Fidelity Q3 Report: BTC, ETH, and SOL are still bottoming out; how much longer will the bear market last?

Author: Fidelity Digital Asset Research Team

Compiled by: Jiahua, ChainCatcher

I. Market Overview

Figure: Overview Panel of Three Major Asset Signals

Weighted NUPL: BTC Alone Supports the Market

Weighted NUPL is used to measure whether a market-cap-weighted digital asset portfolio is in a state of unrealized profit or unrealized loss. Since BTC's market cap significantly outweighs that of ETH and SOL, the current indicator is largely determined by BTC.

Currently, among the three assets, only BTC is still recording unrealized profits, while ETH and SOL are both in a state of unrealized losses. After comprehensive calculations, the weighted NUPL is -0.01, indicating that the market is slightly below the breakeven line.

In other words, the remaining unrealized profits in the market are primarily concentrated in BTC, rather than stemming from a general improvement across various assets. BTC acts as a stabilizer, partially offsetting the loss pressure from ETH and SOL, but it is still insufficient to bring the entire portfolio back to positive territory.

If the three assets had equal weight, the portfolio would be even weaker due to the deeper losses of ETH and SOL. Therefore, although the weighted NUPL has turned negative, the current market structure is still slightly healthier than a scenario where "losses are evenly distributed across various assets."

This further reflects BTC's status as a barometer in the digital asset market. ETH and SOL continue to weaken relative to BTC, with investors showing a more pronounced preference for the largest and most liquid asset, while remaining cautious towards other digital assets that have historically been more volatile.

For investors, the current market resembles a search for a bottom during a repair process, rather than entering a general profit-taking phase at the end of a cycle. BTC's relative strength has not spread to other assets, and market participation remains highly concentrated.

In the second quarter of 2026, BTC's NUPL further declined, and the weighted NUPL for the three assets dropped to -0.01. Before more assets re-enter a state of unrealized profit, the market is more likely to maintain consolidation or continue to face pressure, rather than quickly recover to full expansion.

Figure: Weighted NUPL Score

BTC Dominance Rises to 68%, Asset Rotation Still Not Observed

After a continuous decline in the second half of 2025, BTC dominance has slowly begun to rise again, and the long-term upward trend has not been broken.

Historically, an increase in BTC dominance is usually accompanied by other digital assets underperforming BTC. This reflects that in an environment of heightened uncertainty and pressured valuations, funds tend to flow toward the most liquid and mature assets.

The consistently rising phase low of BTC dominance, along with a relatively stable upward slope, indicates that this preference is not a short-term phenomenon.

The current dominance level means that funds are still concentrated in BTC, and market risk appetite shows a clear selectivity. Participation in assets outside of BTC is limited, and the overall market has not yet regained widespread relative strength.

In the second quarter of 2026, BTC dominance slightly increased from 67% to 68%, with signs of funds rotating into other digital assets still weak.

If BTC dominance begins to decline or turns sideways in the third quarter, it may indicate that risk appetite is recovering, and other digital assets are regaining attention from funds, which could also serve as an early signal of a change in market structure.

Figure: Asset Dominance and Total Market Cap of Digital Assets, Excluding Stablecoins

Asset Performance: BTC, ETH, SOL All Decline

Based on rolling returns over the past year, BTC has fallen about 45%, ETH has dropped 37%, and SOL has decreased 53%.

Year-to-date, all three assets have also performed weakly, with BTC, ETH, and SOL down 33%, 47%, and 41%, respectively.

As of the end of the second quarter, BTC has fallen below the 200-week moving average, and market sentiment is in an extremely depressed state, with the entire digital asset market also weakening in tandem.

The unfavorable macro environment, the shift of funds toward AI-related investments and the stock market, along with the continuous decline in market momentum, have collectively amplified the current downturn. Currently, multiple indicators are nearing or have touched historical capitulation ranges.

Spot ETP fund flows have also remained negative. From the beginning of 2026 to date, spot ETPs have seen a cumulative net outflow of $5.4 billion, with $4.9 billion occurring in the second quarter.

In June alone, spot ETPs experienced a net outflow of about $4.5 billion, marking the worst month since the launch of spot Bitcoin ETPs.

From June 1 to 4, the market also experienced nearly $6 billion in consecutive liquidations. Passive liquidations further amplified selling pressure and disrupted the original position structure.

The macro and geopolitical environment also constitutes a drag. Inflation remains high, energy prices continue to be under pressure, and the market has significantly adjusted its expectations for monetary policy: at the beginning of the year, the market believed that there might not be any interest rate cuts in 2026; by the end of the second quarter, expectations had shifted to the possibility of interest rate hikes by the end of the year.

Short-term volatility remains high, and the market typically requires time to form a bottom.

However, the current valuation levels, along with the increasingly evident negative correlation between digital assets and traditional risk assets, may provide attractive entry points for long-term investors, provided that the adoption trend of the underlying networks continues to strengthen.

Figure: One-Year Rolling Performance of BTC, ETH, SOL

II. Bitcoin

NUPL 0.09: Positive

At the end of the second quarter, BTC's NUPL was 0.09, within the "hope---fear" range, indicating that the market still has a small amount of unrealized profits, but investor sentiment is becoming cautious.

Some holders are still in profit, but the market has not yet formed a general consensus that "the bottom has been established."

In the second quarter, BTC fell 14%, with NUPL dropping from 0.21 to 0.09, a decrease of 0.12. This appears more like a mild contraction of unrealized profits among holders rather than a large-scale capitulation.

According to current data, BTC's market price is about 10% higher than the overall network's comprehensive cost basis, with investors collectively holding about $108 billion in unrealized profits.

For most of April and May, BTC's NUPL was in the "optimistic---anxious" range, as the market gradually believed that the bottom might have already appeared.

Recently, the indicator has fallen back into the "hope---fear" range, indicating that market sentiment has shifted from sustained optimism to caution and uncertainty.

Historically, during BTC bear markets, NUPL has further dipped into capitulation territory, so the current state should still be viewed conservatively.

From historical data, when BTC's NUPL is around 0.09 plus or minus 0.05, the median return rate for the following year is 53%, and the three-year annualized compound growth rate is 69%, with a total of 73 occurrences.

The correlation coefficients of NUPL with future one-year and three-year return rates are -0.26 and -0.80, respectively, indicating that the lower the NUPL, the higher the long-term subsequent returns tend to be. This is also why Fidelity rates lower NUPL as a positive signal.

However, historical relationships may weaken or even fail, and it is still necessary to assess them in conjunction with the macro environment and overall market structure.

Figure: Bitcoin Net Unrealized Profit and Loss (NUPL)

Momentum Signal: Negative

BTC's current momentum indicators reflect that this round of decline has formed a bearish impulse, with prices failing to sustain higher highs over the past quarter.

The signal turned positive on April 21, 2026, when BTC was priced at $78,317, with both short-term volatility and price momentum rising above their mid-term averages.

However, this round of rebound did not sustain. On June 1, the signal turned negative again when BTC was priced at $66,540, indicating that momentum had exhausted and prices failed to stabilize.

In the second quarter, BTC's price fluctuated between $58,500 and $82,256, with particularly intense volatility in April and May.

This quarter's momentum model experienced a false positive: the positive volatility at the beginning of the second quarter was initially judged to potentially continue, but ultimately reversed quickly.

This is a cost that trend-following models cannot avoid. The goal of such models is not to accurately capture every top and bottom, but to participate as much as possible after an upward trend forms while controlling downside risk.

Since the signal turned negative on June 1, BTC has fallen about 10% and is currently still in the negative momentum range.

BTC's short-term realized volatility is about 34% annualized, lower than the mid-term volatility of 40%. For the momentum signal to turn positive again, either short-term volatility needs to moderately rebound, or mid-term volatility needs to decline further.

It is important to emphasize that this indicator is not used to predict precise tops and bottoms, but to identify phases where price direction and volatility change in sync. Historically, such phases often correspond to accelerated market movements.

The current reading still points to caution rather than a recovery of upward momentum.

Figure: Bitcoin Momentum Signal

Yardstick: Positive

BTC's price has fallen over 50% from its historical peak, but the overall network hash rate has only decreased by about 22% from its peak.

Miners are facing significant pressure, but the entire network still demonstrates strong resilience.

As a result, the Bitcoin Yardstick has approached historical lows, indicating that relative to the hash rate required to maintain and protect the network, BTC may be significantly undervalued.

However, this cycle also has some differences, including decreased price volatility and the increasing maturity of the mining industry.

BTC's price is a direct input variable for the Yardstick. When price volatility decreases, the relative impact of hash rate in this ratio becomes more pronounced.

At the same time, mining companies have improved their management capabilities regarding energy costs and operational efficiency, allowing them to adjust operating rates, migrate equipment, or optimize power contracts more flexibly based on profitability.

Therefore, mining capacity can adjust more flexibly with price changes, and the divergence between price and network energy input is less likely to be as severe as in the past.

The combination of falling prices and declining hash rates has driven the Yardstick into the "undervalued" zone. Over the past 92 days, there have been 76 days, or about 83% of the time, where the indicator has been below one standard deviation of the long-term average.

Historically, this area typically corresponds to market accumulation phases or relative bottoms.

In 2018, the Yardstick stayed in a similar range for 298 days; in 2022, it lasted for 299 days, after which market sentiment gradually repaired.

This bear market has lasted about 203 days so far. For investors focused on cycle rhythms, October 2026 can be seen as a time window worth observing, but it does not mean that the market will necessarily bottom at that time.

Figure: Bitcoin Yardstick

Relative Performance to Gold: Negative

One of BTC's core investment logics is its potential as a store of value.

Using gold as a pricing benchmark allows for measuring BTC's performance relative to another traditional physical safe-haven asset, rather than just observing its price changes relative to fiat currencies.

Recent price fluctuations have indeed weakened BTC's narrative as a store of value in the short term, but they are not sufficient to prove that its long-term investment logic has failed.

In the second quarter of 2026, although BTC fell 14% in USD terms, its price relative to gold remained basically unchanged.

After about a year of continuous underperformance, investor preference between BTC and gold may be rebalancing.

Since February 28, BTC has risen 15% relative to gold. Against the backdrop of ongoing geopolitical uncertainty, the relative trends of the two have begun to stabilize.

The strong performance of gold over the past year has largely been driven by continued purchases by central banks around the world. In this context, the relative relationship between BTC and gold may be forming a more stable balance.

At the same time, on-chain indicators still point to an accumulation phase, with some indicators even showing signs of capitulation.

For long-term allocators, BTC's previous relative underperformance against gold may make the current valuation more attractive.

Figure: Bitcoin Performance in USD vs. Gold

Hash Rate: Negative

BTC's daily average hash rate and 30-day average hash rate remain below the historical milestone of 1 ZH/s (1000 EH/s) set in September 2025.

There are two main reasons behind this: first, the attractiveness of AI and high-performance computing businesses for electricity, land, and data center resources is continuously rising; second, the bear market has compressed the profit margins for Bitcoin mining.

Some mining companies may be reallocating electricity capacity, data center infrastructure, and new capital expenditures toward AI or high-performance computing businesses.

In a low BTC price environment, AI hash rate contracts often provide more stable and predictable income, making it economically reasonable for mining companies to reconfigure their infrastructure.

It is important to note that Bitcoin ASIC miners are highly specialized hardware that typically cannot be directly used for AI computing. Therefore, the shift toward AI is more about repurposing electricity, land, data centers, and cooling facilities rather than directly converting existing mining machines into AI servers.

Idle mining machines are also unlikely to remain parked for long. The more common approach is to sell the equipment or migrate it to areas with lower electricity prices rather than permanently exiting the network.

Since BTC's price peaked in October 2025, the hash rate has continued to decline. Meanwhile, mining difficulty has remained high for an extended period, failing to decline in sync with prices.

Falling prices and compressed profit margins have led miners on the cost edge to shut down operations gradually.

Historically, the deterioration of mining economics during bear markets can also lead to temporary declines in hash rates. However, competition for infrastructure resources from AI data centers and electricity contracts may cause this round of hash rate decline to last longer than historical averages.

In the second quarter, the daily average hash rate increased by 8% quarter-on-quarter, but the 30-day average hash rate decreased by 6% during the same period.

Since 2026 began, BTC's price has fallen over 29%, while the hash rate has only decreased by about 12%, indicating that while miner economics are under pressure, the network overall still maintains a certain level of resilience.

Figure: Bitcoin Hash Rate and Mining Difficulty (Original Report Page 10)

III. Ethereum

NUPL -0.43: Positive

In the second quarter, ETH's NUPL continued to decline within the "capitulation" range, and market sentiment further deteriorated.

During the quarter, ETH's price fell 25%, with NUPL dropping from -0.12 to -0.43, a decrease of 0.31, significantly expanding investors' unrealized losses.

According to current data, ETH's trading price is about 30% lower than the overall network's comprehensive cost basis, with total unrealized losses amounting to approximately $87 billion.

On June 6, ETH's NUPL touched a phase low of -0.46, and has not fallen below that level since.

Although the indicator still has the potential to set new lows, this low point has currently been defended, which may be a noteworthy position for long-term investors.

Historically, when ETH's NUPL is around -0.43 plus or minus 0.05, subsequent returns are usually quite substantial.

Since 2018, similar readings have corresponded to a median return rate of 70% for the following year and an annualized compound growth rate of 133% over three years, with both time dimensions containing 90 observations.

The correlation coefficients of NUPL with future one-year and three-year return rates are -0.13 and -0.81, respectively, indicating a more pronounced negative correlation with long-term subsequent returns.

This is also the basis for Fidelity rating lower NUPL as a positive signal.

However, historical patterns may weaken or fail, and broader market conditions still need to be considered in the assessment.

Figure: Ethereum Net Unrealized Profit and Loss (NUPL)

Momentum Signal: Negative

ETH's momentum signal turned positive on April 16, 2026, when the price was $2,350, with volatility and price momentum both above their respective mid-term averages.

However, ETH failed to sustain its upward movement. On May 17, the signal turned negative again when the price fell to $2,130.

In the second quarter, ETH fluctuated between $1,564 and $2,422, with particularly intense market movements in April and May.

Similar to BTC, ETH's momentum model also experienced a false positive this quarter.

Since the signal turned negative on May 17, ETH has fallen about 25% and is currently still in the negative momentum range.

Short-term realized volatility remains at about 50% annualized, significantly lower than the mid-term volatility of 71%.

For the signal to turn positive again, either short-term volatility needs to rebound significantly, or mid-term volatility needs to decline substantially.

The current indicator reflects a simultaneous weakening of price and volatility, rather than a recovery of upward momentum.

Figure: Ethereum Momentum Signal

Usage Indicators: Neutral

In the second quarter, the fundamentals of Ethereum's base layer overall cooled, consistent with the continuous decline in ETH prices and decreasing volatility.

However, total transaction counts still demonstrated some resilience, declining only 5% during the quarter, with daily transaction volumes consistently above 2 million.

Transaction fees remain well below historical averages but are still sensitive to short-term demand changes.

On April 22, Ethereum's median transaction fee briefly rose to $0.42, then continued to decline, ending the quarter at about $0.02.

Active addresses and new addresses significantly retreated after reaching historical highs in the previous quarter, decreasing by 10% and 31%, respectively.

Combined with the weak price performance during the quarter, there remains a strong correlation between on-chain activity and asset prices.

In the second quarter, the proportion of addresses with actual economic activity slightly increased, but a considerable number of addresses did not contribute materially to Ethereum's revenue or security.

This trend may continue into 2026. The upcoming Glamsterdam upgrade will focus on increasing the capacity of the base layer, potentially further increasing the supply of block space.

Figure: Ethereum Usage Indicators

Stablecoin Transfer Volume: Positive

Driven by progress in scalability and improvements in the regulatory environment, stablecoin transfer volumes on Ethereum have exceeded historical averages.

Over the past 12 months, total stablecoin transfers have consistently reached new highs, accumulating over $20 trillion.

However, growth rates have begun to show signs of slowing. The daily average stablecoin transfer volume in June was about 9% lower than in the previous three months.

The stablecoin market has experienced rapid expansion over the past year, and growth rates may gradually return to more stable levels in the coming year.

It is noteworthy that, against the backdrop of declining overall digital asset prices, stablecoin transfer volumes on Ethereum continue to grow.

This indicates that the real demand for stablecoins is gradually detaching from market sentiment and asset prices, being used more for payments, settlements, and acquiring on-chain dollars globally, rather than solely serving speculative trading.

The average transfer cost of stablecoins has remained below $1 for three consecutive quarters, validating the effectiveness of previous scalability measures.

Figure: Total Stablecoin Transfer Volume on Ethereum

Network Fees: Negative

Over the past year, the fees collected by the Ethereum network have continued to decline.

In the second quarter, the rolling 12-month network fees dropped from $344 million to $294 million, a decrease of 15%.

The speed of expansion at the protocol and infrastructure levels continues to outpace the growth of block space demand. As developers refocus on base layer scalability, this trend may have long-term implications.

The upcoming Glamsterdam upgrade is expected to further expand block space capacity, so Ethereum network fees may still face downward pressure in the coming year.

Ethereum's fee levels themselves are highly volatile, making it difficult to determine a reliable long-term equilibrium value.

In the second quarter, Ethereum's daily network fees fluctuated between $145,000 and $2.75 million, with an average of about $575,000 per day.

In the coming years, one of the key signals for investors to observe is how core developers balance network growth with value capture.

As a technology platform still in development, Ethereum has previously emphasized user adoption, ecosystem expansion, and network utility rather than short-term revenue.

Unless developers and researchers invest more effort into improving value capture mechanisms, network fees and protocol revenues may continue to be under pressure.

Figure: Ethereum Network Fees

IV. Solana

NUPL -0.72: Positive

In the second quarter, SOL's NUPL remained in the "capitulation" range.

During the quarter, SOL's price fell 12%, with NUPL dropping from -0.67 to -0.72, a decrease of 0.05, further expanding unrealized losses.

According to current data, SOL's trading price is about 41% lower than the overall network's comprehensive cost basis, with total unrealized losses amounting to approximately $29 billion.

On June 6, SOL's NUPL rebounded sharply from a phase low of -1.08, again reflecting SOL's high volatility characteristics in this bear market.

The recovery from the low may indicate that a considerable portion of early holders has sold their chips, while new investors are starting to take over at lower price levels.

Historically, occurrences of SOL's NUPL falling within the range of -0.72 plus or minus 0.05 are very rare, but subsequent market performance has been strong.

Since the inception of the Solana network, similar readings have occurred 21 times. The corresponding median return rate for the following year is 542%.

Due to the lack of sufficiently long historical data, it is currently impossible to calculate a reliable three-year return.

The current NUPL of SOL has a correlation coefficient of -0.56 with future one-year return rates, indicating a relatively strong negative correlation.

However, Solana's operational history is short, and the sample size is limited, so this historical relationship must be viewed cautiously, as it may not be repeated in the future.

Figure: Solana Net Unrealized Profit and Loss (NUPL)

Momentum Signal: Negative

SOL's momentum signal has been negative since October 28, 2025, with prices and volatility generally declining in sync, and the market environment remains cautious.

However, recently, SOL's short-term realized volatility has risen above mid-term volatility, at approximately 63.5% and 61% annualized, respectively.

Historically, this state sometimes appears before and after momentum reversals. If prices can strengthen in sync, it will provide stronger support for forming a phase bottom.

It is noteworthy that SOL did not experience a false positive in momentum signals this quarter, unlike BTC and ETH.

For most of the second quarter, SOL fluctuated between $63 and $97, with the price around $81 at the beginning of the quarter.

According to SOL's own model parameters, even when the price briefly rose to $97, the momentum was still insufficient to turn the signal positive, and the price subsequently set a lower low.

When the signal first turned negative on October 28, 2025, SOL's price was about $194. Since then, the price has fallen about 60%, and the adjustment is still not fully over.

The current indicator is closer to "attempting to stabilize" rather than indicating that upward momentum has recovered.

Figure: Solana Momentum Signal

Usage Indicators: Positive

Despite being in a bear market, Solana's fundamentals still demonstrate strong resilience. Asset prices continue to weaken, but on-chain activity demand has not shrunk in tandem.

Monthly transaction counts continue to rise, with a quarter-on-quarter increase of 1%, still on track to set a historical high.

However, the growth rate of user numbers is slower than the growth rate of network activity, indicating that the average number of transactions initiated per user is increasing.

In the second quarter, monthly active addresses and new addresses decreased by 15% and 7%, respectively, while addresses with actual economic activity only declined by 4%.

In the current market environment, economically meaningful on-chain activity remains relatively stable, contrasting with the trend seen in Ethereum.

Another advantage of Solana is the stability of transaction costs.

Throughout the quarter, Solana's median transaction fee remained below 0.1 cents, with very little fluctuation, providing strong cost predictability for users and investors.

Figure: Solana Usage Indicators

Stablecoin Transfer Volume: Positive

Stablecoin transfer volumes on Solana have historically fluctuated significantly, but since a clear increase over a year ago, the long-term upward trend remains intact.

Currently, Solana's daily average stablecoin transfer volume is stable at over $8.4 billion, with a quarter-on-quarter increase of 17%.

Compared to Ethereum, the individual stablecoin transfer amounts on Solana are smaller, reflecting differences in user structure and use cases between the two networks.

Over the past 12 months, Solana has processed over $2.6 trillion in stablecoin transfers.

While SOL's price has significantly declined, stablecoin trading volumes and other on-chain activities remain stable.

Similar to Ethereum, a considerable portion of stablecoin demand on Solana exhibits strong stickiness, being less affected by short-term changes in market conditions.

If on-chain activity continues to grow, Solana's stablecoin ecosystem is also expected to expand in tandem.

In the second quarter, the total size of the stablecoin market shrank by about 1.3%, but the supply of stablecoins on Solana actually grew by about 3%, increasing by approximately $300 million.

Figure: Total Stablecoin Transfer Volume on Solana

Network Fees: Neutral

Solana's network fees remain on a downward trend, but signs of gradually seeking a balanced level have begun to appear.

In the second quarter, rolling 12-month network fees decreased by 18% to $22.1 million, with daily fee income of about $390,000.

If the network fees for the second quarter are annualized, the annual revenue would be approximately $141 million, significantly narrowing the gap with rolling 12-month data.

At the same time, Solana's on-chain activity continues to grow, and several Solana Improvement Proposals (SIMD) are beginning to place more emphasis on enhancing the value capture capabilities of SOL holders.

These developments further reinforce Solana's positioning as a technology platform capable of generating protocol revenue, with SOL at the core of its economic system.

According to Fidelity's assessment, Solana's network fee revenue may be nearing a cyclical bottom.

If on-chain activity continues to grow, and proposals related to value capture are gradually implemented, Solana's fee revenue is expected to start recovering in the coming year.

Figure: Solana Network Fees

Appendix: Indicator Methodology Explanation

Momentum Signal

The momentum signal assesses the current momentum state of digital assets by comprehensively evaluating price trends and volatility changes.

The model compares short-term price changes with long-term trends on one hand, and assesses whether current volatility is expanding or contracting relative to recent benchmarks on the other.

These two dimensions are integrated into a momentum classification used to identify phases where price and volatility directions align, diverge, or are transitioning.

The model's lookback window and other parameters are selected through an optimization process, aiming to create relatively clear and stable distinctions between different market states.

However, this indicator is only used to describe the current market state and does not constitute price predictions, investment advice, or trading signals.

Yardstick

The Bitcoin Yardstick, also known as the "Hash Rate Yardstick," can be roughly understood as a price-to-earnings ratio indicator for the Bitcoin network.

Traditional price-to-earnings ratios divide stock prices or company market values by corporate earnings, while the Yardstick divides BTC's total market value by the overall hash rate to measure BTC's market value relative to the level of network security investment.

A lower ratio means that BTC is cheaper relative to the hash rate required to protect the network, similar to how a lower price-to-earnings ratio is typically interpreted as a lower stock valuation.

However, hash rate is not equivalent to corporate earnings, so the Yardstick can only serve as a relative valuation framework and cannot be equated with stock price-to-earnings ratios.

NUPL

On one-year and three-year time scales, the relationship between NUPL and future return rates is one of the stronger on-chain indicator relationships in Fidelity's research.

However, the network histories of Ethereum and Solana are significantly shorter than that of Bitcoin, resulting in fewer available observation samples, and thus the reliability of historical relationships is relatively lower.

Theoretically, when a network's realized market value exceeds twice its total market value, NUPL may drop below -1.0.

In the early days of BTC, ETH, and SOL, a large supply of assets was moved or allocated in the absence of publicly available market prices.

For example, some early BTC tokens were transferred before market prices had formed; ETH and SOL also experienced early token issuance, presales, pre-mining, seed funding, and foundation allocations.

These early distributions affect realized prices, sometimes being accounted for at costs higher than subsequent public market prices.

When market prices fall below realized prices, the cumulative unrealized losses across the network may exceed the current total market value, pushing NUPL below -1.0.

As the network matures and on-chain trading history accumulates, realized market value will more accurately reflect genuine market transactions rather than early distribution events.

Therefore, the reference value of NUPL typically increases as the network matures.