Four BTC Bottom Indicators with Documented Accuracy

A Bitcoin investor’s journey begins with a brutal truth: don’t sell at the wrong times. To avoid this mistake, it’s essential to understand the signals that mark the true market bottom. With over a decade of records, some indicators show an impressive success rate in identifying the most strategic buy points. Below, we analyze the four most reliable indicators that converge toward this goal.

Miner Capitulation: The Puell Multiple at 0.66

The Puell Multiple acts as a thermometer of Bitcoin network health, measuring miners’ revenue relative to their operational costs. When this indicator drops below 0.5, all miners operate at significant losses — an unsustainable situation that invariably precedes a strong recovery.

Historically, whenever the Puell Multiple entered negative territory (below 0.5), we reached the market bottom. Currently, in February 2026, the indicator is at 0.66, still far from this critical zone. Signs suggest the market anticipates these events based on 11 years of documented accuracy, which indicates we may not hit 0.5 this time.

To put it in context: miners control approximately 56 BTC out of every 280 units in circulation (about 20% of the total supply). When their profitability runs out, they are forced to liquidate inventory to keep infrastructure operational, creating selling pressure that often marks the bottom.

Production Cost: The Defense Line at $77,000–$79,000

Bitcoin’s production cost determines the minimum viable level for miners. Currently, this value fluctuates between $77,000 and $79,000 per BTC, considering electricity and equipment wear. When the price drops significantly below this level for extended periods, miners have no choice but to dump their reserves to cover operational expenses.

This indicator has a 90% success rate in identifying bottoms. Unlike speculators, miners operate under strict economic constraints — it’s like a business owner being forced to liquidate assets to keep the lights on. This real, necessity-driven dynamic offers more reliability than most speculative analyses.

MVRV Z-Score: Comparing Current Price with Average Acquisition Cost

The MVRV Z-Score compares the current market price with the average price paid by holders when they acquired their Bitcoin, adjusted for the network’s historical volatility. This indicator hit the bottom at -0.3, with an 80% success rate.

Currently, the Z-Score is at 0.4, which could suggest room for further decline. Considering the market anticipates these signals, the actual bottom might be around 0.20, roughly corresponding to $59,000 per BTC. The current quote of $67,770 still offers interpretive margin, as the market may be pricing in this anticipation.

Profit and Loss Supply: The Revealing 47% Indicator

Historically, when 45% or less of the on-chain Bitcoin supply is in profit, we are near the bottom. Currently, this percentage is at 54%, according to Glassnode data from February 19. However, this number masks an important reality: ETFs and institutional investors like Saylor (MicroStrategy) control about 9.9% of the supply and hold positions in loss.

Adjusting the “percentage in profit” by discounting these 56 units out of 280 held by actors in loss, the effective percentage drops to approximately 47% — a classic indicator of a typical bottom. This number reveals that most holders are in actual loss, creating accumulated pressure for liquidation or resignation in the market.

The Simple Strategy That Works

By observing these four indicators in convergence, it’s clear the market is near — but not necessarily at the absolute bottom. Each indicator offers a different perspective: desperate miners, threatened operational costs, widespread losses among holders, and a price distribution suggesting an inflection point.

The most valuable advice remains the simplest: create a plan that works for your situation, based on these documented signals, and stick to it. Accuracy comes not from predicting the future but from respecting the patterns proven by over a decade of history. Strategic simplicity often outperforms analytical complexity.