What the blockchain says Bitcoin is worth

An on-chain indicator is derived from the blockchain itself rather than from price. The distinction matters more than it sounds: many indicators marketed as on-chain are price technicals wearing a different label. This lab holds a strict line — every factor here needs ledger data to compute, not just a moving average of price.

What the ledger adds is cost basis. Because every coin's last movement is recorded, it is possible to estimate what holders collectively paid, how long they have held, and how much unrealized profit sits in the network. No equity market exposes anything comparable, and it is the foundation most Bitcoin valuation work is built on.

Cost-basis ratios compare market value to what holders paid. MVRV and its variations sit here — high readings mean the average coin is deep in profit, which historically clusters near cycle tops because paper profit is what gets sold.

Profit and loss distribution measures how gains are spread across the supply. NUPL and related measures ask not just whether the network is in profit but how concentrated that profit is, which distinguishes a broad advance from a narrow one.

Miner economics— the Puell Multiple and its relatives — track issuance value against its own history, on the logic that miners are structural sellers whose pressure varies with profitability. Together these give the composite a view of the market's cost structure that price alone cannot supply.

Every enabled factor carries an equal share. With only about four completed Bitcoin cycles in the record, fitted weights would describe history rather than predict anything, and the temptation to keep tuning until the backtest looks good is exactly the failure mode worth designing against. Equal weighting removes that degree of freedom entirely. The evaluation statistics displayed with each factor are computed in-sample on collected history and should be read as descriptions of the past, not as validated forward performance.