Week of 22 December 2025: both assets slip in a thin week, closing low in their ranges
Prices drifted slightly lower this week while far less money than usual changed hands. What does a quiet week like this show about the market, and what does it leave open?
This matters to a desk sizing risk and a lender setting margins on crypto collateral. BTC fell from 88,658.87 to 87,952.71 (-0.8%), ETH from 3,002.03 to 2,950.91 (-1.7%). Dollar volume, the value of coins traded, was 0.39 times BTC's and 0.36 times ETH's prior twelve-week average. Both peaked Monday, bottomed Wednesday 24 December and closed in the lower half of their weekly high-low ranges.
What the data shows. Both assets reached their weekly highs in the same hour, 12:00 UTC on Monday 22 December (BTC 90,588.23, ETH 3,077.39), and their lows in the same hour, 14:00 UTC on Wednesday 24 December (BTC 86,420.0, ETH 2,888.7). The worst day for both was 23 December (BTC -1.28%, ETH -1.48%). The largest hourly moves came later: +2.02% for BTC in the hour starting 02:00 UTC on Friday 26 December, and -2.25% for ETH in the hour starting 14:00 UTC the same day. Realised volatility, the size of the swings that actually happened scaled to a yearly figure, was 32.0% for BTC and 40.3% for ETH. The two moved closely together (hourly correlation 0.9, on a scale where 1 means perfect step). The ETH/BTC ratio, the price of one ETH in BTC, fell 0.91%, so ETH lost slightly more than BTC.
What it does not show. Low volume tells us few dollars changed hands relative to the prior twelve weeks (0.39 times for BTC, 0.36 for ETH). It does not tell us why traders stayed away, or whether the drift reflected selling or a simple absence of buyers. Close location shows where the week's close sat inside its high-low range, measured from the low up to the high. It was 36.8% for BTC, in the middle third, and 33.0% for ETH, in the lower third. That places both in the lower half of their ranges but does not show whether the next week continued lower.
What a careful desk would check. BTC sits 30.2% below its 52-week high and ETH 40.2% below, so weekly declines of 0.8% and 1.7% are small next to that larger drop. A desk would check whether its stop distances (how far price may move before a position is closed) and margin buffers (collateral held against losses) would still be adequate if trading picks up. This matters if those levels were set from this week's narrow ranges (4.82% for BTC, 6.53% for ETH) and thin volume. It would also check whether the Wednesday low holds if prices return to it. Funding is a payment every eight hours between long and short holders of a perpetual futures contract (one with no expiry date). It averaged 0.0057% per period for BTC and 0.0042% for ETH, close to zero, so holding a leveraged (borrowed-money) position in either direction cost little.
What would change this reading
- If volume returns towards its prior twelve-week average while prices stay above this week's lows of 86,420.0 for BTC and 2,888.7 for ETH, that would suggest the quiet week did not mark a break lower, though price and volume alone cannot show who was buying or selling.
- If a later week closes below those lows, the decline would extend; whether that becomes a sustained further fall would only show in the weeks after.
- If funding turns negative, so that shorts pay longs, it would suggest more demand to hold short than long positions through perpetual contracts; on its own it would not show which side controls the market.
Terms
- realised volatility
- how much the price actually swung over a period, expressed as a yearly percentage
- close-location percentage
- where the closing price falls within the week's range, from at its low to at its high
- funding rate
- the periodic payment between long and short holders of a perpetual futures contract; positive means longs pay shorts
- ETH/BTC ratio
- the price of one ETH expressed in BTC; a fall means ETH did worse than BTC
- perpetual futures contract
- a futures contract with no expiry date, kept close to the spot price by funding payments