Bitcoin supply and demand imbalance: An in-depth analysis of futures-driven market trends diverging from on-chain demand

April 2026, Bitcoin’s price rebounded from the beginning of the month in the $65,000 range to nearly $80,000, and market sentiment warmed up accordingly. However, beneath this apparent price recovery, a structural contradiction is emerging. On April 27, Ki Young Ju, founder and CEO of the on-chain data analytics platform CryptoQuant, publicly issued a warning: this round of Bitcoin’s rally is mainly driven by the futures market, while on-chain spot demand remains in net negative territory. This assessment refocuses the market on a fundamental question: on what demand basis is this current price rebound actually built?

A Warning Masked by ETF Data

On April 27, Ki Young Ju posted on the social platform X, stating that although Bitcoin’s price has continued to rise over the past few weeks, the driving force is not coming from genuine buy orders in the spot market. Open interest continues to climb, ETF capital keeps flowing in, and Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy) has been making large purchases; yet the on-chain apparent demand indicators have never turned positive.

This statement quickly drew market attention. The reason is that if you look only at ETF fund-flow data, the market appears to be in a high-demand phase. In mid-April, the US spot Bitcoin ETF set the strongest weekly inflow record since February, reaching $786 million, and then the following week rose further to $823 million. BlackRock’s IBIT ETF saw weekly net inflows of as much as $983 million, setting a new six-month high. Meanwhile, Strategy bought 34,164 BTC at an average price of about $74,395 between April 13 and 19, totaling $2.54 billion—its third-largest single purchase in the company’s history.

Against the backdrop of such dense institutional buying, why is on-chain demand still negative? That is precisely what Ki Young Ju’s warning is valuable for.

Data and Structural Analysis: An Overlooked Demand Clue

Meaning of the apparent demand indicator

CryptoQuant’s apparent demand indicator measures the market’s supply-demand condition by comparing Bitcoin’s mining output with changes in exchange balances. When the indicator is positive, it means the demand growth rate exceeds the rate of new coin issuance. When it is negative, it indicates that the supply growth rate is faster than the rate at which demand absorbs it.

As of late April, Bitcoin’s 30-day apparent demand has remained below the zero line; in early April, it once recorded about -87,600 BTC. At the same time, perpetual futures demand has already rebounded into positive territory. The chart below clearly shows this divergence structure:

Data sources: CryptoQuant, Gate market data (as of April 28, 2026)

Five dimensions for the structural analysis

To understand the meaning of this divergence signal, it is necessary to break down the structure across five dimensions.

First, the quantity-price divergence in supply and demand. According to Gate market data, as of April 28, 2026, Bitcoin’s price is $76,932.7, down 2.39% over 24 hours, with a 24-hour trading volume of $571 million. The current market cap is $1.49 trillion, and the market share is 56.37%. The price is in a high range, but the supply-demand indicators show that buyer strength has not materially increased. In the past 24 hours, Bitcoin’s highest price reached $78,864.9 and the low fell back to $76,456.8. The amplitude of the range is about $2,408, reflecting how tense the standoff between bulls and bears is.

Second, the analysis of differences in capital nature. Futures demand and spot demand ultimately both show up as buying behavior, but there are fundamental differences in the nature of the capital involved. Perpetual contracts allow traders to build positions with leverage; the required margin is far less than the nominal size of the position. This means that futures buying can push the price higher without introducing a large amount of new incremental capital. Spot buying, on the other hand, requires traders to absorb supply from sellers using full funds. When futures prices rise but spot demand does not recover in sync, the price foundation becomes unstable.

Third, the hedging effect of ETF inflows and corporate buying. The $786 million weekly ETF inflow and Strategy’s $2.54 billion large purchase together inject more than $3.3 billion of buy-side pressure into the market in a short period of time. However, on-chain apparent demand is still negative, meaning that these buys are being offset—and even exceeded—by sell pressure from existing holders and miners. This phenomenon in itself is not contradictory. As the price rebounds to key resistance levels, profit-taking by long-term holders is normal, and miners also need to sell the BTC they newly mine to cover operating costs. But the key issue is not the sell action itself; rather, it is whether the scale and persistence of new buying are sufficient to absorb these sell pressures.

Fourth, the implied signal from the funding rate. Another data dimension worth paying attention to is the funding rate. Throughout the month of April, Bitcoin’s perpetual contract funding rate has stayed in negative territory; over the past 30 days, it is about -7% in total. A negative funding rate means shorts are paying longs, which indicates that short positions in the market are relatively crowded. When the funding rate is negative but prices are rising, it often occurs when shorts are forced to close or during a short-squeeze style move—not in a scenario where spot demand actively drives the rally.

Fifth, the technical meaning of price ranges. Bitcoin repeatedly attempted to break through $80,000 in April but failed. Combined with the weak backdrop of spot demand, this whole-number level may not only be a psychological resistance; it may also reflect the real tug-of-war between sell-side order-book pressure in the spot market and the willingness of buyers to absorb.

Threefold Interpretations of Market Sentiment: How the Market Reads the Divergence Signal

Regarding Ki Young Ju’s warning, market participants’ interpretations can be summarized into three major orientations.

It’s not abnormal that the rally is driven by futures; the structural bullish logic hasn’t changed. Those who hold this view believe that the derivatives market itself is a normal component of the modern financial system. An increase in futures positions reflects improved market depth and liquidity, rather than a necessarily fragile signal. Continuous ETF inflows and ongoing allocations by US institutional investors indicate that traditional capital’s acceptance of Bitcoin is deepening. This side also argues that the lag in the apparent demand indicator may cause it to fail to reflect actual buying in a timely manner—for example, OTC trades and ETF share transfers may not be reflected on-chain immediately.

The divergence signal is a clear warning; the risk of a pullback cannot be ignored. This view agrees with Ki Young Ju’s analytical logic and points out that similar structural divergences have appeared multiple times historically near local market tops. The multiple mid-cycle rebounds in 2025 ultimately ended with leverage liquidations under the pattern where futures demand led and spot demand lagged. This orientation holds that although ETF inflows provide fundamental support, as long as spot demand cannot turn positive on its own, any rise driven by leverage faces the possibility of a rapid reversal.

Distinguish between the short term and the long term; structural evolution needs time. The third viewpoint sits between the other two: it acknowledges the effectiveness of the divergence signal, but believes it is more a normal stage in the evolution of market cycles rather than a systemic risk signal. This view notes that the recovery in spot demand usually lags behind the rebound in price because most investors tend to enter after the trend has been confirmed. As long as the ETF inflow trend can be sustained and prices remain within a certain range, spot demand may gradually recover over the course of several weeks, thereby validating the current price level.

Each of the three positions has its own rationale. It is worth noting that Ki Young Ju himself did not assert that the market will decline immediately; instead, he put forward a conditional judgment based on historical cycles—whether and when spot demand recovers will determine the sustainability of the current rebound.

Boundaries and Limitations of the Divergence Signal

When analyzing any on-chain indicator, it is necessary to keep a clear understanding of its methodological boundaries.

The core calculation method of the apparent demand indicator is to compare Bitcoin mining output (daily new supply) with changes in exchange balances. This approach is logically self-consistent, but there are several notable limitations.

First, the indicator cannot fully capture spot flows in OTC trading. If large institutions’ buying behavior is carried out through OTC channels, its impact on exchange on-chain balance may be delayed or diluted.

Second, changes in exchange balances are influenced by a variety of factors, including but not limited to users withdrawing to self-custody wallets and rotation of the exchange’s own hot wallets. These actions do not necessarily equate to changes in the direction of market buying and selling.

Third, the indicator is a relative measure rather than an absolute measure. A negative value does not inevitably mean that prices will fall; it only indicates that at the current price level, the growth rate of supply exceeds the growth rate of demand.

Overall, CryptoQuant’s apparent demand indicator has important reference value as an on-chain signal, but treating it as a single leading indicator for price is risky. A more reasonable approach is to combine it with other dimensions of data—including ETF fund flows, the structure of the futures market, and the macro liquidity environment—to form a market judgment from multiple angles.

Industry Impact Analysis: When Structural Signals Split from Market Sentiment

Impact on the behavior of market participants

The divergence signal between futures and spot demand has differential effects on different types of market participants.

For institutional investors, this signal reinforces the necessity of prudent allocation. The continuous net inflow into ETFs shows that traditional capital’s willingness to allocate to Bitcoin long term has not disappeared. However, structural supply-demand imbalances highlight the importance of entry timing and cost management.

For leveraged traders, the combination of a negative funding rate and high open interest implies that the market is in a delicate equilibrium. Once a directional move triggers large-scale liquidations, prices may experience sharp volatility beyond the range that can be explained by fundamentals alone. Coinglass data from April 27 shows that if Bitcoin’s price falls below $75,188, the cumulative long liquidations on major exchanges would reach $19.03 billion; if it breaks above $82,640, cumulative short liquidations would reach $11.88 billion. The existence of this bidirectional liquidation pressure means that any breakout in either direction could be amplified by a liquidation cascade.

Impact on market narratives

Ki Young Ju’s warning provides an important correction to the simplified narrative popular in the current market: “ETF inflows = strong demand.” The signal reminds the market that although the purchase behavior of ETF shares appears as net capital inflow, if there is also large-scale spot sell pressure at the same time, ETF inflows alone are not enough to prove that the market as a whole is in a strong-demand state.

This observation also provides a more refined framework for analyzing the Bitcoin market. In a market that is becoming increasingly institutionalized, single-dimension fund flow data are no longer sufficient to judge the market’s true supply-demand structure. It requires a comprehensive analysis that combines on-chain data, the structure of the derivatives market, and the macro liquidity environment.

Multi-Scenario Evolution Forecast: Three Paths and Key Observation Points

Based on the current structural characteristics and historical patterns, three possible evolution paths can be projected.

Scenario 1: Spot demand gradually recovers, and futures and spot strengthen in sync

In this scenario, the persistence of ETF fund inflows provides basic support for spot demand. After the price maintains consolidation between $76,000 and $78,000, sidelined off-exchange funds gradually enter. Over the next two to four weeks, the on-chain apparent demand indicator turns from negative to positive, forming a synchronized resonance with futures demand. The signals of this path include: exchange balances showing continuous net outflows (withdrawals to self-custody wallets or long-term holder addresses), miners’ selling pressure weakening as hash price recovers, and the funding rate returning to a neutral to slightly positive range.

In this scenario, Bitcoin is expected to retest above $80,000, and the sustainability of the rebound is significantly enhanced due to support from spot demand.

Scenario 2: Divergence persists, but prices trade in a narrow range

In this scenario, spot demand is unable to turn positive for a long time, while futures positions repeatedly fluctuate around $24.2 billion. Prices continue to oscillate between $75,000 and $79,000, ETF inflows remain but the growth rate slows. The market enters a kind of expectation-driven game that becomes stuck. Key signals include: the apparent demand indicator lingering near the zero line for the long term, open interest no longer increasing but also not declining significantly, and volatility continuing to narrow.

At this time, the market direction will depend on changes in external variables. Macro economic data, shifts in regulatory policy, or sudden geopolitical events may become catalysts.

Scenario 3: Futures position unwinds trigger a chain pullback

This is the highest-risk evolution direction among the three paths. Futures demand declines first, and leveraged long or short positions are mass-triggered to close as prices break through key liquidation levels. The cascading liquidation effect causes prices to experience volatility of more than 5% to 10% within a short period of time. At this point, if spot demand cannot take over in time, prices may test support levels of $72,000 and even lower.

It is necessary to emphasize that when Ki Young Ju referenced historical patterns, he was not making arbitrary time analogies. He explicitly compared the current setup with the mid-cycle rebounds from the earlier cycle: in 2025, multiple rebounds driven by futures ultimately ended with leverage liquidations rather than being finished by new capital entering the market. This historical reference forms the experiential basis for his cautious stance.

Core observation points

No matter which path unfolds, the following three indicators are worth continuously tracking:

• Whether on-chain apparent demand turns positive: this is the most direct supply-demand signal;
• The trend of exchange BTC balance changes: net outflows usually imply an increase in long-term holding behavior;
• The relationship between open interest and price: synchronized increases in price and volume are a healthy signal; if prices rise while volume shrinks, or if prices fall while volume increases, that requires vigilance.

Conclusion

CryptoQuant CEO’s warning reveals a structural fact that is obscured by the narrative of ETF inflow: the demand base behind this round of Bitcoin’s rebound is experiencing a clear divergence between the derivatives/spot markets. This is not a simple bullish-or-bearish call; it is a directional question posed to market participants that needs validation—whether the current rise is driven by genuine demand or pushed by leverage capital.

In the evolution of crypto market cycles, misalignment between data and sentiment often creates the most important trading window. Understanding the deeper logic behind the current Bitcoin supply-demand structure is more valuable than guessing the short-term price direction. For long-term participants focused on fundamentals, what matters more than whether prices go up or down is confirming whether the demand base that supports the move is truly solid and sustainable.