Bitcoin reached $60,000 as two distinct factions ultimately capitulated, according to on-chain data indicating which parties yielded.

Bitcoin’s decline in February to approximately $60,000 was a notable instance of single-day panic that many will recall as a significant low point.

However, a more precise interpretation of this washout is complex yet valuable: this cycle concluded in phases, with sellers rotating throughout.

A report from Checkonchain dated February 10 characterized the movement as a capitulation event that occurred rapidly, accompanied by substantial volume, with losses significant enough to alter market psychology.

It also posits that the market had already experienced a capitulation event previously, in November 2025, and that the profiles of the sellers differed in each instance.

To truly grasp the vulnerabilities, we must look beyond the most striking candle and examine who sold and the reasons behind their decisions.

Capitulation, in simple terms, signifies giving up.

It involves panic selling that exacerbates a downturn, typically because investors conclude they cannot endure another decline. In the cryptocurrency realm, this surrender leaves a clear trace on-chain as realized losses.

The data indicates that the events of February represented a flush that compelled loss-taking at unprecedented levels. This followed an initial purge months earlier.

The figures are stark: short-term holders incurred approximately $1.14 billion in losses in a single day, while long-term holders faced around $225 million in losses on the same day.

Graph illustrating Bitcoin’s realized losses by age cohort on February 7, 2026 (Source: Checkonchain)

When we balance losses against profit-taking, the net realized loss rate was roughly $1.5 billion per day during the peak period. By focusing solely on realized losses, we can consider November 2025 and February 2026 as distinct capitulation events, each surpassing $2 billion per day in realized loss.

Framing this as two separate events is beneficial as it clarifies a common frustration in this cycle.

Prices may appear to stabilize only to collapse again, as the group still holding the risk changes.

One cohort may withstand a downturn, but another may not endure the monotony, the subsequent failure, or the realization that their dip purchase was merely the first of several dips.

Act I: November broke the class of 2025

The initial capitulation occurred in November 2025, when Bitcoin dropped to around $80,000.

This can reasonably be termed capitulation, as realized losses during that November event were predominantly (about 95%) attributed to the “class of 2025.”

The concept behind this cohort is both intriguing and practical. A cohort refers to coins categorized by their acquisition timing. Knowing when a coin last moved on-chain provides a timestamped cost basis for that unit.

When aggregated across the network, it allows for discussions about who is underwater and who is not. This same logic underpins realized price, often described as the average on-chain cost basis of circulating coins.

In November, the sellers were individuals who had endured a year where the market failed to deliver the clear resolution they anticipated.

Graph depicting Bitcoin’s realized losses by age cohort on November 22, 2025 (Source: Checkonchain)

The report suggests that they capitulated after a year of macro-sideways trading. This represents a specific type of capitulation that could be termed exhaustion.

It marks the moment when time-related pain transforms into price-related pain, as investors opt to be wrong and flat rather than right and stuck.

This is also why much of the discourse surrounding market cycles misses the mark.

In prior bear markets, a clear narrative could be constructed around a final flush that eliminated leverage and shattered the last believers.

This time, much of that work was completed earlier and more gradually, through a calendar grind that led people to lose interest.

The report even suggests that the prolonged sideways period in 2025 should be considered part of the bear market‘s duration. It argues that this period incurred time-related pain upfront and set the stage for an earlier sell-off.

One need not necessarily agree with that perspective to recognize the point: sellers were already prepared.

Act II: February broke the dip buyers, and dragged the rest with them

February represents the second act, characterized by a markedly different emotional tone.

Bitcoin reached a low of approximately $60,000, with the seller distribution shifting to a roughly equal division between the class of 2025 and the class of 2026. In essence, newer buyers became sellers.

Data reveals that those 2026 buyers were individuals who purchased in the $80,000 to $98,000 bear-flag zone, believing they were acquiring at the bottom. This reflects capitulation stemming from shattered confidence.

The remaining 2025 cohort likely sold due to regret over not selling at $80,000, opting to sell at $60,000 instead.

This behavior pattern, while unfortunate, is realistic.

Individuals do not sell merely because they are at a loss. They sell because they held through an opportunity to reduce risk, and a subsequent crash makes the earlier decision not to sell feel irrevocable. This is where the “two capitulations” framework proves valuable.

In November, the sellers were predominantly from one class.

In February, the market had to clear two classes simultaneously: the fatigued holders from the previous year and the new dip buyers who discovered they were premature.

This combination accounts for the substantial realized-loss figures and the prevailing negative sentiment.

The report describes the realized loss surge in February as the largest realized loss event in history in absolute dollar terms. The net realized loss flow was about $1.5 billion per day during the flush, as profit-taking was subdued while losses surged.

This ratio is more significant than raw price, as it indicates that this was not a typical redistribution. It was a mass exit.

Another indicator is that the flush did not occur quietly.

Volume across spot, ETFs, futures, and options surged.

Aggregate spot volume reached approximately $15.4 billion per day, while ETF weekly trading volume hit an all-time high of about $45.6 billion.

Futures volume increased to over $107 billion per day from around $62 billion per day. Options volume doubled since January to about $12 billion per day, with roughly half linked to IBIT options. This placed it above Deribit, which saw about $4 billion per day.

This volume spike is crucial because capitulations necessitate trading.

They represent a collective debate about value, with forced selling on one side and high-conviction buying on the other.

February witnessed this debate occurring across all venues simultaneously.

The bottom is a band, because cost basis is a band

There is a temptation, particularly after a dramatic wick, to reduce the entire episode to a single-number discussion.

Was $60,000 the bottom, yes or no?

However, a more effective perspective is to view bottoms as processes that unfold around cost basis, rather than moments triggered by a striking candle.

We can anchor this process to two reference points.

One is the realized price, which the report estimates at around $55,000. Realized price represents the network’s average cost basis, derived from the last on-chain movement price of circulating coins.

The other is the true market mean, currently about $79,400.

Bottom formation typically begins below the mean but above the realized price. However, spending significant time below the realized price undermines that thesis. This provides us with a usable range.

If Bitcoin is above its realized price, the market is, on average, holding above the network’s cost basis. If it is below the higher mean, the market is still addressing the damage.

The report also positions the $60,000 wick as aligning closely with the 200-week moving average, another long-term level that traders monitor. The 200-week moving average is a level that Bitcoin has historically respected during bear markets.

When combining these concepts with the cohort rotation, the narrative becomes clearer.

February was not about a definitive line in the sand, but rather a point where forced selling finally encountered a wall of buyers willing to take the opposite position.

Why the calendar crowd keeps getting this wrong

Following capitulation events, individuals often refer to calendars as they provide a neat, straightforward method of measurement: four-year cycles, 12-month lows, tidy anniversaries.

However, we should resist the inclination to frame this flush in such terms, partly because this bear market may have absorbed much of its pain early through the sideways year. Time-based heuristics function best when the pain is primarily delivered in one manner.

In contrast, this cycle delivered it in two phases.

Initially, it presented stagnation that drained attention and conviction.

Subsequently, it delivered a rapid price break that compelled both exhausted holders and new dip buyers to capitulate within the same chapter. In such cases, the “when” is less significant than the “who.”

Bitcoin’s washout unfolded in acts.

The first act eliminated those who had endured a year of disappointment.

The second act removed those who believed they were early to the bottom and discovered they were not.

The market quieted as a substantial portion of the marginal sellers either sold in November, sold in February, or were forced out when the wick eliminated their risk management.

When we frame the drawdown in this manner, the next phase revolves around digestion: realized-loss pressure easing, price spending more time between cost-basis anchors, and a gradual rebuilding of risk appetite that is earned rather than imposed.

Two capitulations do not guarantee a straightforward ascent. However, they do provide a map indicating where the weak hands were and which cohorts have already paid to exit.

In a market that favors single-candle folklore, that seller map represents the more enduring narrative.

The post Bitcoin hit $60,000 because two different groups finally surrendered — on-chain data shows who blinked appeared first on CryptoSlate.