According to Cointelegraph, recent data from Glassnode indicates that Bitcoin (BTC), Ether (ETH), and Solana (SOL) are experiencing record high levels of their supply held at a loss. However, a deeper analysis of locked supply, institutional holdings, and staking structures suggests that the effective liquid supply under pressure is considerably lower than the implied percentages, particularly for Ether and Solana.
A significant portion of Ether and SOL held at a loss is not liquid, with over 40% of ETH and more than 75% of SOL locked in staking, ETFs, or strategic reserves. Bitcoin’s at-loss supply appears high, but institutional holdings and lost BTC supply significantly reduce its true liquid float. Positions at a loss do not reflect the actual liquid supply. Bitcoin currently has 35% of its supply held at a loss, a level last seen when BTC traded near $27,000. Despite lacking a staking mechanism, Bitcoin’s liquid supply is far lower than the numbers suggest. Key statistics show that the BTC circulating supply is 19,953,406, with 3,725,013 BTC held by public/private companies, ETFs, and countries. Estimates suggest that 3,000,000–3,800,000 BTC are lost forever, representing 15.0% to 19.0% of the total circulating supply. Combined, these factors remove roughly 33% of all Bitcoin from liquid circulation. Institutional holdings, particularly ETF treasuries and corporate treasuries, are not sensitive to short-term volatility, as they operate under mandates tied to reserves, long-horizon accumulation, or index tracking. The lost BTC further reduces the supply that can react to loss-driven pressure.
Ether figures require a more nuanced interpretation. While 37% of ETH is currently held at a loss, a substantial portion of the network’s supply is locked or institutionally held. The ETH circulating supply is 120,695,601, with 35,681,209 ETH (approximately 29.6%) staked, 6.26M ETH (approximately 5.18%) in spot ETFs, and 6.36M ETH (approximately 5.26%) in strategic reserves. In total, over 40% of all ETH is effectively locked in staking, ETFs, or long-term institutional reserves. These categories historically do not react to short-term volatility, as institutional products operate under policies prioritizing long-term accumulation rather than discretionary selling. As a result, the actual liquid ETH supply facing loss-driven pressure is materially smaller than the aforementioned 37%.
Solana displays an even sharper divergence. Although 70% of circulating SOL is held at a loss, the network has one of the highest staking ratios among major chains. The SOL circulating supply is 559,262,268, with 411,395,790.5 SOL (73.6%) staked and roughly 1% of circulating supply in ETFs. This means more than three-quarters of all SOL is locked in validator staking or institutional products, neither of which exhibits rapid selling behaviors. Notably, when SOL fell to $121, the supply held at a loss narrowed to 80%, a level it previously reached when the price was near $20, illustrating the metric’s sensitivity to rapid price repricing rather than structural capitulation. Interestingly, both ETH and SOL’s supply-at-loss metrics tend to fall sharply during uptrends due to their heavy staking locks, making such spikes more reflective of price velocity than panic positioning.
Overall, across all three assets, the raw loss percentages overstate potential sell pressure. Once locked supply, institutional holdings, and permanently lost coins are accounted for, the true liquid supply at risk is significantly more contained. This article does not contain investment advice or recommendations. Every investment and trading move involves risk, and readers should conduct their own research when making a decision.
Alex
Joy
Brian
Kikyo