It looks like an objective figure: how much bitcoin holders paid on average. We calculated it in two defensible ways, and one says the market is 20 % above it; the other, 27 % below.
Same day, same asset, two reasonable ways of counting. One says expensive and the other says cheap. The difference isn't in the market: it's in who you put into the average.
The idea is simple and good: if we knew what price the people who hold bitcoin today bought at, we'd know whether the market is above or below their cost. And that says much more than a chart, because someone who's at a loss behaves differently from someone who's in profit.
The problem shows up when you pin down who “the people” are.
| How it's counted | Average price | The market is… |
|---|---|---|
| Everyone who holds, since 2009 | 52.760 $ | +20.3 % above |
| Those who bought in the last 2 years | 87.404 $ | −27.4 % below |
| last year | 86.034 $ | −26,2 % |
| last 3 years | 74.566 $ | −14,9 % |
Bitcoin price on 3 August 2026: 63,460 $. All the calculations come from the same 4,963 days of public data.
Because the first calculation includes the person who bought at 200 dollars in 2015 and hasn't sold. That person alone drags the average down, and everyone's average with it. The calculation is correct — those people exist and hold bitcoin — but it answers a different question: how much the existing bitcoin cost, not how much the person who's suffering right now paid.
The second calculation only includes people who bought recently. And there the number shoots up, because the last two years have been expensive. That calculation answers the question “who is at a loss today?” better, but it leaves out most of the holders.
Neither is wrong. They answer different questions, and whoever shows them almost never says which one.
This is the most common trick and the hardest to see, because there's no lie anywhere. The data is public, the arithmetic is correct, and even so, on the same day it can come out “expensive” or “cheap” depending on whom you put into the calculation.
What you take away is a question you can ask in five seconds: “who are you putting into that average?”. It works for this, for average salaries, for a fund's returns and for any figure that starts with “on average…”.
We don't say which of the two calculations is the right one, because it depends on what you want it for. We give no price target and no conclusion about whether the market is expensive. And there's a limitation on our side: the calculation by age uses the average price of the period, not weighted by how much was bought each day. It's similar, but not the same, and that's why we don't present it as exact.
That “the average price” doesn't exist: there are several, all correct, and choosing one is already a decision that changes the conclusion.
And with the habit: when you see an average holding up an argument, ask about the boundary before the number. The boundary decides more than the arithmetic, and it's the first thing that goes unsaid.
If you want to keep pulling the thread
The other reports are at sophronepsis.com/informes.html. There's also the one on the average-holder rule, where the same figure gives two opposite conclusions depending on what you compare it with.
And if you want to learn to look at this on your own, the six-day walkthrough is at app.sophronepsis.com/empieza.
A report is a snapshot of one day. Inside the platform the measurements are redone when new data arrives, every strategy comes with its test alongside it, and the mentor answers whatever you ask, at any hour. sophronepsis.com/mentoria.html
Realised price calculated from market capitalisation, MVRV and circulating supply, over 4,963 days of public data up to 3-Aug-2026. Educational content, not financial advice. We don't sell signals or manage third-party capital. Familia FVR · Sophronepsis.