Week of 3 February 2025: Bitcoin slips 1.27% while Ether drops 8.45% after a violent hour
When both assets crash inside a single hour but end the week only modestly lower, what does the week say about risk limits, and what does it leave unresolved?
BTC fell from 97,700.59 to 96,462.75 (-1.27%) and ETH from 2,869.68 to 2,627.18 (-8.45%). Both weekly lows came at 02:00 UTC on Monday 3 February, in the hour after a -3.19% BTC and -11.74% ETH move. BTC volume was 0.93 times its prior 12-week average; ETH was 1.41 times.
What the data shows. The week's damage was concentrated in its first hours. BTC fell -3.19% in the hour starting 01:00 UTC on Monday 3 February and set its weekly low of 91,231.00 at 02:00 UTC. ETH fell -11.74% in that same hour, reaching 2,125.01. Both then traded to their weekly highs late in the UTC day on Monday 3 February (BTC 102,500.01, ETH 2,921.00), the week's total range being 12.35% for BTC and 37.46% for ETH. After that, both drifted lower: BTC's worst day was 4 February (-3.52%), ETH's also 4 February (-5.16%). The two assets moved closely but not identically (hourly correlation 0.81), and the ETH/BTC ratio fell 7.28%. BTC volume, at 21.51 billion dollars, was 0.93 times its prior twelve-week average; ETH volume of 18.54 billion was 1.41 times. Both closes sat in the middle third of their weekly ranges (BTC 46.4%, ETH 63.1%).
What it does not show. Nothing in this data identifies who was trading in the 01:00-02:00 UTC hour or what forced the move. Volume being normal for BTC despite the range suggests the week's later drift was not driven by exceptional participation, but the data cannot confirm that interpretation. It also cannot say whether the Monday low held for reasons of demand or simply of exhausted supply.
What a careful desk would check. Realised volatility, the size of the swings that actually happened scaled to a yearly figure, was 59.3% for BTC and 140.8% for ETH. Stops sized for a BTC-like week would be too small for ETH, and the -11.74% hourly move shows how quickly an ETH position could be repriced inside one candle. Both closes sat below their 52-week highs (BTC 10.95% below, ETH 35.71% below) so the week did not repair the prior decline: the four prior weeks were mixed for BTC (-3.88%, 7.18%, 1.27%, -4.79%) and mostly negative for ETH (-10.14%, -1.60%, 0.54%, -11.23%).
Funding. BTC perpetual funding averaged +0.0041% per eight hours, with a maximum of 0.01% and a minimum of -0.0041%, so longs and shorts paid each other in close balance. ETH funding averaged -0.0017%, reaching -0.0251%, meaning short positions paid long ones on average. The ETH rate at its most negative is well below its weekly average, which is worth noting alongside the -8.45% weekly return.
What would change this reading
- If BTC trades back below its Monday low of 91,231.00 in a later week, this week reads as a pause inside a decline rather than a completed shock.
- If the ETH/BTC ratio stabilises after a 7.28% weekly drop, the divergence was specific to ETH; if it falls further, the relative weakness has become a trend.
- If ETH volume returns towards its prior 12-week average while its price holds above 2,125.01, the 1.41-times reading marks this week as an event rather than a new normal.
- If BTC closes a later week above its weekly high of 102,500.01, the Monday range reads as a liquidity event that was absorbed.
Terms
- realised volatility
- how much the price actually swung over a period, expressed as a yearly percentage
- perpetual funding
- a regular payment between long and short holders of a perpetual futures contract that keeps its price close to the spot price; positive means longs pay shorts
- ETH/BTC ratio
- the price of one Ether expressed in Bitcoin, showing whether ETH is gaining or losing ground against BTC