Why didn't BTC drop despite geopolitical conflicts? Binance's funding structure and CVD provide the answer.

Author: Murphy

Since Coinbase's BTC balance is closely correlated with ETF net inflows/outflows, I would pay more attention to Binance's data as a more accurate observation of real demand (non-ETF) in the short term.

As shown in Figure 1, there were two distinct periods of increased BTC balance between October 21st and November 22nd, 2025, and January 15th and February 20th, 2025, which also corresponded to two significant drops in BTC's price. After November 22nd, 2025, the balance decreased by 34,145 BTC, and the price of BTC stabilized, shifting from a rapid decline to a period of consolidation and weak rebound.

Figure 1: BTC Balance on Binance Exchange

This is exactly the same trend as now. Since February 20, 2026, Binance's BTC balance has decreased by 25,135 BTC. This period coincided with the US-Iran military conflict, and the BTC price has generally remained volatile, without any major drops or rises.

Are these BTC transfers from Binance due to genuine demand? My personal opinion is "yes," or rather, "most of them are."

We can see the structural differences by looking at the "net transfer volume by size". During this period, the main force behind the concentrated outflows was not super-large investors with single transactions of more than $10 million, but rather groups with transactions between $1 million and $10 million.

Figure 2: Net Transfer Volume on the Binance Exchange (By Size)

We know that the outflow of funds from super-large investors often involves institutional activities such as market makers and custodians, while the group in the range of $1 million to $10 million is more likely to be high-net-worth investors, representing the accumulation of funds by individual whales.

Meanwhile, we can see a very steep curve in Binance's BTC spot volume deviation (CVD). CVD measures the net difference between spot buying and selling volumes, especially highlighting the difference in volume when buyers or sellers actively initiate trades.

Figure 3: BTC Spot Trading Volume Difference (Binance)

The algorithm I used here is the deviation between the 30-day moving average and the 90-day median, which has a larger time frame and can smooth out the interference caused by fluctuations on a particular day. Therefore, a steep curve means that the active buying in the spot market was significantly stronger during this period.

This also somewhat confirms the above speculation that the current market is more driven by genuine demand rather than market maker activity. Furthermore, the recent drop in the USDC/USDT exchange rate from its high to below 1 indicates that demand for USDT as purchasing power is stronger.

This also explains why, despite the ongoing US-Iran military conflict and escalating employment data fueling market concerns about stagflation/recession, the price of BTC has remained generally stable.

Of course, these are just short-term data performances. If you take a broader perspective, you'll find that CVD is still generally in a downward trend, similar to the trend before May 2022.

Figure 4: BTC Spot Trading Volume Difference (Binance)

After May 2022, the CVD curve began to diverge from the price, with increasingly higher lows. From being significantly deviated from the 90-day median, it gradually approached it, indicating a resurgence in active buying and a strong return of demand. Of course, this will be a long transition process.

Considering the cautious attitude we've seen from on-chain whale entities regarding macroeconomic certainty in the past few days, my view is that in the short term, the temporary surge in demand may cause BTC to maintain a fluctuating or weak rebound trend; however, from a longer-term perspective, the overall trend remains downward; the current demand recovery is still in its early stages, and the medium term may require a longer period of structural repair.