On January 25, 2026, Bitcoin's intraday price fell below $89,000, coinciding with a drop in exchange BTC liquidity, which is seen as the "blood" of the market, to a new low since 2022: the total internal flow available across the network was only about 14,000 BTC, with Binance holding about 2,700 BTC, both marked as historical lows. Amidst the intense price fluctuations at high levels, the U.S. signaled through the White House and regulatory officials a strong intention to "build a global cryptocurrency center," while the UK pushed forward a civil recovery case involving 60,000 BTC in the High Court, intensifying cross-border judicial and compliance pressures. Regulatory ambitions and compliance discourse are rising, yet the market is accelerating its "bloodletting": in this misalignment, an increasingly sharp question arises—why is market liquidity sharply contracting to levels rarely seen in recent years when global regulators attempt to take over the narrative?
Price Breakdown and Thin Orders: Structural Hollowing Under Bitcoin's Market Turbulence
● Intraday breakdown and volatility characteristics: Around January 25, after a series of high-volume surges, Bitcoin repeatedly fell below the $89,000 mark, with the K-line pattern showing a typical "long wick" structure of rapid dips and sharp recoveries, significantly amplifying price fluctuations in a short period. Buy and sell orders quickly exchanged positions in a very short time, indicating that funds were more inclined towards short-term speculation rather than trend positioning, with prices being pulled back and forth like a "tug-of-war rope," rather than being supported by solid spot buying.
● Deepening liquidity data mapping: In sync with the price turbulence, the overall internal BTC flow across exchanges was only about 14,000 BTC, marking a new low since 2022, with Binance's internal available flow at a historical low of about 2,700 BTC. Such limited inventory means that the depth of orders and available matching chips has significantly decreased, with the previously capable of "absorbing" large orders now becoming thinner, transforming the order book from a solid "wall" into an easily penetrable "cardboard." Each upward or downward price test is more likely to be amplified into significant volatility due to the lack of counterparties.
● Causal chain of declining spot depth and vulnerability: When the available trading chips decrease and depth declines, any medium to large-scale active buying or selling can create disproportionate price impacts. Once the order book is hollowed out, the market shifts from "price determines quantity" to "quantity pushes price," where liquidity no longer acts as a buffer but as an amplifier. The result is that the more extreme and volatile the price, the heavier the off-market wait-and-see sentiment becomes, with more chips locked on-chain or in cold wallets, further weakening on-market depth and forming a negative feedback loop of "volatility—hedging—greater volatility," making Bitcoin, despite appearing prosperous above certain price ranges, actually carry a higher structural fragility.
Exchange Inventory Depletion: Liquidity Drops to Dangerous Levels
● Why low flow is a historical alarm: The approximately 14,000 BTC available across exchanges and Binance's mere 2,700 BTC internal flow are widely regarded as historical lows, not merely "rare numbers," but in relation to Bitcoin's current price and market capitalization, indicating that the market buffer layer has almost been drained. Compared to 2022, prices are now in a higher range, but the chips available for matching have shrunk to low levels, indicating that the price increase has not been accompanied by a proportional replenishment of on-market positions, but rather a continued increase on a thinner liquidity base, making the system more susceptible to "flash crashes" or "flash rallies" when faced with extreme directional orders.
● Dual direction of on-chain and on-market: On one hand, the low internal flow of exchanges indicates a scarcity of tradable chips; on the other hand, on-chain data shows that more Bitcoin is being transferred to long-term holding addresses or self-custody environments, creating a new pattern of "chips not on the market." This means that price formation increasingly relies on marginal chips rather than collective pricing by all holders, with the market price's representativeness of the actual holding structure declining, making the market feel like it's dancing on "thin ice," where a small portion of willing bidders is pricing the entire asset.
● Amplifying effects of liquidity tightening: In such a tight liquidity environment, large funds entering or exiting the market must face higher slippage and execution costs, which directly raises the strategic threshold for institutions and large holders and suppresses their trading frequency. When extreme market conditions arise, severe pin bar patterns with long wicks are more easily created, leading to greater short-term deviations from reasonable price ranges, while the time to restore equilibrium prices may not shorten correspondingly. Overall, liquidity tightening is not just about "making trading difficult," but invisibly amplifies systemic volatility risks, making the impact paths of any black swan events steeper.
White House Aims to Become Crypto Center: Discrepancy Between Regulatory Rhetoric and Quiet Markets
● White House narrative and regulatory high-level statements: Surrounding the claim of "promoting the U.S. to become the world's cryptocurrency capital," signals have been released from the White House regarding the establishment of a cryptocurrency center, while regulatory officials have repeatedly emphasized the need to provide a more modernized regulatory framework for the industry. In public statements, the U.S. is portrayed as the most suitable soil for entrepreneurship and financial innovation, with regulators hoping to regain global discourse and pricing power in crypto finance through proactive embrace rather than simple suppression.
● Strategic intent: Modern regulatory and industry guidance: The rhetoric of "world cryptocurrency capital" reflects the U.S. attempt to rewrite the crypto landscape strategically in compliance, infrastructure, and financial engineering—reducing compliance uncertainty through modern regulatory reforms, attracting businesses, talent, and capital to form a crypto financial hub centered around the dollar system. This is not merely about industrial investment attraction but a layout for the future monetary and payment systems, aiming to build a "new hub" led by the U.S. between on-chain assets, payment networks, and traditional finance.
● Policy expectations and the gap of quiet liquidity: However, from the reality of only 14,000 BTC flow across exchanges and Binance's 2,700 BTC inventory, these regulatory verbal benefits have not translated into immediately visible market activity. The reason lies in the fact that the grand strategy is still in the stage of statements and directional declarations, with specific rules, exemption conditions, and cross-border coordination mechanisms remaining unclear, leading institutional funds to prefer "waiting rather than rushing in." In an environment where execution paths are unclear, policy benefits may instead be interpreted as signals of enhanced short-term regulatory intervention, causing some participants to choose to exit liquidity-intensive scenarios and move chips out of exchanges, further weakening market activity.
London Seeks Recovery of 60,000 BTC: Compliance Pressure Under Cross-Border Judicial Shadows
● Scale and context of the 60,000 BTC recovery case: Across the Atlantic, the UK High Court is hearing a civil recovery case involving 60,000 BTC related to money laundering, which, at current prices, is a substantial asset capable of stirring market sentiment. The core of the case is that the relevant Bitcoin is alleged to have circulated through complex on-chain paths and intermediary accounts, ultimately forming a highly decentralized and concealed holding structure, with the victims attempting to lock down and reclaim this batch of assets through civil recovery procedures, formally bringing crypto assets into the realm of traditional judicial enforcement.
● "Agent proliferation" and judicial concerns: During the proceedings, multiple law firms representing different victim groups emerged, creating a highly fragmented reality of "agent proliferation." Judge Turner expressed concern over this phenomenon, fearing that multiple agents not only increase coordination costs but may also lead to conflicting claims, duplicate compensation, or even execution competition, complicating the already intricate issues of cross-chain tracing and legal applicability. In this multi-party game scenario, the court must struggle to balance procedural justice and efficiency, making the weaknesses and constraints of cross-border judicial practices in the crypto era palpably felt.
● Execution difficulties of civil recovery alongside bankruptcy: More challenging is that such civil recoveries often proceed in parallel with the bankruptcy processes of related entities or individuals, with assets being repeatedly frozen, allocated, and declared across different legal jurisdictions and procedures, significantly extending execution timelines. For exchanges and large holders, this releases a clear compliance signal: once involved in cross-border cases, their on-chain assets may face overlapping claims in multiple judicial jurisdictions, significantly raising legal risk premiums. The result is that some institutions become more cautious in participating in high-sensitivity fund flows, even preemptively adjusting custody and account structures, which in turn further compresses visible on-market liquidity.
From Davos to Circle: The World is Rewriting the "Mechanics" of Crypto Assets
● Regulatory coordination stage at Davos: At the Davos Forum, where global elites gather, crypto assets and new payment tools were once again brought to the agenda, with discussions around regulatory frameworks, cross-border settlements, and payment security positioned as part of global financial governance. Compared to traditional macro topics, crypto-related issues more reflect how countries seek balance between technological sovereignty, monetary sovereignty, and financial innovation, aiming to neither abandon innovation dividends nor allow disorderly expansion to impact the existing financial order, making Davos an important window for observing global regulatory coordination trends in crypto.
● Circle's "new physics of currency" logic: Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire proposed the concept of "new physics of currency," essentially emphasizing the recombination of capital flow, compliance, and technology. He attempts to depict a new monetary mechanics: funds flow on-chain at higher speeds and lower frictions but must operate within a transparent, traceable compliance framework, shaped by smart contracts and regulatory interfaces that create new "laws of constraint." In this narrative, technology is no longer opposed to regulation but serves as the infrastructure for precise regulatory enforcement, requiring the inertia laws of the traditional currency world to be rewritten on-chain.
● The puzzle of U.S. strategy and U.K. judiciary: Connecting the U.S. centralized strategy with the U.K. judicial practice reveals a more complete picture: on one side, the "central country" constructing narratives and setting game rules through the White House and regulatory officials, and on the other, the "judicial frontier" continuously expanding the litigability and enforceability of crypto assets through courts and precedents. The global coordination discussions at Davos and the technological blueprints of companies like Circle serve as bridges connecting these two ends—global regulators are attempting to rewrite the "laws of mechanics" for crypto assets, bringing assets that once prided themselves on decentralization and borderlessness back into a force field shaped by sovereignty, compliance, and financial institutions.
Regulatory Highs and Liquidity Lows: The Next Step is Restructuring or Squeezing
Currently, Bitcoin's price is experiencing severe fluctuations at high levels, with an intraday drop below $89,000 on January 25, while exchange BTC liquidity has plunged to dangerous lows of 14,000 BTC and 2,700 BTC on Binance, while regulatory and judicial narratives in major jurisdictions like the U.S. and U.K. are amplifying simultaneously. Price, liquidity, and regulatory discourse form a rare triangular pattern: the price remains a topic of discussion, yet the market is increasingly hollow, with the true drivers of sentiment gradually shifting from speculative imagination to compliance expectations and institutional evolution.
From here forward, two paths may emerge: one where regulation gradually takes shape, with supporting details and cross-border coordination mechanisms clarified, compliance custody, on-chain settlements, and asset management product systems maturing, allowing institutional funds to be motivated to enter and fill depth under improved certainty, driving a liquidity reconstruction based on "institutional market-making + long-term funds"; the other path is one where traditional institutions choose to continue observing or even reduce positions amid regulatory execution uncertainties and the spread of judicial risks, coupled with frequent high-sensitivity events, leading to more chips being locked on-chain or off-market, further compressing market activity and amplifying volatility with fewer marginal chips.
For investors, in the game between regulation and liquidity, both risk appetite and time perspective need to be recalibrated: short-term participants must realize that under the combination of "thin liquidity + high regulatory noise," the probability of extreme volatility and liquidity exhaustion significantly increases; medium to long-term allocators need to pay more attention to institutional evolution and the pace of regulatory implementation, shifting their focus from a single price curve to the construction cycle of compliance infrastructure. Before the new price discovery phase arrives, the real question that needs to be answered is no longer just "Is Bitcoin worth this price?" but rather "Under what regulatory and liquidity structure does this price have sustainability?"
Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX benefits group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance benefits 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。
