movement in the yellow-box area of MVRV was not simply caused by lower upside volatility during the previous bull cycle. The fundamental reason was the ETF-driven liquidity that entered the market after the ETF approval, and the changes in trading patterns that emerged as a result. @ForeDex_Global have now developed data that clearly reflects this structural change, and since it will be released soon, I can state this more confidently. As long as ETF liquidity continues to play such an important role in the market, the traditional MVRV Ratio is unlikely to rise sharply again as it did in the red-box areas of previous cycles. Instead, I believe MVRV is more likely to remain within a certain range at lower levels, similar to what we are seeing now. This means that the traditional approach of drawing horizontal lines at specific MVRV levels and defining “above this level as overvalued, below this level as undervalued” may no longer work the same way it did in the past. The important point is that the MVRV Ratio itself has not become meaningless. The problem is continuing to apply the same historical thresholds even though the underlying market structure has changed. If the same methodology is applied again in the next bull cycle, we are likely to repeat the same mistake we made in the previous cycle expecting MVRV to rise toward the high levels seen in past cycles, only for that move never to materialize. And if this structural change is indeed correct, the undervaluation zone is also highly likely to behave differently from what we saw in previous cycles. Ultimately, not only the overvaluation threshold but also the undervaluation threshold needs to be redefined to reflect the new market structure. From my perspective, the current area still does not look like a stable zone. Given the structural changes in the market and the potential distortions in the data, I still believe this is an area that requires a cautious approach.(mignolet)