As of March 20 in the week under the Eastern 8th time zone, the Nasdaq-listed mining company Bitdeer has implemented the “produce and sell immediately” strategy for the third consecutive month, selling all of the 126.3 BTC produced that week, leaving the company’s BTC holdings at zero. Simultaneously, the spot Bitcoin ETF experienced a net outflow of approximately $253 million within two days, and the Ethereum ETF has seen net outflows for three consecutive days, indicating a clear weakening in the cash flow situation. The continuous selling by mining companies, along with the withdrawal of funds from traditional financial products, has significantly amplified the price volatility of Bitcoin against the backdrop of rising global risk aversion, becoming one of the key clues to the recent market fluctuations.

Mining Companies with Zero BTC Holdings: From Accounting to Cash

Over the past three months, Bitdeer has maintained an operational pace of “produce and sell immediately,” with the Bitcoin mined not entering the company’s long-term holdings but being directly converted into cash in the market. As of the week of March 20, Bitdeer produced 126.3 BTC, and according to public disclosures, this weekly output was entirely sold, keeping the company’s BTC balance at zero. This strategy implies that Bitdeer has taken on almost no price volatility risk throughout the entire phase, treating Bitcoin as a liquid commodity and quickly converting it into fiat income or equivalent funds.

The core driver of this choice is the significant increase in the priority of cash flow safety nets for mining companies under the triple pressure of electricity costs, operational expenses, and the impending halving. Increasing electricity prices and competitive computational power have raised the marginal cost of each BTC, while the depreciation, maintenance, and labor costs of mining equipment also require stable cash inflows. Additionally, the halving will slash block rewards by half, creating structural downward pressure on future revenues. Under this uncertainty, Bitdeer hedges against the risks of both future price and production declines by locking in current price revenue, attempting to shift operational risk from "price volatility" to "cash management."

In contrast, the more common model for traditional mining companies is “partly holding BTC and partly selling”: when market sentiment is relatively optimistic or expected to rise, a certain ratio of BTC is retained as “inventory assets” to capture potential appreciation; when the market is weak or cash is tight, the selling ratio is increased. Bitdeer’s current strategy of zero inventory and full sales is relatively aggressive in terms of cash conversion within the industry—it compresses the space for participating in long-term price increases but maximizes the available cash on the books in the short term, resulting in a sustained and noticeable new selling pressure source on the market.

In stark contrast to MSTR: Accumulating vs. Liquidating

In sharp contrast to Bitdeer is MicroStrategy (MSTR)'s ongoing accumulation strategy. Over the past few years, MicroStrategy has repeatedly increased its Bitcoin holdings during market peaks and volatile stages, explicitly identifying it as a core reserve asset on its balance sheet, utilizing methods such as bond issuance and stock offerings to fund purchases. This model is highly emblematic in the context of traditional finance: it positions Bitcoin as a long-term allocation similar to a “corporate treasury,” rather than a short-term trading item.

In contrast, Bitdeer sees BTC more as a liquid asset that can be monetized at any time: mined and sold immediately, passing on the profits and losses from price fluctuations to the secondary market while locking itself into the role of a “cash flow factory.” This difference in positioning effectively reflects the completely different risk preferences and time perspectives of the two companies: MSTR is willing to endure high volatility in exchange for potential long-term excess returns, while Bitdeer prioritizes operational stability to avoid direct exposure on the balance sheet to high volatility.

The emotional signals these two strategies convey to the secondary market are also drastically different. MSTR’s continuous accumulation reinforces the narrative of Bitcoin as “digital gold” and a corporate reserve asset, providing a “named and facial” confidence anchor for medium to long-term bulls. In contrast, Bitdeer’s “produce and sell immediately” approach amplifies short-term selling pressure: each week’s new production quickly converts into sell orders, making it easier for the market to perceive a continuous supply from miners. For the price, the former tends to reduce circulation and boost holding expectations, while the latter continually tests buying capacity at current price levels.

Whales Jointly with Miners Create Selling Pressure: 40,000 BTC Concentrated on the Table

The continuous selling from miners is not the only source of supply pressure in the recent market. Analyst Murphy revealed blockchain data on platform X indicating that from March 11 to 13, whale addresses sold a total of 42,685 BTC, creating a peak of selling pressure within just three days. This volume is equivalent to the total block rewards over several days across the entire network, representing a serious demand for liquidity to digest large orders at any point in time.

Extending the timeline, it can be seen that Bitdeer’s three consecutive months of “produce and sell immediately” strategy has created a cumulative effect with this wave of whale liquidations in mid-March. Although the 126.3 BTC sold by Bitdeer that week is not large compared to the over 40,000 BTC from whales, its stable and continuous addition as a new seller, combined with sporadic large sell orders, will intensify the subjective feeling of “pressure from above and difficulty in support below” in the market. The result is that both bulls and bears have intensified the tug of war at key price points, with the frequency and amplitude of short-term fluctuations being amplified.

A crypto media summary pointed out that “MSTR's purchases ease some selling pressure, but market sentiment remains weak”. This reflects a reality: even if a single institution continues to accumulate, it cannot fully hedge against large-scale selling from whales and miners. When the level of on-chain selling pressure coincides with ETF fund outflows, the passive absorption by bulls and the passive deleveraging of highly leveraged positions often overlap, leading to a power imbalance between bulls and bears in the short term, where negative sentiment is more prone to magnification under adverse catalysts.

ETF Bloodletting and Stock Index Capital Flight Resonance

In addition to the on-chain and miner activities, another important clue regarding cash flow comes from ETFs. According to public data, the spot Bitcoin ETF recorded a net outflow of about $253 million within two days, while the spot Ethereum ETF has seen consecutive net outflows for three days, indicating that compliant funds have not significantly “bought the dip” during the correction but rather chosen to reduce positions and exit the market. This directional capital migration places Bitcoin under simultaneous pressure from insufficient incremental buying in both the spot and derivatives markets, as well as passive selling pressure.

A similar withdrawal is also evident in traditional stock market ETFs. Research briefs show that the S&P 500 and Nasdaq-related ETFs experienced a net outflow of approximately $64 billion over the past three months, setting a historical record. This indicates that the withdrawal from risk assets is not exclusive to the crypto space, but encompasses a broader asset pool that includes major US stock indices. Such a substantial continuous net outflow reflects both a reevaluation of the highly valued US stocks and the overall risk aversion tendency of institutions and major asset allocators given the current macro environment.

When significant capital outflows are observed simultaneously in crypto ETFs and US stock ETFs, a more reasonable explanation is that the market is experiencing a cross-asset "risk deleveraging" process, rather than a single industry facing independent negative sentiment. For Bitcoin, this implies that even if its medium- to long-term narrative is not fundamentally damaged, short-term prices still face the reality of being “sucked out” alongside other high-volatility assets—meaning liquidity is tightening rather than simply transitioning from crypto to the stock market or vice versa.

Oil Prices Surge by 50%: Safe-Haven Capital Moves from High Volatility to Hard Assets

In contrast to capital outflows from risk assets, some commodities have shown a completely opposite trend. Research brief data indicates that since February 28, oil prices have accumulated a rise of approximately 53%, achieving significant upward movement in a short time. This performance starkly contrasts with the adjustments seen in stocks and crypto assets, providing a clear reference for observing capital preferences: against the backdrop of rising geopolitical risks and inflation expectations, capital is more willing to flow into what is considered “hard assets”.

Geopolitical uncertainty has heightened market concerns about supply disruption and rising costs, while inflation expectations have narrowed the attractiveness of assets with nominal yields that are too low. Driven by these two forces, commodities like oil possess both “real use value” support and attributes for hedging against inflation and geopolitical shocks, making them more likely to attract additional allocation from capital. In contrast, Bitcoin and other high-volatility assets in this environment are more likely to be viewed as “risk assets” that need to be reduced in exposure, especially at a time when their previous round of price increases has already been substantial, and valuation and holding leverage levels are relatively high.

Linking these clues together: on one side, there is the strong rise of approximately 53% in oil and other commodities since the end of February; on the other side, there are the $64 billion fund outflows from the S&P 500 and Nasdaq ETFs over three months, along with continuous net outflows from Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs. Together, they outline a picture of cross-market asset rotation: an overall cooling of risk preference, with funds withdrawing from high beta and liquidity-dependent assets, shifting towards targets with stronger real goods and inflation protection attributes. In such a macro financial environment, even without any “black swan” events within the crypto industry, prices can still be prone to overshooting under the contraction of external liquidity.

Halving Approaches: Mining Companies Choosing Cash or Belief

In summary, current information reveals a more or less clear pattern: at the mining company level, represented by Bitdeer, there is a tendency to prioritize cash preservation around the halving period by avoiding price risks through “produce and sell immediately”; whale addresses concentrated their selling of 42,685 BTC in mid-March, coinciding with Bitdeer’s full sale of 126.3 BTC, marking a peak in supply; simultaneously, the spot Bitcoin ETF saw a net outflow of $253 million in two days, and the Ethereum ETF has had consecutive net outflows for three days, while the US stock ETFs saw $64 billion in capital flee over three months, pointing to one fact: during this round of fluctuations, a few institutions like MSTR that continue to buy cannot single-handedly support the entire market.

In this environment, investors need to deliberately distinguish between two completely different yet reasonable frameworks of thought. One is “structurally bullish on Bitcoin's long-term value”: acknowledging the supply contraction logic driven by halving, the evolution path as an asset allocation tool, and the long-term demand potential brought by the institutional expansion of channels (like ETFs). The other is “tactically responding to short-term capital withdrawals”: in the phase of tightening liquidity, rising risk aversion, and concentrated liquidations from miners and whales, one should moderately control leverage and position rhythm, accept the possibility of prices deviating from intrinsic value, and reserve a safety margin for potential liquidity shocks.

As the halving approaches, the path is not singular. Firstly, if the supply pressure is fully cleared prior to the halving, and the miner supply structurally contracts due to the reward halving, limited new supply resonating with long-term demand may lead to a round of repair and repricing if the macro environment stabilizes or even marginally slows. Secondly, if geopolitical and inflation-related macro risks further escalate, leading to continued deleveraging of risk assets, even if the halving substantially tightens the supply, Bitcoin prices may still be continuously suppressed by external liquidity factors for a longer time. For participants, the key is not to predict which path will certainly materialize but to separate the belief in “structurally bullish long-term” from respecting “short-term capital environment constraints” into two independent strategies, each with distinct decision-making and execution.

Join our community, let’s discuss and grow stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh

OKX Benefit Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefit Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。