Research · Tools
Bitcoin Research Dashboard
Bitcoin's valuation and market state, in one view. Three valuation lenses, market positioning, cycle context, miners and tested signals, updated from the latest daily snapshot. Each card links to the underlying research, methodology and historical record.
Connecting
Data through 14 October 2026, published 15 October, 11:22 UTC
Current readings
Computed from the daily public snapshot for 14 October 2026, published 2026-10-15 11:22 UTC. The charts and tables below are drawn in the browser from the same file; these figures are the ones they show.
| Price, daily close | $83,094 | Blockchain.com daily average |
|---|---|---|
| Valuation composite | 42.3 | reads as average |
| Metcalfe value, validated 2017 | $78,094 | premium 6.2 log points |
| Power-law model level | $140,207 | 26th percentile |
| Realised price | $53,855 | MVRV 1.54 |
| Mayer multiple | 1.152 | 58th percentile |
| Funding, annualised | 5.2% | 76th percentile |
Three ways in, depending on what you came for.
New here
At a glance
Ten plain questions, one number each, in English.
Want the answer
Where Things Stand
Is bitcoin dear or cheap against its own history, and what followed from readings like today’s.
Want the evidence
Indicator Scorecard
Every signal people quote, scored against the days it could have fired but did not.
Or stay here. This page is the terminal: every reading the snapshot publishes, side by side, with its data provenance underneath.
Today’s composite
Three valuation lenses combined into one historical state, plus what the site's tests support today. The full page is the first stop: Where Things Stand.
READS AS
AVERAGE
COMPOSITE
42 / 100
On 14 October 2026, the composite valuation reading ranked relatively cheap versus 58% of historical days since 2013 across the three valuation lenses. Average is the state where this site’s tests establish no reliable forward direction; the Evidence Brief on Where Things Stand shows what, if anything, the historical evidence supports.
What changed since yesterday and a week ago
Only the readings that moved, from the daily history file. Subscribe to the same information as a feed: changes.atom (no signals, one entry per snapshot).
| Reading | Oct 14 | Oct 13 | Change | Oct 7 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | $83,094 | $81,752 | +1.6% | $85,549 | -2.9% |
| Metcalfe, validated 2017 | $78,095 | $78,064 | 0.0% | $77,882 | +0.3% |
| Metcalfe, reference 2011 | $138,792 | $138,753 | 0.0% | $138,517 | +0.2% |
| Power-law level | $140,207 | $140,118 | +0.1% | $139,587 | +0.4% |
| Realised price | $53,855 | $53,841 | 0.0% | $53,771 | +0.2% |
| Crowding composite | 56th pct | 56th pct | +0 pts | 50th pct | +6 pts |
Each column is one completed day, computed by the run that followed it, so the figures move once a day. The Oct 14 column comes from the snapshot published Oct 15, 7:22 AM New York time. Model levels move slowly by construction; price is the column that moves. The history file holds 43 published days, from Aug 31, and deepens by one each morning; the selector above compares against any of them.
Start here
38 pages, one order that makes sense.
Do the signals work?
- Indicator Scorecard
- Base rates
- Test your own rule
- Does it work anywhere?
- The record
- Technical Signals
- Indicator Autopsy
15 tested claims
- RSI-14 below 30
- RSI-14 above 70
- LPPLS bubble model
- Hash ribbon capitulation
- Golden cross
- Death cross
- Mayer multiple above 2.4
- Pi Cycle Top
- MVRV above 3.7
- MVRV below 1
- Fear and Greed at 20 or below
- Fear and Greed at 80 or above
- Price below the 200-week average
- Price below the 2-year average
- Price below the Stock-to-Flow model
Is it expensive?
What is driving it?
COMING BACK
- The What changed panel above: only the readings that moved, since yesterday and since a week ago.
- The state strip: has the composite changed band?
- The Methods changelog, dated, for anything corrected since your last visit.
HOW TO READ ANY PAGE
Each page is one lens. Its assumptions are stated, its readings are computed from a public daily snapshot, and its historical record is evaluated against a defined baseline. Nothing here is a recommendation; where the evidence establishes nothing, the page says so. The readings are separate observations, not votes — and not independent of one another; the evidence-dependence panel below says which overlap.
Price against three valuations
Log scale. Realised price reflects estimated cost basis; Metcalfe value uses a network-size proxy; the power-law model gives the level implied by its fitted relationship with time. Bands show each lens's historical range over its window.
$50k
$70k
$100k
$150k
$200k
$300k
$500k
Realised price
$53,855
$53,855
Metcalfe value
$138,792
$138,792
Power-law model level
$140,207
$140,207
Price $83,094
Price is 0.60× Metcalfe value (fit from 2011-01-01, comparable with published figures; the validated 2017 calibration gives $78,095), 0.59× the power-law model level, and 1.54× realised price. Bands are the 10th to 90th percentile of each lens over its window.
Where the lenses agree
Log deviation of price from each valuation lens, weekly, two years, in log points (100 × ln of price over the lens: −50 is about 39% below, +50 about 65% above). The lenses carry their own error; this is a summary of them, not a fifth model.
- Price vs Metcalfe value (reference fit) today-40% (-51 log pts)
- Price vs power law model-implied level today-41% (-52 log pts)
- Price vs realised price today+54% (+43 log pts)
- The two network lensesagree (1 log point apart)
- Mean of the three deviations-18% (-20 log pts), a summary of lenses with roughly 50 log points of one-year error each
Readings over time
What this dashboard published on each day, from the daily history file.
- Days recorded43 (since 2026-08-31)
- Latest row2026-10-14: price $83,094, Metcalfe $138,792, power law $140,207, realised $53,855
- Self-test on the latest runok
Evidence dependence: how much the readings overlap
Spearman rank correlation of daily levels since 2019, computed by the pipeline; a level correlation, not a causal or factor-independence test. A high correlation establishes strong association, not that two readings are the same thing; what it does establish is that highly correlated readings should not be treated as independent confirmation. Pairs at or above 0.8 are treated that way here. The valuation lenses and the composite that averages them overlap by construction.
| MVRV | Mayer | Power law | Valuation composite | RSI 14 | Funding | Open interest | DVOL | Fear and Greed | Stablecoins | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MVRV | 1.00 | 0.72 | 0.87 | 0.96 | 0.33 | 0.31 | 0.76 | 0.41 | 0.64 | 0.08 |
| Mayer | 0.72 | 1.00 | 0.50 | 0.86 | 0.53 | 0.40 | 0.40 | 0.36 | 0.82 | -0.23 |
| Power law | 0.87 | 0.50 | 1.00 | 0.83 | 0.18 | 0.19 | 0.89 | 0.28 | 0.40 | -0.05 |
| Valuation composite | 0.96 | 0.86 | 0.83 | 1.00 | 0.42 | 0.38 | 0.66 | 0.45 | 0.74 | -0.11 |
| RSI 14 | 0.33 | 0.53 | 0.18 | 0.42 | 1.00 | 0.29 | 0.43 | 0.04 | 0.74 | -0.15 |
| Funding | 0.31 | 0.40 | 0.19 | 0.38 | 0.29 | 1.00 | -0.24 | -0.41 | 0.43 | -0.30 |
| Open interest | 0.76 | 0.40 | 0.89 | 0.66 | 0.43 | -0.24 | 1.00 | 0.07 | 0.35 | 0.71 |
| DVOL | 0.41 | 0.36 | 0.28 | 0.45 | 0.04 | -0.41 | 0.07 | 1.00 | 0.30 | -0.63 |
| Fear and Greed | 0.64 | 0.82 | 0.40 | 0.74 | 0.74 | 0.43 | 0.35 | 0.30 | 1.00 | -0.17 |
| Stablecoins | 0.08 | -0.23 | -0.05 | -0.11 | -0.15 | -0.30 | 0.71 | -0.63 | -0.17 | 1.00 |
Window from 2019-01-01. 6 pairs at or above 0.8, not to be counted as independent confirmation: MVRV – Power law (0.87); MVRV – Valuation composite (0.96); Mayer – Valuation composite (0.86); Mayer – Fear and Greed (0.82); Power law – Valuation composite (0.83); Power law – Open interest (0.89). Gold is positive, cyan negative; shade is strength. Levels, not changes, because the tables on this site read states.
Valuation, three lenses
Metcalfe Value
Valuation from users. Two calibrations of the same law are shown; neither is a target.
Reference (2011, published-comparable)
$138,792
not the validation-preferred estimate
Validated (2017)
$78,095
50 vs 148 pts one-year error
Price / reference
0.60×
40% below (-51% log)
Percentile
46th
Price / validated
1.06×
6% above (+6% log)
Power Law
Model-implied level in time
Model-implied level
$140,207
Price / model-implied level
0.59×
41% below the trend (-0.23 dex, log10 units)
Percentile
26th
Realised Value
What holders paid
Realised price
$53,855
MVRV
1.54
Z-score
+0.89
Market state
Flows and Positioning
Capital and leverage
Positioning
Crowded
Funding, annualised
+5.3%
Stablecoins
$306.1B
| Indicator | Latest | Percentile |
|---|---|---|
| Funding, annualised | +5.3% | 76th |
| Open interest / market cap | 0.20% | 24th (223-day history only) |
| Implied volatility, DVOL | 39% | 20th |
| Fear and Greed | 62 | 67th |
| Broad dollar index | 121.6 (+2.5% 30d) | – |
| 10y real yield | 2.88% | – |
Thesis status
Stated rules evaluated on today's readings. No score, no weights. Each row names its rule; the last block says what would change it.
These rules are independent observations, not votes. No score is computed and the number of favourable readings has no defined meaning; where they disagree, the disagreement is the information.
| Dimension | Rule | Reading | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Structural trend | price within ±2σ (0.6 dex) of the power-law model level | -0.23 dex, -0.8σ | intact |
| Network valuation | validated Metcalfe percentile between 30 and 70 is neutral | 56th (reference calibration 46th) | neutral |
| Holder valuation | MVRV percentile between 30 and 70 is neutral | 37th, MVRV 1.54 | neutral |
| Demand | stablecoin supply rising over 30 days; ETF net flow positive over 30 days where covered | stablecoins +0.8%; ETF 30d $1.6B (IBIT, ARKB, BITB, HODL, OBTC only) | confirming |
| Leverage | funding and open interest below the 70th percentile of their window | funding 76th, OI/mcap 24th (223d history) | elevated |
| Macro | dollar not rising and real yields not rising over 30 days | dollar +2.5%, real yield +0.28 pts | headwind |
| Market structure | price above its 200-day average and in the upper half of its 90-day range | +15.2% vs 200d avg, 85% of 90d range | confirming |
- What would change thisa sustained move beyond 2σ from the power-law model level; the validated Metcalfe percentile leaving 30 to 70; MVRV entering its top or bottom decile; stablecoin supply contracting for a month; funding and open interest above the 90th percentile together; price losing its 200-day average
- What this is nota forecast or a score. Rows are independent readings against stated rules; the rules are on the tool pages with their validation.
Model agreement
Where the three valuation lenses place price on their own histories. Divergence is uncertainty, not a signal.
- Metcalfe, validated, percentile on its own window56th
- Power law, percentile on its own window26th
- Realised value, percentile on its own window37th
- Spread between lenses29 percentile points
- AgreementDivergence
- ReadingThe lenses disagree about where price sits; treat the valuation picture as uncertain rather than picking the lens you prefer.
Cycle, miners and volatility
Extended indicators computed daily from the same snapshot, at daily close. Percentiles over the window from 2017 unless stated. Descriptive, not signals; each carries the caveat in its note.
Technical: relative strength 51.9 (neither extreme), 50-day above the 200-day, price +15.2% against the 200-day, realised volatility 38.7%. Whether any of that has been worth anything: Technical Signals →
| Indicator | Latest | Percentile | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mayer multiple | 1.152 | 58th | price over its 200-day MA ($72,129) |
| Puell multiple | 1.202 | 61st | daily issuance USD over its own year |
| NUPL | 0.352 | 37th | zone: optimism (1 − 1/MVRV) |
| Thermocap multiple | 17.63 | 56th | market cap over cumulative issuance USD |
| NVT signal, 90d | 239.1 | 92nd | volume is estimated, not entity adjusted |
| Hash ribbons | expansion, day 50 | – | 30/60d hash-rate MAs; last recovery signal 2026-08-26 |
| Hashprice | $0.0401 /TH/day | 9th | +4.5% over 30 days |
| Fee share of miner revenue | 0.71% | – | 90-day average; the security-budget question |
| Realized volatility, 30d | 39.4% | – | annualised, from daily closes |
| Variance risk premium | -0.2 pts | 27th | DVOL minus realized; negative marks stress |
| Cycle position | ×1.3 at day 907 | – | prior cycles at the same day: 2012 ×19.02, 2016 ×5.82, 2020 ×2.31 |
| Active addresses, 30d avg | 643,741 | – | -11.6% YoY; addresses with balance +5.1% YoY |
| LPPL bubble confidence (record) | 0.00 | share of 8 windows | no qualifying bubble fit on any window; the advance is not super-exponential |
| Signal | Bucket today | Median 365-day return from this bucket, 2017 on | Days |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mayer multiple | 1.0 to 1.5 | +78% | 1,408 |
| Puell multiple | 1.0 to 2.0 | +21% | 1,544 |
| NUPL | 0.25 to 0.50 | +85% | 1,168 |
- Basisstatistics window from 2017-01-01, as of 2026-10-14 at daily close; forward-return medians are in-sample with overlapping windows, and four cycles is a small sample
- Fed net liquidity$5.87T (-1.84% over 90 days; WALCL - TGA (WTREGEN) - ON RRP (RRPONTSYD))
- Bitcoin dominance60.0% (+1.55 pts over 30 days)
- Coinbase premium+0.579% (vs Binance USDT)
- Futures basis, annualised+5.49%
- Options put/call OI0.62
Data and provenance
Every source in the snapshot, its status, last date and freshness: a fetch can succeed and still carry stale data
| Source | Status | Last date | Freshness | Used by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| blockchain | ok | 2026-10-14 | current (1d, limit 2) | Metcalfe, Power law, Flows |
| coinmetrics | ok | 2026-10-15 | current (0d, limit 3) | Realised value, Power law decomposition, Metcalfe (addresses with balance) |
| coinbase | ok | 2026-10-15 | current (0d, limit 2) | all (spot) |
| mempool | ok | 2026-10-15 | current (0d, limit 2) | reserved |
| stablecoins | ok | 2026-10-15 | current (0d, limit 2) | Flows |
| fred | ok | 2026-10-14 | current (1d, limit 5) | Flows |
| fear_greed | ok | 2026-10-15 | current (0d, limit 2) | Flows |
| derivatives | ok | 2026-10-15 | current (0d, limit 2) | Flows |
| etf_flows | ok | 2026-10-15 | current (0d, limit 4) | Flows (five issuers (IBIT, ARKB, BITB, HODL, OBTC)) |
| offshore_spot | ok | 2026-10-14 | current (1d, limit 2) | Coinbase premium |
| coingecko_global | ok | 2026-10-15 | current (0d, limit 2) | Dominance |
| relative | ok | 2026-10-15 | current (0d, limit 5) | Relative value |
How this dashboard is built
Once a day the snapshot job computes each tool's headline reading at its validated default specification and writes it, with its historical range, to a KPI file. This page reads that file and re-prices the readings that depend on price against the live Coinbase spot: the Metcalfe premium, the power law deviation, MVRV and its Z-score. Everything else is what the tool page would show, and the tool page is one click away with the full method, validation and audit.
What it is not
Not a price target and not investment advice. The valuation lenses carry about 50 log points of one-year error (the current figure is in each card); the positioning composite describes crowding, not timing. Four cycles is a small sample. Questions and corrections: contact@cryptoexponentials.com.