Week of 28 February 2022: Bitcoin ends up 1.91% after a mid-week spike to 45,400
When a week holds a large range but closes near its low, what does the shape of the move reveal about who paid, and what remains unmeasurable?
BTC rose 1.91% to 38,420.81 while ETH fell 2.5% to 2,551.29, so the two assets moved in opposite directions for the week. The weekly highs stood well above those closes: BTC reached 45,400 and ETH 3,043.91. Both closed in the lower third of their weekly ranges on above-average volume.
What the data shows. BTC opened at 37,699.08, just 0.66% above its weekly low of 37,450.17, which was set at 00:00 UTC on Monday, and rose from there: Monday alone added 14.49%, the best day of the week, and the largest hourly move (+4.8%) came the same day at 14:00 UTC. The high, 45,400, arrived at 15:00 UTC on Wednesday 2 March, a 21.23% span from the weekly low. From that peak the market fell back: Friday 4 March lost 7.79% for BTC and 7.48% for ETH, the worst day for both. BTC closed at 38,420.81, only 12.2% of the way up its weekly range, and ETH at 2,551.29, at 3.2% of its range with its low arriving in the final hour (Sunday 23:00 UTC). Realised volatility, the size of the swings that actually happened scaled to a yearly figure, was 76.4% for BTC and 87.0% for ETH. Volume ran 1.31 times the prior twelve-week average for BTC and 1.05 times for ETH. Both assets remained far below their 52-week highs: BTC by 44.02% and ETH by 47.36%.
What it does not show. The data gives a shape, not a cause. Nothing here identifies who bought on Monday or sold into Wednesday's high, and no order-book or open-interest figures are present, so the size of any position behind the reversal cannot be measured. The three down weeks before this one (BTC: -0.77%, -8.72%, -1.79%) tell us the prior trend, not what follows the close.
What a careful desk would check. The weekly return ranked at the 53rd percentile for BTC and the 33rd for ETH across 211 recorded weeks, so the net move was ordinary even though the range was not. A position sized on the weekly return alone would miss that a 21.23% low-to-high span and a 4.8% hourly move both occurred inside it. A desk would compare its intraday buffers against those figures, and note that the close sat near the low, leaving no cushion against a gap at the next open.
Funding. Perpetual funding, the periodic payment between long and short holders that keeps contract prices near spot, averaged only 0.0045% per eight hours for BTC and 0.0055% for ETH, but both ranges crossed zero (BTC touched -0.0212%, ETH -0.0151%). Longs paid shorts on average, yet the sign flipped within the week, so the cost of holding either side never settled.
What would change this reading
- If BTC trades below this week's low of 37,450.17 in a later week, the Monday rise reads as a reversal that failed rather than a floor.
- If ETH continues to fall faster than BTC and the ETH/BTC ratio drops further from its -4.33% change, the divergence becomes a trend rather than one week.
- If a later week closes in the upper half of its range after this one closed at 12.2%, the weak finish was absorbed rather than confirmed.
- If realised volatility stays near 76.4% for BTC and 87.0% for ETH, ranges of this size remain the working assumption rather than an outlier.
Terms
- realised volatility
- how much the price actually swung over a period, expressed as a yearly percentage
- close location
- where the closing price fell within the week's high-to-low range, as a percentage from the bottom
- perpetual funding
- a regular payment between long and short holders of a perpetual futures contract that keeps its price close to the spot price