at widened spreads or accept severe mark-to-market losses.
The Basis Decay Erosion
Market-neutral funds utilising the “basis trade”, which involves a long spot and short futures position, have delivered a year-to-date return of approximately 14.4%. This relative outperformance, however, obscures an underlying structural deterioration.
The approval of spot Bitcoin ETFs fundamentally altered market efficiency.
Historically, futures traded at significant premiums to spot (contango), allowing basis traders to earn 20-40% annualized yields risk-free.
In 2025, ETF Authorised Participants (APs) arbitrage these spreads with instantaneous precision. Any futures premium triggers immediate ETF purchases and futures shorts by APs, compressing the spread.
This compression of yields forced basis funds to deploy higher leverage to meet return targets.
When October volatility hit, mark-to-market risk on leveraged positions spiked. While delta-neutral, the trades are not margin-neutral. Volatility expansion triggers margin calls on the short leg, forcing unwinds that lock in losses and erode the year’s gains.
The fundamental headwind is evident.
Simple arbitrage opportunities yielding high returns no longer exist. We now face a new environment characterised by lower yields and heightened volatility. This represents a declining risk to reward ratio.
The Steamroller Dynamic
A favored market tactic during the low-volatility environment of early 2025 involved selling volatility. This was executed by shorting calls, strategically deploying iron condors, and capitalising on premium decay. Managers operated under the premise that the proliferation of ETFs would stabilise the market, thereby ensuring Bitcoin remained within a constrained price range.
The October crash was the proverbial steamroller.
Implied volatility exploded from approx 40% to over 60% in days. Funds short volatility suffered massive mark-to-market losses as option values surged.
A more profound issue exists.
Realised volatility has consistently exceeded implied volatility in Q4, indicating that option sellers are fundamentally mispricing the risk they distribute. The profitability of the volatility carry trade has evaporated.
| Strategy Profile | 2025 YTD Return | Primary Risk Factor | Structural Headwind |
| Directional (Beta) | -23.00% | Whipsaw Volatility | False breakouts; Altcoin illiquidity. |
| Fundamental (Alt-Focused) | -23.00% | Concentration Risk | Rising BTC dominance; Regulatory chill on alts. |
| Market-Neutral (Basis) | 0.144 | Spread Compression | ETF efficiency eroding arbitrage yields. |
| Volatility Selling | -5.0% to -10.0% | Gamma Risk | Realised Vol > Implied Vol; Tail events. |
Derivatives Plumbing and the Liquidity Architecture
Systemic risk persists within the crypto market’s unseen infrastructure. This includes the derivatives ecosystem, collateral flows, and settlement mechanics. The volatility of late 2025 severely tested this underlying architecture.
The $23 Billion Expiry and the “Max Pain” Magnet
The impending December 2025 options expiry will see the culmination of approximately $23 billion in Bitcoin options contracts. This figure represents over half of the total open interest on Deribit, which is the dominant options trading venue.
Market dynamics are currently dictated by the “max pain” phenomenon. This mechanism dictates that prices converge on the strike price where the highest volume of options contracts expires without value. A massive concentration of put options resides at the $85,000 strike.
This creates a “magnet effect”.
Market makers short these puts face increasing negative delta as the price approaches $85,000, forcing them to short-sell spot Bitcoin to hedge their books.
This creates a self-reinforcing downward spiral.
The concentration of risk at $85,000 makes this level a critical line of demarcation for Q4 solvency. A breakdown below this level would likely trigger cascading liquidations from underwater positions, repeating the October dynamic.
The Fear Premium
Options skew, the differential in implied volatility between puts and calls, offers insight into institutional sentiment. Throughout the bull market of early 2025, the skew was positive. This indicated calls were more expensive, reflecting demand for upside potential.
In December 2025, the skew has inverted to approximately -5%.
Institutional participants exhibit a willingness to pay substantial premiums for defensive positioning. The desire for protection against market declines has intensified while the appetite for speculative gains has vanished.
This defensive positioning is structurally bearish.
It signals that the smartest capital in the room is bracing for further downside volatility through Q1 2026, rather than positioning for recovery.
Liquidity Fragmentation: The Basis Warning
The crypto market remains structurally fragmented.
Onshore (US-regulated) and offshore (unregulated) liquidity pools diverge during macro events. During the October crash, prices on Coinbase diverged significantly from offshore venues like Binance due to friction in capital movement.
Liquidity is not fungible during crisis periods.
Moreover, the futures-spot basis remains compressed.
In a healthy bull market, this spread widens as leverage demand increases. Currently, the basis is flat to negative, signaling zero speculative demand. Funding rates have reset to neutral. The leverage that drove Bitcoin to $126,000 has been entirely flushed.
While this reduces immediate cascade risk, it also removes the fuel for a V-shaped recovery.
On-Chain Diagnostics: The Reality of Distribution
Blockchain data provides forensic precision unique to this asset class. On-chain signals in Q4 2025 paint a vivid picture of distribution and institutional caution.
The Reactivation of Dormant Supply
One of the most concerning on-chain signals was the activation of “Satoshi-era” wallets (2009-2011) and other long-term holders who moved significant volumes as Bitcoin approached $126,000. This represents a “generational transfer” of wealth. Investors who acquired assets at negligible cost bases viewed the $100k+ level as a sufficient exit point.
Institutional insiders participated in this distribution.
Galaxy Digital, an institutional conviction barometer, liquidated 80,000 BTC, approximately $9 billion, in July 2025. This move effectively marked the market’s peak.
Such coordinated selling by seasoned capital suggests that sophisticated investors deemed the valuation excessive given prevailing macro risks.
The Stablecoin Demand Vacuum
Stablecoin flows (USDT, USDC) are the lifeblood of crypto liquidity.
Positive net inflows to exchanges indicate fresh capital entering to buy assets.
Negative flows indicate profit-taking and exit.
Q4 2025 data reveals a “strong negative correlation” between USDT flows and price. During the October peak, exchanges witnessed massive net outflows of stablecoins exceeding $220 million daily.
This established market indicator signifies a shift toward profit realisation. Traders are converting digital assets into stablecoins, subsequently moving funds to traditional fiat currencies to finalise their exits from the market.
Currently, stablecoin balances on exchanges are stagnant.
The “inter-exchange flow pulse” is weak.
Absent a reversal in this trend, lacking fresh capital infusion, any price increase constitutes a liquidity-driven short squeeze, not a true market expansion. This serves as a vital warning signal.
Exchange Reserves: The Liquidity Paradox
Bitcoin balances on exchanges have hit record lows, dropping to approximately 2.75 million BTC. Historically, this metric is interpreted as bullish (a “supply shock” reducing available inventory).
However, in 2025’s context, it signals liquidity fragility.
With fewer coins available on order books, market depth is compromised. It requires less capital to push the price down than in previous cycles. The low exchange balance is not purely a sign of “hodling” but also reflects the retreat of market makers reducing inventory to minimise counterparty exposure.
The market is becoming less resilient to volatility.
Structural Crisis Comparison: 2022 vs. 2025
To contextualise the severity of the 2025 downturn, comparative analysis against the baseline of 2022 is instructive.
| Dimension | 2022 Crisis (Terra/FTX) | 2025 Crisis (Trade War/Liquidity) |
| Primary Driver | Credit contagion; Insolvency of centralised lenders and fraud. | Liquidity fragmentation; Macro-induced leverage flush. |
| Systemic Risk | Counterparty risk: “Who has the money?” Assets trapped in bankruptcy. | Market risk: “What is the money worth?” Assets secure; valuations repriced. |
| Hedge Fund Impact | Total loss: Funds with FTX custody went to zero. | NAV drawdown: Funds suffered losses but remained operational. |
| Market Structure | Opaque bilateral OTC loans; uncollateralized lending. | Transparent on-chain liquidations; shallow order books. |
| Recovery Profile | L-shaped: Years of bankruptcy proceedings required. | U-shaped: Requires macro stabilisation and fresh liquidity; no “bad debt” overhang. |
Critical Insight: The 2022 crisis was a failure of solvency. The capital was entirely depleted. The 2025 crisis involves a failure of valuation and liquidity. The fundamental structural integrity of the 2025 market is demonstrably better. The systemic inefficiencies and reckless entities have been eliminated. A recovery hinges not on legal interventions but on a stabilisation of the geopolitical macro environment and a normalization of capital flows.
The Regulatory-Political Nexus: Promises and Failures
The macro landscape in 2025 has been the primary determinant of crypto asset prices.
The Failure of the “Digital Gold” Thesis
The most crucial macro finding of Q4 2025 is Bitcoin’s inability to function as a safe haven asset during geopolitical instability. When trade tariffs were announced, capital exited Bitcoin. This capital instead flowed into gold at $4,500/oz and US Treasuries.
This confirms that Bitcoin remains a “risk-on” asset, correlated with global liquidity conditions rather than geopolitical risk aversion.
The “digital gold” narrative has been paused.
Until the asset class demonstrates resilience in a liquidity-constrained environment, this characterisation is invalidated.
The Regulatory Gridlock
The political landscape has been a source of volatility. The pro-crypto posture in Washington promised deregulation but delivered gridlock.
- The Strategic Reserve: The Executive Order exists but its “budget-neutral” implementation disappointed a market priced for aggressive sovereign buying.
- The Clarity Act: This critical legislation defining US banking custody and market structure is stalled in the Senate. Allocators awaiting this “green light” have paused deployment, contributing to Q4’s liquidity vacuum.
- Geopolitical Intelligence: The $1.4 billion Bybit hack by North Korean actors has hardened regulatory KYC/AML stances, fragmenting liquidity further between regulated and unregulated venues.
The Bancara Stabilisation Dashboard: A Monitoring Framework
For the UHNW allocator, the current environment demands “active observation” rather than aggressive participation. The following non-advisory dashboard establishes key metrics for identifying stabilisation signals.
| Metric | Current Status (Dec 2025) | Stabilisation Signal | Rationale |
| BTC/SPX Correlation | -0.29 (Decoupled) | Reversion to > +0.4 | Signals crypto re-aligning with global risk appetite. |
| Stablecoin Flows | Negative/Flat | 30-day net inflows > $1B | Fresh capital entering system to support prices. |
| Futures Basis (CME) | Compressed (< 5%) | Expansion to > 10% | Renewed institutional demand for leveraged exposure. |
| Options Skew (25D) | -5% (Bearish) | Neutral (0%) to positive | Institutional demand for crash protection declining. |
| Order Book Depth | Thin (2% depth) | #ERROR! | Market makers returning; liquidity architecture healing. |
2026 Scenario Modeling
Based on structural damage incurred and prevailing macro headwinds, Bancara projects three potential scenarios for 2026:
Scenario A: The Grinding Recovery (Base Case – 60% Probability)
The market spends H1 2026 digesting supply overhang from 2025. Regulatory progress remains slow. The US-China trade war settles into a “cold phase” without escalation.
The Fed maintains rates, preventing liquidity collapse but offering no stimulus.
Price Action: Bitcoin ranges $85,000–$110,000; low volatility, low volume. Altcoins continue to bleed against Bitcoin.
Implication: Market-neutral funds grind out low-double-digit returns. Directional funds struggle with churn.
Scenario B: Institutional Bull (Bull Case – 20% Probability)
The Clarity Act passes the Senate in Q1 2026, unlocking US banking custody. The Strategic Reserve begins active accumulation. The Fed cuts rates aggressively to combat trade-war recession, flooding the system with liquidity.
Price Action: Bitcoin reclaims $126,000 and pushes toward $150,000. Gold and Bitcoin rally in tandem.
Implication: Directional funds recover 2025 losses. Basis yields expand as leverage returns.
Scenario C: The Deep Bear (Bear Case – 20% Probability)
Trade tensions escalate to kinetic conflict or full capital controls. The “digital iron curtain” falls, severing Asian liquidity. A global liquidity crisis triggers margin calls across asset classes; equities correct 20%, dragging crypto lower.
Price Action: Bitcoin breaks $75,000, triggering cascading liquidations. Crypto Winter 2.0 commences.
Implication: Mass closure of crypto-native funds; regulatory crackdown on stablecoins.
The Maturation Event
The “Crypto Chaos” of 2025 was a necessary, albeit painful, maturation event for the digital asset class.
It exposed the hubris of the “institutional narrative” that ignored the realities of global liquidity fragmentation and geopolitical friction. For the hedge fund industry, the year served as a ruthless filter, punishing complacency and rewarding structural discipline.
The “easy money” era of simple directional beta and wide arbitrage spreads has concluded.
Survivors will be managers who navigate fragmented liquidity, manage counterparty risk in real-time, and generate alpha without perpetual bull-market tailwinds.
For the UHNW allocator, the decoupling of crypto from equities is the critical signal.
The asset class is undergoing a profound repricing of risk.
Until key structural metrics, such as stablecoin flows, basis spreads, and order book depth, confirm a return to market health, maintaining patience remains the most prudent strategy.
The infrastructure is being built.
The liquidity tide has gone out.
We wait for it to turn.
Bancara Insights — Global perspective. Multi-asset access. Discreet, regulated strength.
For information only; not investment advice or a solicitation.
Works cited
- Why Crypto Hedge Funds Are Losing Money in 2025 | MEXC News, accessed December 26, 2025, https://www.mexc.co/en-NG/news/312324
- Hard Times for ‘Smart Money’ as Crypto Hedge Funds Record Worst …, accessed December 26, 2025, https://cryptorank.io/news/feed/9c63d-why-crypto-hedge-funds-are-losing-money-in-2025
- Crypto Crash 2025: What Caused the Crash, BTC Price Drop …, accessed December 26, 2025, https://learn.backpack.exchange/articles/crypto-crash
- Bitcoin Stagnates Around $87,370 While Traditional Markets Rally, accessed December 26, 2025, https://scanx.trade/stock-market-news/global/bitcoin-stagnates-in-narrow-range-while-traditional-markets-enjoy-year-end-rally/28178258
- Bitcoin’s Correlation with Equities Hits 2025 Lows Amid Market …, accessed December 26, 2025, https://www.mexc.co/en-NG/news/270276
- Crypto’s 12 biggest stories of 2025: From Trump’s policies to bitcoin …, accessed December 26, 2025, https://www.theblock.co/post/380776/cryptos-12-biggest-stories-of-2025
- Bitcoin Diverges from Equities as S&P 500 and Nasdaq Rise in 2025, accessed December 26, 2025, https://phemex.com/news/article/bitcoin-diverges-from-equities-as-sp-500-and-nasdaq-rise-in-2025-44776
- The State of Crypto Leverage: Q3 2025 Market Breakdown | Galaxy, accessed December 26, 2025, https://www.galaxy.com/insights/research/crypto-leverage-q3-2025-defi-cefi-lending-digital-asset-treasury-debt-futures-perpetuals
- How 2025 Shaped the Future of the Cryptocurrency Market, accessed December 26, 2025, https://stealthex.io/blog/how-2025-shaped-the-future-of-cryptocurrency/
- 3 Critical Lessons From the Great Crypto Flash Crash of 2025, accessed December 26, 2025, https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/3-critical-lessons-great-crypto-flash-crash-2025
- Bitcoin metrics signal a breakout, but a massive “underwater” supply …, accessed December 26, 2025, https://cryptorank.io/news/feed/3df1b-bitcoin-metrics-signal-a-breakout-but-a-massive-underwater-supply-wall-is-secretly-pinning-prices-below-93000
- Spot ETFs Give Rise to Crypto Basis Trading – OpenMarkets, accessed December 26, 2025, https://www.cmegroup.com/openmarkets/equity-index/2025/Spot-ETFs-Give-Rise-to-Crypto-Basis-Trading.html
- Bitcoin options market cautious as traders hedge against volatility, accessed December 26, 2025, https://cryptoslate.com/bitcoin-options-market-cautious-as-traders-hedge-against-volatility/
- Bitcoin volatility rises ahead of $23 billion options expiry …, accessed December 26, 2025, https://www.investmentnews.com/alternatives/bitcoin-volatility-rises-ahead-of-23-billion-options-expiry/263639
- How is crypto liquidity fragmentation impacting markets? – Kaiko, accessed December 26, 2025, https://research.kaiko.com/insights/how-is-crypto-liquidity-fragmentation-impacting-markets
- Bitcoin shows ‘strong negative correlation’ with USDt activity, accessed December 26, 2025, https://www.tradingview.com/news/cointelegraph:22a3886ab094b:0-bitcoin-shows-strong-negative-correlation-with-usdt-activity-glassnode/
- Crypto CLARITY Act, accessed December 26, 2025, https://www.blockchain-council.org/cryptocurrency/crypto-clarity-act/
