Binance trading statistics indicate the reasons behind the decline in Bitcoin prices despite an influx of bids from spot buyers.

Bitcoin’s hard cap is straightforward: there will only ever be 21 million coins in existence.

However, the challenging aspect is that the marginal market can trade significantly more than 21 million coins in exposure, as much of that exposure is synthetic and cash-settled, which can be created or reduced almost instantaneously.

This distinction has emerged as Bitcoin’s central paradox over the past year.

Scarcity is an inherent characteristic of the asset, while price is influenced by the market microstructure that dictates the next aggressive order. When the volume of derivatives and leveraged positions becomes the primary focus, Bitcoin can behave like an asset with limited supply while simultaneously acting like an asset with effectively elastic exposure.

21 million coins, but a much larger marginal market

Spot trading is the only environment where a transaction necessarily transfers actual BTC from one owner to another.

Perpetual and dated futures do not create new coins, but they establish a secondary market that can grow larger, more rapidly, and more reflexively than the spot market. Perpetual contracts are designed to mirror spot prices through a funding mechanism and can be traded with leverage, allowing a relatively small amount of collateral to control a significantly larger notional position. This combination tends to draw activity into derivatives when traders seek speed, leverage, shorting capabilities, and capital efficiency.

Price discovery occurs where the next significant market order is executed. If the majority of urgency resides in perpetual contracts, then the path of least resistance is established there, even if long-term holders do not utilize leverage and the underlying supply remains fixed. In this context, price movements are often driven by shifts in positioning: liquidations, forced de-risking, hedging flows, and the rapid repricing of leverage. These flows can overshadow the slower process of spot accumulation, as the marginal participant is deciding whether to increase or decrease exposure rather than whether to purchase coins.

This also explains why visible order book support is a less robust concept than it may appear on a chart. Displayed bids can be genuine, but they are conditional. They can be withdrawn, layered, refreshed, or simply surpassed by the volume originating from the larger derivatives market. Order books serve as records of resting intent, not guarantees of execution.

What the data shows

The Binance BTC/USDT perpetual futures to spot volume ratio provides a clear starting point as it quantifies where activity is concentrated.

On February 3, the perpetual-to-spot volume ratio was 7.87, with $23.51 billion in perpetual volume compared to $2.99 billion in spot while BTC traded around $75,770. On February 5, the ratio remained at 6.12, with $15.97 billion in perpetual volume against $2.61 billion in spot, and the price near $69,700.

These ratios are significant because they indicate a market where the primary source of turnover is a leveraged, shortable venue. In this setup, the next price movement is more likely to be influenced by the repricing of exposure rather than by incremental spot purchases.

The aggregated order book liquidity delta adds another layer: it not only shows where volume was traded but also where liquidity accumulated near the price. CoinGlass defines depth delta as the imbalance between bids and asks within a specified range, here ±1% around the current price, which summarizes whether the visible book is bid-heavy or offer-heavy.

The most substantial footprint appears on the derivatives side just as the market was entering a drawdown phase. The futures liquidity delta printed +$297.75 million on January 31 at 14:00 with BTC around $82,767. Spot later showed +$95.32 million at 18:00 around $78,893. Even on February 5 at 14:00, the spot delta still indicated +$36.66 million with BTC near $69,486.

This data illustrates a market where spot bids existed and, at times, increased, yet the price continued to decline. Once the hierarchy is accepted where derivatives are the dominant class, this no longer appears contradictory. Displayed liquidity near spot can improve while the larger derivatives market continues to enforce repricing through leverage reduction, short pressure, or hedging. When perpetual contracts dominate turnover, the marginal seller is not a real individual who has lost conviction; it is merely a manager adjusting positions.

Now consider the third channel that investors often regard as the definitive spot proxy: US spot Bitcoin ETFs. The flow sequence observed last week resembles a tug-of-war rather than a steering wheel aimed at a cliff.

Significant outflows occurred on January 21 at approximately -$708.7 million, then on January 29 at about -$817.8 million, followed by January 30 at around -$509.7 million. February 2 saw a sharp positive shift at about +$561.8 million, which then reverted to -$272.0 million on February 3 and -$544.9 million on February 4.

Public flow tallies like these are widely monitored through aggregators such as Farside and are frequently referenced in market coverage, but they do not directly correlate to intraday prices when the derivatives market is dictating the marginal trade.

It is also important to clarify what an ETF flow represents and what it does not. Creations and redemptions are carried out through authorized participants. Depending on the product and regulatory permissions, these processes can be cash-based or in-kind, which affects how directly ETF activity translates into spot market transactions in BTC.

In mid-2025, the SEC approved orders allowing in-kind creations and redemptions for crypto ETPs, specifically enabling authorized participants to create or redeem shares using the underlying crypto rather than solely cash, aligning the operational structure more closely with other commodity ETPs. (SEC) Even with this structure, ETF flows still coexist with derivatives positioning, dealer hedging, and exchange liquidity, which can dominate short-term price formation.

Lastly, exchange reserve data grounds this abstract information into something more concrete: the quantity of BTC held on exchanges, serving as a proxy for immediately tradable inventory.

From January 15 to February 5, total BTC reserves across exchanges increased by 29,048 BTC, a 1.067% rise, reaching just over 2.75 million BTC.

This is significant because it distinguishes two concepts that are often conflated.

Bitcoin can be scarce in total supply while still appearing well supplied at the transaction point if exchange inventory rises during a risk-off period. ETF inflows can be positive, yet the tradable float can expand through deposits, treasury movements, or repositioning by large holders. Even if the tradable float tightens, derivatives can still heighten volatility since exposure can be adjusted more swiftly than coins can be transferred.

A scarcity model that matches how Bitcoin trades

A practical approach to reconcile all of this is to view Bitcoin scarcity as a stack of time horizons rather than a singular figure.

At the slowest layer is protocol supply, which is fixed by design. This is the layer described by the 21 million cap.

At the middle layer is the tradable float, which represents what can realistically enter the market without friction. Exchange reserves may not be the best proxy for this, but they are directionally useful as they measure coins that are already on a platform designed for rapid transactions.

At the fast layer is the synthetic exposure: perpetual contracts, dated futures, and options. This layer can expand or contract very quickly because it is limited by collateral and risk thresholds, not by the movement of coins. When activity concentrates here, a large portion of the market expresses views through leverage and hedges rather than through coin acquisition.

At the final layer is the marginal trade itself: the next forced buy or sell that clears through the most active venue. The perpetual-to-spot volume ratios that have remained between approximately 6 and 8, combined with the larger liquidity delta prints on futures, indicate a market where that marginal trade was occurring in derivatives, not in spot.

This perspective suggests that scarcity is genuine, but it does not ensure day-to-day tightness. The market can trade scarce assets through abundant exposure, and the venue with the most urgent flow typically determines the next price.

This is why it is essential to consider ETF flows, exchange reserves, and derivatives dominance as three distinct lenses that may diverge in the short term. When they align, price movements tend to be clearer. When they diverge, the charts reveal exactly what is happening: bids emerge, narratives shift, and prices continue to decline because the marginal market is situated elsewhere.

The post Binance trading data reveals why Bitcoin prices are sliding even as spot buyers flood the market with bids appeared first on CryptoSlate.