DepthSignal vs Coin Metrics: two different bets on what crypto data means. Coin Metrics and DepthSignal are both crypto data APIs. They share a target audience, quantitative researchers, trading desks, and data engineers, and they both use institutional language in their positioning. The comparison mostly ends there. Under the surface, the products rest on different assumptions about where market information lives, and buying the wrong one based on category similarity is an expensive mistake. What Coin Metrics actually built. The founding bet at Coin Metrics was that the blockchain itself is the signal. Not the order book. Not intraday market pressure. The settlement layer: confirmed transactions, wallet balances, mining behaviour, and network-level activity. That bet is right for a specific customer segment. Macro researchers studying Bitcoin as a monetary network, compliance teams tracking wallet clusters, and asset managers building index methodologies around on-chain fundamentals need exactly that kind of infrastructure. Coin Metrics' history in those workflows is a product in itself. The reference-rate offering is where that positioning becomes concrete. When a fund or venue needs a documented settlement price with traceable methodology, Coin Metrics offers a product designed for that purpose. That is not just a number. It is a provenance chain. One structural fact matters before moving on: on-chain data does not tell you what happened in the order book before a price moved. It tells you what settled after. Those are different latencies, different time horizons, and different causal structures. The Order Book is a different market. Most price movement in liquid crypto assets happens before any of it settles on-chain. An aggressive buyer lifts offers across major exchanges in seconds. The order book changes. Price moves. Some related custody transfer may appear much later. Order Flow Imbalance, the difference between aggressive buying and selling near the top of the book, is useful precisely because it lives inside that earlier layer. By the time the event is visible in settlement data, the short-horizon informational value is already fading. That is why real-time crypto microstructure data is not just a lower-latency version of the same thing. It is a different measurement layer built around a different decision horizon. DepthSignal's data arrives in the order book and never needs a blockchain event to exist. That makes it useful for trading desks and researchers working on short-horizon questions that depend on pressure, liquidity, and execution context rather than on network fundamentals. Where the architectures break the comparison. Coin Metrics delivers network data, reference rates, and broader market-data products. For macro or compliance-scale work, that is often enough. What Coin Metrics does not primarily deliver is a pre-computed microstructure feature layer normalised across many live exchanges. If the workflow depends on querying OFI, VPIN, spread time series, liquidity shifts, or cross-venue pressure directly, then the team still has to build much of that analytical layer itself. DepthSignal makes the opposite bet. It ships pre-computed microstructure features through one schema so a strategy team can test a hypothesis without first building the full ingestion and normalisation pipeline. That difference matters because research cost is often dominated by time-to-question rather than by the subscription bill. A strategy hypothesis that takes weeks of pipeline work may never be tested at all. The overlap that traps buyers. Both providers can be thrown into the same spreadsheet under "crypto data API." That is how buyers end up making the wrong comparison. The trap is simple. A team sees that Coin Metrics has market data and assumes that includes the analytical layer needed for short-horizon microstructure work. The contract gets signed, and only later does the team discover that it still has to build the interpretation layer it thought it was buying. The reverse mistake exists too. A team that needs benchmark pricing, on-chain fundamentals, or externally defensible reference methodology will not solve that by buying a microstructure feature service. One line item in a product matrix does not mean one architecture. That is the same trap described in how to choose a crypto market data vendor: category labels look comparable long before the underlying workflow bottleneck is actually the same. That is why the purchase question has to start with the research bottleneck, not with the vendor brand. If the team already knows what it wants to measure and the missing piece is a benchmark methodology, then Coin Metrics can be the right answer even if the market-data surface looks broader than what is needed day to day. If the team already has a hypothesis about short-horizon pressure but lacks the normalised order-book context to test it, then paying for a slower, more compliance-shaped product will not solve the real constraint. The same budget buys different progress depending on which layer of the workflow is actually broken. Four questions that split the decision. Is the main question about market microstructure or network fundamentals? If it is order flow, spread behaviour, liquidity shifts, or short-term pressure, that is a microstructure problem. If it is wallet distribution, settlement flow, or protocol-level activity, that is a network-data problem. What is the time horizon? Sub-minute to sub-hour work needs live microstructure context. Daily to quarterly work can often rely on the slower cadence of on-chain and benchmark data. Does the workflow need auditable provenance? Coin Metrics' methodology and reference-rate products are built for environments where external traceability is part of the job. How does the firm buy software? Coin Metrics fits an enterprise procurement cycle. DepthSignal fits a faster self-serve evaluation cycle. That difference matters when the cost of not testing a hypothesis is higher than the cost of testing it quickly. There is also an organisational question underneath the technical one. Some firms are really buying certainty for the risk committee, even when the quant team says it is buying data for research. Others are really buying speed for the research loop, even when procurement language makes the process sound like a compliance exercise. Those firms should not evaluate the two products with the same success criteria, because the internal job the vendor is expected to perform is different. If the team keeps that distinction clear, the comparison gets easier. Coin Metrics is strongest when the answer must stand up outside the team. DepthSignal is strongest when the team needs to see order-book context, test the idea quickly, and decide whether the strategy is worth more engineering time. Those are both valid jobs. They are just not the same job. That is also why teams should be suspicious of procurement language that collapses everything into "institutional quality." Institutional quality for a benchmark administrator means documented methodology, repeatability, and auditability. Institutional quality for a trading desk can mean live multi-venue pressure context, faster iteration, and less dependence on a months-long build phase before the first useful query exists. Both phrases sound similar in a sales deck. They do not describe the same operational outcome. The cleaner comparison therefore starts with a narrower question: what kind of uncertainty is the team trying to reduce first? If it is uncertainty about the blockchain, the benchmark, or the settlement record, Coin Metrics is closer to the answer. If it is uncertainty about what pressure is building in the market before the candle fully reflects it, a microstructure-first service is closer to the answer. The honest limit. DepthSignal is not the right answer if the use case is on-chain network analysis. No amount of normalisation work substitutes for a decade of blockchain indexing and reference-rate history. Coin Metrics is not the right answer if the team's immediate bottleneck is short-horizon order-book interpretation and live multi-venue pressure analysis. In that case the raw feed is only the beginning of the work. If a team is also comparing providers like Amberdata, the better sequence is to compare the order-book-first tools directly, as in DepthSignal vs Amberdata, and then compare that lane against the on-chain-first lane represented here. That keeps the comparison honest instead of forcing unlike products into one false ranking. FAQ: Coin Metrics vs DepthSignal. Does Coin Metrics compete directly with DepthSignal? When is Coin Metrics the better fit? When is DepthSignal the better fit? Why do buyers still confuse them? References. * Cont, R., Kukanov, A., and Stoikov, S. (2014). *The Price Impact of Order Book Events*. *Journal of Financial Econometrics*, 12(1), 47-88. * Coin Metrics product documentation. https://coinmetrics.io/

Q2 2026 market update: reversals, rotations & rates. Tanay Ved, Senior Research Associate June 30, 2026 State of the Network #370 Coin Metrics State of the Network is an unbiased, weekly view of the crypto market informed by its own network (on-chain) and market data. Key takeaways: * Bitcoin gave back its entire April rally, ending Q2 down roughly 11% against a backdrop of shifting rate expectations, ETF outflows and capital rotation into AI equities. * The three major liquidity channels, ETFs, Strategy, and stablecoins weakened in Q2, with spot Bitcoin ETFs alone seeing -$4.08B in net outflows. * $8.35B in BTC and ETH long liquidations resulting in a meaningful deleveraging in Q2, leaving the market thinner but more stable heading into Q3. Re-(Introducing) State of the Market. Alongside its weekly State of the Network research deep diving into themes and market trends across the onchain ecosystem, Coin Metrics Inc. is excited to be re-launching State of the Market: a dashboard and upcoming weekly newsletter built to track digital asset price action, flows, liquidity, and derivatives activity in one place. In this issue, Coin Metrics Inc. use the dashboard to break down Q2 2026 across performance, flows, exchange activity, and the themes shaping the quarter. Market overview & performance. Digital assets entered Q2 2026 with momentum. Coming out of a difficult Q1, Bitcoin staged a broad based recovery through April, rallying to ~$82K alongside equities as geopolitical anxiety briefly eased and institutional demand improved. However, this recovery did not sustain. The reversal was driven by three converging forces: higher oil prices as Brent crude hit a high of $126.41 on oscillating U.S.-Iran diplomatic talks, a hawkish shift in Fed rate outlook, and a rotation of capital into the AI trade where earnings momentum remained intact. Through mid-May, crypto and equities had moved broadly in tandem, with BTC and ETH both gaining ~20% from early April. The divergence came towards the end of May, when crypto pulled back while equities held their ground. The S&P 500 and Nasdaq 100 ended the quarter up ~16% and ~28% respectively, while BTC declined around 10%, ETH down ~20%, and SOL down ~13%. Bitcoin now sits near $60K, roughly 52% below its all time high of $126K set in late 2025. Altcoin performance tells a similar story with a narrow breadth of gainers. Year to date, Hyperliquid (HYPE) remains the lone standout among the top 20 crypto-assets by market cap (+142%), on the back of surging demand for onchain perpetuals trading in equities and commodities. Flows. The quarters weakness was amplified by the deterioration of three major demand channels: spot ETFs, digital asset treasuries like Strategy, and stablecoin supply. Spot Bitcoin ETFs: April was a strong start for spot Bitcoin ETFs with inflows dominating. The highest single day peak of $474M in inflows came on April 20th, after which flows flipped. Outflows dominated the remainder of the quarter, with 53 outflow days against just 30 inflow days across Q2. June drove the bulk of the damage, accounting for -$3.84B of the quarter's -$4.08B total net outflow across tracked issuers. Digital Asset Treasuries (Strategy): Strategy's Bitcoin acquisition pace slowed materially through the quarter. STRC, its preferred stock designed to trade near $100, fell to a record low near $74, while Strategy's mNAV compressed towards 1.0, impacting the funding channel behind its accumulation. The 32 BTC sale in early June caught markets off guard and put a dent in the "never sell" sentiment. As a response, Strategy has established a new Digital Credit Capital Framework, raising the STRC dividend to 12%, authorizing up to $1.25B in BTC sales, and setting a $2.55B USD reserve covering roughly 17 months of obligations. Stablecoins: The total stablecoin market cap contracted by ~$4.2B across Q2, removing a layer of dry powder that supports onchain activity and liquidity. USDT grew modestly by $1.8B while USDC shed $3.4B. Ethena's USDe fell $1.4B as the risk-off environment reduced appetite for yield bearing stablecoin strategies. With all three major demand channels weakening simultaneously, the liquidity backdrop heading into Q3 is materially thinner than where Q2 began. Whether that demand returns to crypto-assets or continues flowing into AI equities remains a dynamic to watch. Exchange activity & derivatives. Total spot volume across exchanges fell 28% QoQ to $2.32T, continuing a decline that began in January. Futures volume held up better at $12.32T, down 11.6% QoQ, but the spot/futures ratio compressed from 0.23x to 0.19x, pointing to increased derivatives positioning rather than spot demand. Hyperliquid was a notable standout, growing its futures volume market share to ~4.5% as onchain perpetuals continued to gain ground against centralized venues. Open interest peaked ahead of the May selloff with BTC hitting $49.2B and ETH reaching $27.2B. These figures have now fallen to $33.5B for BTC and $16.2B for ETH respectively, down 32% and 40% from their peak. Combined BTC and ETH long liquidations totaled $8.35B across Q2. More than half of these liquidations occurred between May 25 and June 7, as overleveraged longs were flushed out in a self-reinforcing loop. The market enters Q3 in a more deleveraged state. Funding rates were volatile across Q2, swinging from deeply negative (-16% annualized) in mid-April, to strongly positive into May (+10% annualized) as long positioning built up. The following selloff brought rates back to neutral, ending the quarter oscillating around zero with cautious sentiment. Liquidity deteriorated in parallel. Bitcoin's 2% orderbook depth declined from a peak near $70M in early May to roughly $35-40M by late June, indicating thinner markets and reduced capacity to absorb selling pressure. Themes shaping the quarter & ahead. Beyond the quarter's price action, several structural developments point to where markets are headed, from new asset classes coming onchain to the infrastructure underpinning them. * Tokenized Equities: Coinbase announced 1:1 backed tokenized stocks with full legal rights. As new models for tokenizing securities like stocks emerge, Coin Metrics Inc. mapped out the different forms of equities exposure onchain. [The Spectrum of Tokenized Stock Exposure]. * RWA Perpetuals Take Off: Onchain trading and price discovery expanded beyond crypto into stocks, indices and commodities through Hyperliquid HIP-3 perpetuals and centralized exchanges offering 24/7 RWA perps. [Perps, Outcome Markets & USDC Yield, Perpetually Open: The Rise of 24/7 Onchain Markets]. * SpaceX IPO Gets Priced Onchain: The $1.7T SpaceX IPO was priced on crypto rails ahead of its public listing, providing an early signal of price discovery for private companies. [Pre-IPO Price Discovery on Crypto Rails] * Vaults & Lending Markets: Onchain vaults are becoming a core allocation layer for institutional capital, pooling deposits into curated lending strategies across protocols like Morpho and Aave. With traditional asset managers like Bitwise entering vault curation, the infrastructure is maturing rapidly. [Vaults: Mechanics, Landscape & Risk] Subscribe and past issues. Coin Metrics State of the Network is an unbiased, weekly view of the crypto market informed by its own network (on-chain) and market data. If you'd like to get State of the Network in your inbox, please subscribe here. You can see previous issues of State of the Network here. [Disclaimer: The information herein is provided for informational purposes only. Talos Trading, LLC and its affiliates ("Talos") does not give any representations or warranties in relation to the accuracy, validity, or completeness of the information of this material, including without limitation the factual information obtained from publicly available sources considered by Talos to be reliable at the time. Talos accepts no liability for any consequences of using the information contained in this material. Any opinions or estimates expressed herein reflect a judgment made by the author(s) as of the date of publication and are subject to change without notice. Neither this material nor any copy thereof may be taken, reproduced, or redistributed, directly or indirectly, without Talos's prior written permission. Any views or opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Talos. This communication does not constitute an offer to buy or sell, or a promotion or recommendation of, any digital asset, security, derivative, commodity, financial instrument, or product or trading strategy. This document and information are not intended to constitute investment advice or a recommendation to make (or refrain from making) any kind of investment decision and may not be relied on as such.] Subscribe. If you'd like to get State of the Network in your inbox, please subscribe below. Find out how Talos can simplify the way you interact with the digital asset markets.