Net Unrealized Profit/Loss (NUPL) is the fraction of Bitcoin's market cap that consists of unrealized profit: (market cap − realized cap) ÷ market cap. Mathematically it is a presentation variant of the MVRV ratio: NUPL = 1 − 1/MVRV at the aggregate level, so the analytical content overlaps almost completely. What NUPL adds is a psychological-phase labeling framework that maps bands to named market-sentiment phases — capitulation (< 0), hope/fear (0-0.25), optimism/anxiety (0.25-0.5), belief/denial (0.5-0.75), and euphoria/greed (> 0.75). The named-phase labels make NUPL the operationally favored framing for communicating cycle position to less-technical audiences, while serious practitioners typically reference MVRV directly. NUPL was popularized by Glassnode's Tuur Demeester-era research and David Puell's adjacent work; James Check has been particularly influential in tying it to the Psychological phases of the market cycle framework, and the cohort variants (LTH NUPL, STH NUPL) carry more operational signal than the aggregate. Its primary value is communicative; its principal limitation is the redundancy with MVRV.
Why this note matters
NUPL is load-bearing for the on-chain section in two respects:
- It is the operational framing for psychological-phase communication. The MVRV ratio is a multiplier (2×, 4×, etc.) that does not map intuitively to market psychology. NUPL is a fraction (0.25, 0.5, 0.75) that maps cleanly to named phases (optimism, belief, euphoria). For communicating cycle position to less-technical readers, NUPL is the favored framing across both Glassnode and Checkonchain.
- It anchors the named-phase cycle framework. The Psychological phases of the market cycle synthesis note will use NUPL bands as its primary quantitative spine. The named-phase labels (capitulation, hope, optimism, belief, euphoria; and the downside mirrors fear, anxiety, denial) are specifically calibrated against NUPL thresholds rather than MVRV thresholds.
The note is honest about NUPL’s redundancy with MVRV — see Counter-arguments — but the distinct presentational utility and the named-phase mapping justify treating NUPL as its own primary note rather than a subsection of MVRV ratio. Readers encounter NUPL and the named-phase framework constantly in contemporary on-chain commentary, and rigorous grounding in the metric is the prerequisite for evaluating those references.
What this metric measures
The conceptual claim. NUPL measures the fraction of Bitcoin’s market cap that consists of unrealized profit. A NUPL of 0.5 means half of the network’s current market valuation is profit relative to aggregate cost basis; the other half is the cost basis itself. A NUPL of zero means current market cap equals aggregate cost basis — the network is in aggregate break-even territory. A negative NUPL means the network is in aggregate unrealized loss — characteristic of deep capitulation.
The mathematical form.
Algebraically:
So NUPL and MVRV are deterministic transformations of each other at the aggregate level. The two metrics carry equivalent information; the difference is presentational.
The MVRV equivalences in NUPL terms.
| MVRV | NUPL | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| 0.7 | -0.43 | Deep capitulation (2022 bottom) |
| 0.8 | -0.25 | Capitulation territory |
| 1.0 | 0 | Aggregate break-even |
| 1.5 | 0.33 | Optimism territory |
| 2.0 | 0.50 | Belief territory |
| 3.0 | 0.67 | Belief / late-bull |
| 4.0 | 0.75 | Euphoria threshold |
| 5.0 | 0.80 | Euphoria territory |
| 7.0 | 0.86 | Extreme euphoria |
The two columns are interchangeable. Practitioner choice of MVRV vs NUPL is a function of audience and communication style.
How it’s calculated
The basic form. Numerator: market cap − realized cap. Denominator: market cap. Both quantities are constructed as defined in Realized price and MVRV ratio.
The unrealized-profit interpretation. The numerator is the dollar-denominated unrealized profit embedded in the current UTXO set: for each UTXO, current price minus creation price, multiplied by UTXO size; summed across all UTXOs. The denominator normalizes to the current market valuation. The result is a fraction between approximately -0.5 and +0.85 historically.
Cohort-specific NUPL. As with MVRV, NUPL can be computed for restricted UTXO sets:
- LTH NUPL — long-term-holder (155+ day) UTXOs only. The conviction-cohort’s unrealized profit fraction. LTH NUPL is more volatile than aggregate NUPL across cycles (LTHs have higher peak profit fractions at cycle tops because they accumulated at lower prices).
- STH NUPL — short-term-holder UTXOs only. The reactive-cohort’s unrealized profit fraction. STH NUPL is typically near zero (STHs accumulate at near-current prices by definition).
Variant: aSOPR-NUPL alignment. The aggregate adjusted SOPR (SOPR) and NUPL are mathematically related at the margin — SOPR measures realized profit ratios on spent outputs while NUPL measures unrealized profit fractions on held outputs. They cross zero at the same conceptual level (network break-even). The alignment is useful for cross-validation: when both SOPR and NUPL are below their break-even references simultaneously, capitulation is structurally confirmed.
Data-provider variants. Glassnode, Coin Metrics, and Checkonchain publish NUPL with minor methodological variations identical to those affecting Realized price and MVRV ratio. For cycle-positioning purposes, the differences are negligible.
What it tells you
The psychological-phase framework. NUPL’s distinctive contribution is the named-phase mapping. The standard labels:
| NUPL band | Named phase (upside) | Named phase (downside mirror) | Cycle context |
|---|---|---|---|
| > 0.75 | Euphoria / Greed | — | Cycle peaks |
| 0.50 - 0.75 | Belief | — | Late-cycle bull |
| 0.25 - 0.50 | Optimism | Anxiety | Mid-cycle |
| 0 - 0.25 | Hope | Fear | Early bull / late bear |
| < 0 | — | Capitulation | Cycle bottoms |
The labels are the canonical Glassnode-and-Checkonchain framing. They are calibrated empirically to where NUPL has historically transitioned across cycle phases.
The communication advantage. “MVRV is 4.5” doesn’t intuitively communicate market psychology. “NUPL is 0.78 — we’re in euphoria territory” does. The named-phase framing is operationally how on-chain analysts communicate cycle position to retail and institutional audiences. The substance is identical to MVRV; the framing makes it usable.
Cycle-positioning content. NUPL extremes correspond to MVRV extremes; the cycle-positioning signal is the same:
- NUPL > 0.75 has historically marked cycle peaks
- NUPL > 0.5 has historically marked late-cycle distribution territory
- NUPL < 0 has historically marked deep capitulation
- NUPL < -0.25 has marked the deepest historical bottoms (2015, 2018-2019, 2022 each briefly touched approximately -0.25 to -0.4 territory)
Cross-cycle attenuation. Like MVRV, NUPL peaks have declined cycle-over-cycle. The 2013 peak reached approximately 0.87; 2017 reached approximately 0.78; 2021 reached approximately 0.75; the 2024-2025 cycle peaked in August 2025 (~$124,000) without producing euphoria-level readings at all — the most attenuated top yet. The diminishing-returns pattern is real and consistent across MVRV and NUPL because the metrics are mathematical transformations of each other.
LTH and STH NUPL. Operationally:
- LTH NUPL near euphoria territory signals that long-term holders are in deep profit — historically a setup for distribution and cycle-top dynamics
- LTH NUPL near zero or negative signals long-term-holder break-even — historically a structural bottom signal (LTHs are the last cohort to capitulate)
- STH NUPL near zero is the normal state — STH cost basis tracks current price by definition
- STH NUPL substantially below zero signals recent buyers are underwater — typical of mid-bear-market consolidations
Empirical track record
Cycle peaks.
| Cycle | Peak NUPL | Approximate peak spot |
|---|---|---|
| 2013 | ~0.87 | $1,200 |
| 2017 | ~0.78 | $19,800 |
| 2021 | ~0.75 | $69,000 |
| 2024-2025 | below prior euphoria thresholds (attenuated) | ~$124,000 (Aug 2025) |
The peak-amplitude attenuation across cycles is the same pattern as in MVRV ratio and is consistent with Diminishing returns thesis.
Cycle bottoms.
| Cycle | Trough NUPL | Approximate trough spot |
|---|---|---|
| 2015 | ~-0.25 to -0.30 | $200 |
| 2018-2019 | ~-0.25 | $3,200 |
| 2022 | ~-0.25 to -0.35 | $15,500 |
The trough thresholds have been more consistent than peak thresholds across cycles — capitulation appears to exhaust at roughly the same NUPL level regardless of cycle (around -0.25 to -0.35), even as peaks have attenuated.
Phase-transition timing. Named-phase transitions have historically led cycle pivots by varying amounts:
- Exit from euphoria (NUPL crossing back below 0.75) has historically preceded cycle-top spot declines by ~weeks
- Entry into capitulation (NUPL crossing zero downward) has historically preceded cycle-bottom spot lows by ~months in some cycles, ~weeks in others
- Exit from capitulation (NUPL crossing zero upward) has historically been a reasonable accumulation signal
The transitions are not precise market-timing signals; they are cycle-context markers.
Cross-cycle behavior in 2024-2025. The cycle peaked in August 2025 (~$124,000) with NUPL well below historical euphoria thresholds — the mildest top on record. With the peak now in view, the earlier “cycle has not yet peaked” reading is largely foreclosed; the surviving explanations are that the peak structure has fundamentally shifted (diminishing returns + ETF distortion) and, secondarily, that the metric’s euphoria calibration needs downward migration. The subsequent 2026 drawdown carried NUPL back below zero into capitulation territory.
Limitations
Mathematical redundancy with MVRV. At the aggregate level, NUPL = 1 − 1/MVRV. The metric does not contain analytical content that MVRV does not. The distinct value is presentational (psychological-phase labels, fractional-form interpretation).
The named-phase labels are normative, not derived. The mapping of NUPL bands to named phases (hope, optimism, belief, euphoria) is empirically calibrated but ultimately arbitrary. Different analysts use slightly different threshold definitions; the labels carry suggestive content but not precise content.
Cycle attenuation makes phase thresholds unreliable. Like MVRV, NUPL peaks have declined cycle-over-cycle. The euphoria threshold (>0.75) has been increasingly hard to reach; future cycles may not reach it at all even at significant spot levels. The named-phase framework needs ongoing recalibration.
Aggregate vs cohort signal. Aggregate NUPL blends cohort behaviors. LTH NUPL and STH NUPL carry more refined signals because they separate cohort-specific psychology. The aggregate is the gateway concept; the cohort variants are the deployment-ready forms.
Cohort variant data accessibility. LTH and STH NUPL are available on Glassnode and Checkonchain but typically behind subscription paywalls. For free-tier users, only aggregate NUPL is consistently accessible.
Custodial-cohort blindness. Like MVRV, NUPL inherits Realized price’s limitations around custodial-and-ETF wallets. The post-2024 ETF era complicates aggregate NUPL interpretation in ways the cohort variants partially compensate for.
Communication advantage cuts both ways. The named-phase labels make NUPL accessible to less-technical audiences. They also make NUPL prone to overinterpretation — “we’re in euphoria” sounds like a definite signal when the underlying threshold is empirical and historically attenuating. The labels can produce false confidence in readers who don’t engage the threshold-calibration uncertainty.
Counter-arguments and tensions
”NUPL is just MVRV in different units”
The argument: At the aggregate level, NUPL = 1 − 1/MVRV. The two metrics are deterministic transformations of each other. NUPL does not contain analytical content MVRV does not. Building NUPL as a separate primary note is presentational redundancy.
Response: Substantively right at the aggregate level. The note exists to ground the named-phase labels and the fractional presentational form, both of which appear constantly in contemporary on-chain commentary. A reader encountering “NUPL is in belief territory” needs grounding in what the metric is, even though the underlying analytical content is MVRV. The note is honest about the redundancy in this Counter-arguments section.
The cohort variants are slightly less redundant — LTH NUPL and LTH MVRV are not perfectly transformations of each other because of supply weighting differences across the UTXOs in the cohort. The divergence is small but non-zero.
The named-phase labels are arbitrary
The argument: The mapping of NUPL bands to named market-psychology phases (hope, optimism, belief, euphoria) is empirically calibrated to historical samples and ultimately arbitrary. Different analysts use different threshold definitions. The labels carry suggestive content but not precise content. Treating them as if they have analytical content is overconfident.
Response: Fair as critique of overinterpretation. The labels are useful communication tools, not precise analytical categories. Users should treat “we’re in euphoria territory” as “NUPL is above its historical 75th-percentile, comparable to past cycle peaks” rather than as a definitive psychological diagnosis. The labels add color and intuition; they do not add precision.
Cycle attenuation breaks the named-phase framework
The argument: NUPL peaks have declined cycle-over-cycle. The euphoria threshold has been less and less reachable. The 2024-2025 cycle peaked (August 2025) without NUPL ever reaching 0.75, so the top-calling content of the >0.75 threshold is degrading in real time. The named-phase framework’s predictive utility is eroding as cycles attenuate.
Response: Real concern. The threshold recalibration is an ongoing analytical project. The honest reading is that future cycles will produce attenuated peak NUPLs, and the named-phase labels need to migrate downward — perhaps “belief” at 0.5-0.6 becomes the new “euphoria” in attenuated cycles. The framework remains useful as a cycle-context tool but the specific thresholds are dynamic.
”ETF era has broken aggregate NUPL”
The argument: Post-2024 ETF flows have introduced large custodial wallets with cost bases near current spot prices. This pulls realized cap upward relative to its historical regime, compressing NUPL. Aggregate NUPL is no longer comparable across the pre-ETF and post-ETF periods.
Response: Partially right but probably overstated. ETF flows do affect aggregate NUPL composition. But the cohort variants — particularly LTH NUPL restricted to self-custody UTXOs — partially recover the lost signal. The framework needs adaptation; LTH NUPL is operationally more useful than aggregate NUPL in the post-ETF regime.
Phase-transition signals are not precise timing tools
The argument: Named-phase transitions (NUPL crossing 0.75 downward as “exit from euphoria,” NUPL crossing 0 upward as “exit from capitulation”) have historically led cycle pivots by varying amounts — sometimes weeks, sometimes months. The framework is not a precise market-timing tool.
Response: Right. The named-phase framework is a cycle-context tool, not a market-timing tool. Users should treat phase transitions as probabilistic context updates rather than as buy/sell signals. The systematic frameworks (Check, Ryan) integrate phase-transition signals with multiple complementary indicators rather than treating them as standalone triggers.
”NUPL is mass-psychology theater”
The argument: The named-phase labels (hope, optimism, belief, euphoria) imply that aggregate market psychology can be read from a single ratio. Market psychology is multi-dimensional, varies across cohorts and venues, and is not actually well-captured by any single on-chain metric. The framework is more theatrical than analytical.
Response: Partially right. NUPL captures one dimension of aggregate market psychology — the unrealized-profit dimension — and labels it with broad psychological terms. The labels are suggestive simplifications, not precise psychological characterizations. The honest reading is that the framework is useful as one analytical lens among many; it should not be treated as a comprehensive psychological diagnosis.
Statistical-robustness concerns
The argument: Like MVRV, NUPL is a ratio of two trending non-stationary series. Formal time-series tests of its predictive content beyond the in-sample period produce weaker results than the visual fit suggests.
Response: Real concern shared with MVRV. The metric’s mean-reverting behavior at cycle scale is genuine (cycle peaks and troughs are real behavioral phenomena), but the precise predictive content depends on threshold stability that may not persist. The framework should be deployed with awareness of the calibration uncertainty.
Open questions for further development
- How should the named-phase thresholds be recalibrated for the post-ETF, diminishing-returns regime? Specific updated thresholds — perhaps cohort-restricted variants — would strengthen the framework.
- What is the appropriate way to communicate threshold uncertainty to less-technical users? The named-phase labels can produce overconfidence; the communication framework needs careful design.
- Should NUPL be presented as a separate metric or as a presentational variant of MVRV? The case for separate primary-note treatment rests on the named-phase framework’s distinctive value; the case for MVRV-with-NUPL-subsection rests on mathematical redundancy. The current note treats it as separate but flags the redundancy explicitly.
- How do cohort-specific NUPLs (LTH NUPL, STH NUPL) behave in the post-ETF regime? Empirical work on the cohort variants’ continued reliability is an active research direction.
- Can the named-phase framework be tied to specific behavioral mechanisms? Currently the labels are empirically calibrated; deriving them from holder-psychology mechanisms would strengthen the framework.
- How does NUPL interact with macro extremes? The integration with Bitcoin and global liquidity and Bitcoin and the ISM PMI cycle is the topic of Using on-chain data for macro positioning.
- What is the appropriate NUPL framing for hyperinflation or major-fiat-regime-change scenarios? USD-denominated NUPL becomes uninformative in such regimes; alternative denominations may be needed.
Canonical sources for this note
Primary framework sources
- Glassnode research, various pieces introducing and refining NUPL — the canonical source of the named-phase framework
- Tuur Demeester-era Glassnode publications — early NUPL framework development
- David Puell, various adjacent analyses
- Checkonchain platform — James Check’s analytical framework integrating NUPL with the broader psychological-phase cycle framework
- Coin Metrics State of the Network reports — adjacent on-chain valuation analyses
Practitioner literature
- James Check, extensive Glassnode Week On-Chain newsletters during the 2020-2023 tenure — applied NUPL analysis tied to psychological-phase framework
- James Check, ongoing Checkonchain platform analysis 2024+
- Ryan (On-Chain Mind), various video analyses applying NUPL accessibly
- Various Bitcoin Magazine and BitMEX Research pieces on NUPL applications
Adjacent on-chain literature
- Murad Mahmudov and David Puell, original MVRV work — directly related foundational metric
- Various analyses of NUPL in cohort-specific form (LTH NUPL especially)
- Glassnode and Checkonchain documentation on the named-phase threshold calibrations
Critical perspectives
- Various engagements with the redundancy between NUPL and MVRV
- Critiques of single-metric reliance and named-phase oversimplification
- Within-Bitcoin debates about cycle-attenuation effects on named-phase thresholds
Related notes
- On-chain analytics and market psychology — sub-MOC parent
- Realized price — definitional foundation
- MVRV ratio — mathematically equivalent metric; NUPL = 1 − 1/MVRV at aggregate level
- SOPR — realized-side analog; complementary cost-basis metric
- HODL waves — cohort framework
- Long-term vs short-term holder behavior — produces cohort-specific NUPL variants
- Coin Days Destroyed — complementary cohort-behavior metric
- Whale behavior — entity-weighted cohort framework
- Exchange flows — custodial-flow framework
- Sentiment indicators — off-chain sentiment proxies; conceptually adjacent to named-phase framework
- Psychological phases of the market cycle — synthesis note where NUPL provides the named-phase quantitative spine
- Using on-chain data for macro positioning — operational bridge to macro frameworks
- The Power Law model — longer-horizon trajectory framework
- Four-year halving cycles — cycle structure NUPL extremes anchor
- Diminishing returns thesis — cycle-over-cycle attenuation framework NUPL peaks empirically demonstrate
- Bitcoin and global liquidity — macro framework
- Monetization S-curve — adoption framework
- Portfolio approaches to Bitcoin — practical allocation framework
- James Check — primary contemporary anchor; named-phase framework developer
- Ryan - On-Chain Mind — adjacent contemporary anchor
- Dylan LeClair — adjacent on-chain voice
- Plan B — S2F framework (engaged critically)
- Giovanni Santostasi — Power Law modeler; adjacent