𧡠"Bitcoin is a ghost town" they say, pointing to quiet mempools
But in the last 3 months, $60B+ moved on-chain daily on average
That's 588,824 BTC flowing through the network every single day
The "ghost town" crowd is measuring the wrong thing entirely... π
2/ Here's what's actually happening:
While transaction COUNT dropped slightly, transaction VALUE remains massive:
$60B+ daily on-chain transfers
4.3M BTC weekly (21.6% of total supply)
Same volume levels as 5 months ago
This isn't a ghost town - it's serious money moving seriously
3/ Plot twist: Bitcoin on-chain value often EXCEEDS daily spot trading volume
June 11th example:
π 624,437 BTC moved on-chain
βͺ 467,791 BTC spot volume
Real Bitcoin β Real wallets vs. Paper trading β Same coins recycling
Which one matters more? π€
4/ What this actually signals:
β
Less speculation, more actual utility
β
Institutions moving capital quietly
β
Bitcoin working as designed: final settlement layer
β
Empty mempool = efficiency, not abandonment
The network is maturing, not dying
5/ The "ghost town" narrative completely misses the point
Bitcoin isn't about constant mempool chaos - it's about moving real value efficiently
What other "obvious" metrics do you think tell incomplete Bitcoin stories?
π Building tools to dig deeper into these questions
One of the most interesting aspects Bitcoin is the game theory.
Thanks to its unique characteristics (scarcity, decentralization, security, divisibility, portability, fungibility, transparency and more) Bitcoin is without a doubt a superior form of money. Yet, because it is still new, only a small portion of global population has adopted it.
That's where game theory comes in: Every entity in the society (individual, family, communities, institutions, private companies, corporate, public sector, nation state) must make a choice: Shall I bet on that new form of money or rather stick with the current one?
Individuals and entities choosing not to move run the risk of being left behind. Those who decide to move will enjoy the benefits of being early but also need to consider the risk (even if small) of Bitcoin being abandoned at some point for whatever reason.
What's more, financial institutions that we'd expect to reject Bitcoin the most because of their privileged position, now have to carefully evaluate the risk of Bitcoin winning and them losing by joining too late. Could that explain the confusing messages we seem to be getting: On some TV channels we hear Blackrock's CEO selling the unique merits of Bitcoin and Bitcoin ETF, on the other hand we hear Jamie Dimon dismissing Bitcoin as a 'pet rock' that does nothing. Are these two really in disagreement or are they playing their own version of the game to confuse the populace while planning on getting as many Bitcoin as possible?
