Bitcoin ETFs Are Draining Supply—But Does That Guarantee a Gold-Style Parabolic Finale?

Bitcoin’s rally is increasingly being framed through a gold lens: relentless, price-insensitive buying eventually exhausts sellers and sets off a vertical climb. That template fits the data, but the identity of the marginal buyer matters—and for Bitcoin, that’s where the path can diverge.

The structural rhyme with gold After sanctions tied to the 2022 Ukraine war, central banks accelerated their gold accumulation. Annual purchases jumped from roughly 400 tons to more than 1,000 tons starting in 2022. Price action lagged those flows, then compounded: gold finished 2022 lower, advanced about 13% in 2023, 27% in 2024, and then nearly 65% in 2025. The lesson many draw is simple: when steady demand persists long enough, supply-side “ammo” runs out and the market rips.

On a recent podcast, Bitwise CIO Matthew Hougan made the parallel explicit for Bitcoin. Spot Bitcoin ETFs, he noted, have been buying more than 100% of new issuance since launch—a mechanical drain on float that resembles the gold setup before its surge. If those inflows keep coming, a fast, climactic move becomes plausible.

This sequencing has shown up before. Some macro allocators argue gold often moves first, with Bitcoin following and ultimately outperforming as the higher-beta scarcity asset. Others caution that after gold’s explosive runs, quick repeat rallies aren’t the base case; patience tends to be required.

Why the buyer profile is the hinge I see the crux in the type of capital doing the absorbing. In gold, the primary incremental buyers have been central banks and sovereign pools—a cohort motivated by fiat credibility hedging, operating with minimal leverage, and thinking in multi-year horizons. That creates sticky demand and reduces forced selling.

Bitcoin’s ETF flows are institutional, but the capital behaves like risk-on money. It’s benchmarked, far more active, and carries higher embedded leverage across the broader ecosystem. Liquidity conditions and performance-chasing can accelerate both inflows and outflows. The same structural pipeline that concentrates demand can also transmit volatility when risk appetite flips.

This isn’t a knock on ETFs; it’s an observation about plumbing. Gold’s run was underwritten by slow, price-insensitive accumulation. Bitcoin’s ETF mechanism relies on authorized participants creating and redeeming shares against on-chain inventory, with hedge desks, basis traders, and options overlays in the mix. The machinery works, but it is tightly coupled to broader market liquidity and positioning.

Macro remains the swing factor HashKey’s Tim Sun put it cleanly: sustained structural buying reduces sell pressure for any scarce asset, but Bitcoin is far more sensitive to macro liquidity. A shift toward tighter Federal Reserve policy can interrupt an otherwise smooth ascent, adding chop even if the long-term bull case stays intact. That is the core difference between a central bank-led gold market and an ETF-led Bitcoin market—the former is insulated from day-to-day funding conditions, the latter isn’t.

Psychology and market microstructure matter Gold’s marginal buyer can tolerate drawdowns without mandate stress. Bitcoin’s marginal buyer—through ETFs—faces quarterly reviews, VaR limits, and media feedback loops. That introduces reflexivity: strong flows beget higher prices, which attract new flows—until they don’t. A parabolic endpoint is possible, but the path is likely punctuated by sharper air pockets.

What to watch - Persistence of net ETF creations: Do inflows stay positive through rate scares and risk-off tapes? - Funding and options skews: Are leverage and hedging building fragility beneath the spot bid? - Real-economy buyers: Are corporates, pensions, or sovereign entities adding BTC outside the ETF wrapper?

A quick read on sentiment and tape Over the past 24 hours, Bitcoin is up 1.8% while gold is down 0.32%, per CoinGecko. On prediction platform Myriad, traders remain constructive on gold even after its surge, assigning a 78% probability that the metal reaches $5,000 before Ethereum does.

The takeaway isn’t that the gold script fails for Bitcoin—it’s that the cast is different. If ETF demand keeps absorbing issuance, the “sellers run out” dynamic can still play out. But because Bitcoin’s buyer base is more levered and more exposed to Fed-driven liquidity, the finale, if it comes, may look less like a smooth melt-up and more like a series of stair-steps punctuated by violent accelerations.