For reference, if ETF institutional trading activity and ETF-related entities are removed from the calculation, "MVRV Ratio" during last year's bull cycle rises above "3" again, just as it did in previous cycles. What does this imply? It suggests that the "MVRV Ratio" currently used by the market may contain a significant structural distortion. In other words, "MVRV value" we see today may not fully reflect the actual state of the market. Let me be clear. During last year's Bitcoin bull market, nearly all traditional on-chain cycle indicators failed to accurately explain market behavior. The first step is understanding why they failed. And this issue is not limited to MVRV alone. The current MVRV Ratio is approximately 1.2. Now consider this question: What if the adjusted MVRV after removing ETF-related effectsis actually higher than 1.2? For reference, in previous cycles, even after MVRV reached 1, Bitcoin experienced substantial additional declines. 2015: -54% (392 days before MVRV recovered above 1) 2019: -48% (189 days) 2022: -23% (217 days) This is why the 0–1 MVRV range should not automatically be interpreted as a "safe zone." Furthermore, if the adjusted MVRV is already above the current reading of 1.2, then an even wider range of downside volatility must be considered when assessing market risk. However, today's market sentiment reflects very little of that caution. The reason is simple. The belief that "Bitcoin will eventually go higher anyway" is stronger than in any previous cycle. That confidence is largely supported by three narratives: - Transparent institutional ETF holdings. - The perception that there are no macro or market shocks comparable to previous cycles. - Strong confidence in the historical patterns of traditional on-chain cycle indicators.(mignolet)