VanEck Says Bitcoin Correction May Be Nearing Its End

MakeCryippreferred on

• VanEck cites $663 million in 30-day U.S. spot Bitcoin ETF inflows as one of its bullish signals. That number comes only from VanEck’s own report.
• VanEck issues its own spot Bitcoin ETF, HODL, giving the firm a direct financial stake in bullish Bitcoin sentiment.
• VanEck’s own historical data shows that in past instances when this many signals fired at once, returns over the following six months came in below the market’s normal baseline.

VanEck’s Digital Assets research team said on Aug. 18 that 8 of the 12 indicators in its “Bitcoin Capitulation Check” are now firing, up from zero signals in the same model’s reading one month earlier. Bitcoin’s price moved less than half a percent between the two readings, according to VanEck’s own figures.

Why It Matters

A capitulation signal is supposed to mean sellers are exhausted and a bottom is close. But this is the second time in about two months that a different read of the same market has pointed to capitulation without a confirmed turn in price following it.

Treating each new reading as a fresh, high-confidence event risks missing that the underlying signals have already flipped once this cycle without resolving into anything.

The Big Picture

An independent on-chain analyst, Axel Adler Jr., raised a similar warning on June 11, pointing to Bitcoin’s Realized Capitalization falling by roughly $12 billion from its mid-May peak and its adjusted SOPR ratio staying below 1.0 for 13 straight days, a sign coins were being sold at a loss rather than for profit.

“Capital is leaving the Bitcoin network, and participant behavior confirms a capitulation regime, sales are being made at a loss,” Adler said at the time, with Bitcoin trading near $61,828.

VanEck’s Aug. 18 report describes a different set of metrics: options put/call premiums at a 99th-percentile extreme, long-term holders reducing their share of supply from 60.9% to 59.1%, and a mining-difficulty drawdown of 18.3% from its November 2025 peak, among others. Bitcoin traded at $63,549 on Aug. 11, the date VanEck’s data is drawn from.

The two calls use different methods and different underlying data, but they’re describing overlapping territory in the same multi-month stretch, during which Bitcoin has mostly traded between $58,000 and $66,500. Laid side by side, the differences between them matter as much as the similarities:

VanEck’s Own Reset

What sits between the two calls matters. VanEck’s mid-July report, covering the month in between, showed none of its 12 signals firing, with Bitcoin trading at $63,742, almost exactly where it sits now. That report stated plainly that neither its options-skew nor funding-rate metrics had reached the extremes that, historically, mark a bottom.

A month later, without a comparable move in price, 8 of those same 12 signals had swung into capitulation territory. The shift looks less like Bitcoin falling into a fresh low and more like the underlying derivatives and positioning data resetting sharply on their own.

What VanEck’s Own Numbers Say About the Call

VanEck’s report includes its own caveat, and it’s a significant one. The firm’s historical backtesting shows that in the past, when 8 to 12 of these signals fired together, the following 90 days returned an average of 12.8%, below the 15.2% baseline across all periods, and the following 180 days returned 32.0%, below a 36.3% baseline.

VanEck’s own conclusion: “Inside of six months, the historical record gives us no edge.” Only the one-year return has historically beaten the baseline, and VanEck notes that sample is small.

What Would Actually Prove This Wrong

VanEck’s own data shows that in the three prior bear cycles it studied, excluding 2011, the stretch from price peak to final bottom averaged about 11 to 13 months. The current decline is in its 10th month, which puts VanEck’s own historical window for a turn between September and November 2026.

If Bitcoin breaks upward inside that window, the case for treating the August signal as the real one strengthens. If it doesn’t, and a third capitulation call turns up in the months after this one without a confirmed low in between, that would support treating each new reading as another data point in an unresolved pattern rather than the one that finally marks the bottom.