bitunix

Spent Volume Aged 1m–3m

Interval
  • 1M1M
  • 3M3M
  • 6M6M
  • 1Y1Y
  • ALLALL
Skala
  • LineærLineær
  • LogaritmiskLogaritmisk
Seneste
1D-ændring
7D-ændring
30D-ændring
4Y-percentil
Højeste niveau nogensinde
1Y-interval
Indlæser data…

Om denne måling

Hvad den måler

Spent Volume Aged 1m–3m totals the BTC in outputs spent each day after remaining unspent for one to three months. It measures the daily transfer volume of this recent holding-age group, in BTC rather than percent.

Sådan læses den

Rising volume shows more month-old holdings becoming active; low readings mean less spending from that particular vintage of outputs. This band reached about 110,122 BTC on February 9, 2021 and about 99,019 BTC on June 13, 2022. Large observations in different years underline that an activity burst alone does not identify whether coins moved at a gain or loss.

A one-to-three-month age does not prove the holder bought at the earlier date: the previous move may have been a self-transfer. The amount of supply available in this band also changes as coins age. Use SOPR to examine profitability and compare the entity-adjusted counterpart for sensitivity to internal movements.

Frekvens
Dagligt (UTC 00:00)
Aktiv
BTC
Type
Enkelt værdi
Enhed
BTC
Data siden
2009-01-12
Seneste data
2026-10-28

FAQ

Does a surge in 1m–3m spent volume show profit taking?

It shows that coins last moved one to three months earlier were spent again, but not whether their price increased. A profitability ratio such as STH-SOPR addresses gains and losses more directly.

Can the whole 1m–3m band be classified as short-term?

Yes, its output lifetimes fall below the conventional 155-day short-term boundary. It covers only part of short-term spending, excluding younger outputs and those held for roughly three to five months.

What is the difference between this chart and a three-month average?

The age band selects outputs by how long they existed before spending. A three-month moving average instead smooths a time series across dates; the daily values here are not such an average.