In April 2026, the Bitcoin price rebounded from the $65,000 range at the start of the month to nearly $80,000, sparking renewed optimism in the market. However, beneath this apparent recovery, a structural contradiction is emerging. On April 27, CryptoQuant founder and CEO Ki Young Ju issued a public warning: the current Bitcoin rally is primarily driven by the futures market, while on-chain spot demand remains net negative. This assessment has refocused market attention on a fundamental question—what is the underlying demand supporting the current price rebound?
A Warning Hidden by ETF Data
On April 27, Ki Young Ju posted on social platform X, noting that although Bitcoin’s price has climbed steadily in recent weeks, the driving force is not genuine spot market buying. Open interest has continued to rise, ETF inflows remain strong, and Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy) has been aggressively buying. Yet, on-chain apparent demand indicators have failed to turn positive.
This statement quickly drew market attention. If you look only at ETF inflow data, the market appears to be in a phase of robust demand—US spot Bitcoin ETFs set a record for weekly inflows in mid-April, reaching $786 million, and the following week climbed further to $823 million. BlackRock’s IBIT ETF saw a weekly net inflow of $983 million, marking a six-month high. Meanwhile, Strategy purchased 34,164 BTC between April 13 and 19 at an average price of about $74,395, totaling $2.54 billion—the third-largest single purchase in the company’s history.
With such concentrated institutional buying, why does on-chain demand remain negative? This is precisely the value of Ki Young Ju’s warning.
Data and Structural Analysis: An Overlooked Demand Signal
The Meaning of Apparent Demand Indicators
CryptoQuant’s apparent demand indicator measures market supply and demand by comparing Bitcoin mining output with changes in exchange balances. A positive value indicates demand is growing faster than new coin issuance; a negative value means supply is increasing faster than demand absorption.
As of late April, Bitcoin’s 30-day apparent demand remained below zero, hitting roughly -87,600 BTC at the start of the month. Meanwhile, perpetual futures demand had returned to positive territory. The chart below clearly illustrates this divergence:
| Indicator | Current Status (Late April 2026) | Signal Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| 30-Day Apparent Demand | Still negative (around -87,600 BTC) | Supply exceeds demand; spot buying is insufficient |
| Perpetual Futures Demand | Back to positive | Speculative buying is active; leverage is driving the market |
| Open Interest | Continues to rise, reaching about $24.2 billion in mid-April | Leverage in the market is increasing |
| Funding Rate | Remains negative, 30-day cumulative around -7% | Shorts are paying; bearish sentiment dominates |
Data sources: CryptoQuant, Gate market data (as of April 28, 2026)
Five Dimensions of Structural Analysis
To understand this divergence signal, it’s necessary to break down the structure across five dimensions.
First: Divergence between supply-demand structure and price. According to Gate market data, as of April 28, 2026, Bitcoin was priced at $76,932.7, down 2.39% in 24 hours, with a 24-hour trading volume of $571 million. Current market capitalization stands at $1.49 trillion, with a market share of 56.37%. Prices are high, but supply-demand indicators show that buying power has not substantially strengthened. Over the past 24 hours, Bitcoin peaked at $78,864.9 and dropped to a low of $76,456.8—a fluctuation of about $2,408, reflecting intense long-short battles.
Second: Analysis of capital characteristics. Futures and spot demand both manifest as buying activity, but their capital nature is fundamentally different. Perpetual contracts allow traders to build positions with leverage, requiring far less capital than the notional position size. This means futures buying can push prices higher without substantial new capital inflows. Spot buying, however, requires buyers to absorb supply with full funds. If futures prices rise without a corresponding recovery in spot demand, the price foundation remains unstable.
Third: The offsetting effect of ETF inflows and corporate buying. The $786 million weekly ETF inflow and Strategy’s $2.54 billion purchase injected over $3.3 billion of buying into the market in a short period. Yet, on-chain apparent demand remains negative, indicating these purchases are being offset—or even surpassed—by selling from existing holders and miners. This phenomenon is not inherently contradictory—when prices rebound to key resistance levels, profit-taking by long-term holders is normal, and miners need to sell newly mined BTC to cover operating costs. The crucial issue isn’t the selling itself, but whether the scale and persistence of new buying can absorb this selling pressure.
Fourth: The implied signal of the funding rate. Another key data point is the funding rate. Throughout April, Bitcoin perpetual contract funding rates stayed negative, with a 30-day cumulative around -7%. Negative funding rates mean shorts are paying longs, indicating a crowded short position. When funding is negative but prices rise, it often results from forced short covering or a short squeeze, rather than proactive spot demand driving prices higher.
Fifth: The technical significance of price ranges. Bitcoin repeatedly failed to break above $80,000 in April. Combined with weak spot demand, this round number is not just a psychological barrier—it reflects a genuine contest between sell-side order pressure and buy-side willingness in the spot market.
Sentiment Analysis: Three Interpretations of the Divergence Signal
Market participants’ responses to Ki Young Ju’s warning can be summarized into three main perspectives.
Futures-driven rallies are not abnormal; the structural bull case remains intact. Proponents argue that derivatives markets are a normal part of modern finance, and rising futures positions reflect greater market depth and liquidity—not inherent fragility. Continuous ETF inflows and ongoing allocation by US institutional investors demonstrate deepening acceptance of Bitcoin by traditional capital. This camp believes the apparent demand indicator may lag and fail to reflect real buying in time—for example, OTC trades and ETF share transfers may not immediately appear in on-chain data.
The divergence signal is a clear warning; correction risks should not be ignored. This group agrees with Ki Young Ju’s logic, noting that similar structural divergences have historically appeared near interim price peaks. Several mid-term rallies in 2025 ended with leverage unwinding after futures demand led and spot demand lagged. They argue that while ETF inflows provide fundamental support, any rally driven by leverage faces the risk of rapid reversal unless spot demand turns positive independently.
Distinguishing short-term from long-term, structural evolution takes time. The third perspective sits between the two: it acknowledges the validity of the divergence signal but sees it as a normal phase in the market cycle, not a systemic risk. This view notes that spot demand recovery usually lags price rebounds, as most investors prefer to enter after confirming a trend. As long as ETF inflows persist and prices hold within a certain range, spot demand may gradually recover over several weeks, validating current price levels.
Each viewpoint has its own logic. Notably, Ki Young Ju himself did not assert that the market would immediately decline; instead, he offered a conditional judgment based on historical cycles—whether and when spot demand recovers will determine the sustainability of the current rebound.
The Boundaries and Limitations of Divergence Signals
When analyzing any on-chain indicator, it’s important to recognize its methodological boundaries.
The core calculation of the apparent demand indicator compares Bitcoin mining output (daily new supply) with changes in exchange balances. While logically coherent, there are several notable limitations.
First, the indicator cannot fully capture spot flows in OTC trades. Large institutional purchases conducted off-exchange may have delayed or diluted effects on exchange balances.
Second, exchange balance changes are influenced by many factors, including but not limited to user withdrawals to self-custody wallets and exchange hot wallet rotations. These actions don’t necessarily reflect shifts in market buying or selling direction.
Third, the indicator is relative, not absolute. A negative value does not automatically mean prices will fall—it simply shows that, at current price levels, supply is growing faster than demand.
Overall, CryptoQuant’s apparent demand indicator is a valuable on-chain signal, but relying on it as the sole leading price indicator is risky. A more reasonable approach is to combine it with other data dimensions—including ETF flows, futures market structure, and macro liquidity environment—to form a multi-faceted market assessment.
Industry Impact Analysis: When Structural Signals Diverge from Market Sentiment
Impact on Market Participant Behavior
The divergence between futures and spot demand affects different types of market participants in distinct ways.
For institutional investors, this signal reinforces the need for cautious allocation. Persistent ETF net inflows indicate traditional capital’s long-term commitment to Bitcoin, but structural supply-demand imbalances highlight the importance of entry timing and cost management.
For leveraged traders, the combination of negative funding rates and high open interest means the market is in a delicate balance. If directional volatility triggers large-scale liquidations, prices may swing dramatically beyond what fundamentals would justify. Coinglass data from April 27 shows that if Bitcoin drops below $75,188, cumulative long liquidations across major exchanges would reach $19.03 billion; if it breaks above $82,640, cumulative short liquidations would total $11.88 billion. This dual liquidation pressure means any breakout in either direction could be amplified by cascading liquidations.
Impact on Market Narratives
Ki Young Ju’s warning serves as an important correction to the prevailing "ETF inflows = strong demand" narrative. The signal reminds the market that ETF share purchases, while appearing as net inflows, do not prove robust overall demand if there is simultaneous large-scale spot selling pressure.
This observation provides a more nuanced framework for analyzing the Bitcoin market. As institutionalization deepens, single-dimensional flow data is no longer sufficient to judge real supply and demand; comprehensive analysis must include on-chain data, derivatives market structure, and macro liquidity conditions.
Scenario Evolution: Three Paths and Key Observations
Based on current structural features and historical patterns, three possible evolutionary paths can be projected.
Scenario 1: Gradual recovery of spot demand, synchronized strength in spot and futures
In this scenario, sustained ETF inflows underpin spot demand. After Bitcoin oscillates between $76,000 and $78,000, sidelined capital gradually enters. On-chain apparent demand turns positive within two to four weeks, resonating with futures demand. Evolution signals include: sustained net outflows from exchanges (users withdrawing to self-custody or long-term holding addresses), reduced miner selling pressure as hash price recovers, and funding rates moving back to neutral or slightly positive.
Here, Bitcoin may retest levels above $80,000, and the rally’s sustainability is greatly enhanced by spot demand support.
Scenario 2: Persistent divergence, narrow price oscillation
In this scenario, spot demand remains negative for an extended period, and futures positions fluctuate around $24.2 billion. Price continues to oscillate between $75,000 and $79,000, with ETF inflows holding steady but slowing. The market enters a state of expectation-driven stalemate. Key signals include: apparent demand hovering near zero, open interest neither rising nor falling significantly, and volatility narrowing.
Market direction will depend on external variables—macro data, regulatory developments, or unexpected geopolitical events may act as catalysts.
Scenario 3: Futures unwinding triggers a chain reaction correction
This is the riskiest path. Futures demand declines first, and leveraged long or short positions are liquidated en masse as prices breach key liquidation thresholds. Cascading liquidations cause price swings exceeding 5% to 10% in a short period. If spot demand fails to absorb the sell-off, prices may test support at $72,000 or even lower.
It’s important to note that Ki Young Ju’s historical comparisons are not arbitrary. He specifically likens the current setup to previous mid-cycle rallies—in 2025, several futures-driven rebounds ended with leverage unwinding rather than new capital entering. This historical reference underpins his cautious stance.
Key Observations
Regardless of which path unfolds, three indicators warrant ongoing attention:
- Whether on-chain apparent demand turns positive: the most direct supply-demand signal;
- Trends in exchange BTC balances: net outflows typically indicate increased long-term holding;
- The relationship between open interest and price: synchronized rises in both are healthy, while price increases with shrinking volume or price drops with rising volume signal caution.
Conclusion
The CryptoQuant CEO’s warning reveals a structural reality masked by the ETF inflow narrative: the foundation of Bitcoin’s current rally is undergoing significant divergence between spot and futures markets. This is not a simple bullish or bearish call, but a directional question for market participants—are current gains driven by real demand, or are they a leverage-fueled, unverified rally?
In the evolution of the crypto market cycle, the disconnect between data and sentiment often creates the most important trading windows. Understanding the deep logic of Bitcoin’s supply and demand structure is more valuable than guessing short-term price moves. For long-term participants focused on fundamentals, what matters more than price fluctuations is confirming whether the demand base supporting the rally is truly solid and sustainable.
