"Segmented MVRV Ratio (ETF Entities Only)" clearly shows why "standard MVRV Ratio" did not rise as sharply as it had in previous cycles during the last bull cycle. BTC ETF played a major role in this cycle. However, MVRV of the ETF entities responsible for a significant portion of that liquidity consistently remained around or below 1. As these entities became part of the aggregate MVRV calculation, they inevitably created a structural distortion in the behavior of the standard MVRV Ratio. This raises an important question: "If the overvaluation threshold has been distorted, can we really assume that the historical undervaluation threshold still works the same way?" During the last bull cycle, "standard MVRV" threshold for identifying market tops clearly failed. Yet if we continue using those same historical thresholds to identify the bottom, I believe the reliability of that approach becomes significantly lower. If ETF continue to maintain their current importance in Bitcoin market, it will become increasingly difficult to interpret "standard MVRV Ratio" using the same historical framework. We will ultimately need new thresholds that reflect the changed market structure, or new datasets designed for it. And there is an even more important question to consider. "If the introduction of ETF has created such a significant structural change in MVRV, can we really assume that other on-chain metrics have remained unaffected?" I believe this is something that needs to be examined very seriously. This is why I still believe the Bitcoin market should be approached with caution, rather than making aggressive conclusions based solely on historical standards. And that is especially true in a cycle like this one, where the market structure has changed significantly and those changes are already affecting the behavior of on-chain data itself.(mignolet)