Bitcoin Volatility Analysis: 1.07% vs Risky Caps (May 2026)

BTC’s 30-day realized volatility is 1.07%, versus 1.63% across the CR24 risky large-cap set, which puts BTC in a lower-stress role than the market’s main stress pocket.

That calmer profile sits alongside 59.59% BTC dominance, 1.19 percentage points above its 90-day starting point and near the top of its 90-day band, even as the risky basket remains fragmented.

Analytically, the setup fits BTC-led relative strength inside an active risk complex, not broad large-cap stress spreading evenly across the board.

Why BTC looks calmer than the risk basket

BTC’s 30-day realized volatility, which captures actual day-to-day price movement, is 1.07%. That is 0.56 percentage points below the 1.63% average for the CR24 risky large-cap set, a 34% discount in ratio terms.

The comparison matters because the risky large-cap basket is not moving as one block. Its higher average is being pushed up by several names carrying idiosyncratic stress, so this is not a clean case of market-wide volatility expansion.

Over the latest 30-day window, BTC stayed within a 75,441 to 81,600 range while the volatility reading remained below 2%. In plain terms, BTC has been trading in a relatively contained band, which points to compression and a steadier role inside the broader large-cap mix.

What the worst movers say about stress concentration

Three of the top-10 worst 7-day movers are in the CR24 risky large-cap set: TON, M, and ARB. That is 30% of the worst-mover list, enough to show stress inside the risky group but not enough to describe the whole top-100 as moving in one direction.

The full top-100 remains highly dispersed. TON is the worst 7-day mover at -12.81%, while NEAR is the best mover at +49.07%.

The median 7-day mover across the top-100 is -0.01%, essentially flat. In plain language, that means weakness is concentrated in a subset of names, while strength and weakness are still coexisting across the wider market.

How BTC drawdown compares with risky names

BTC is currently -6.64% from its 90-day high of 82,520. That is only modestly different from the median -5.48% drawdown across the top-20 set, but that median is softened by stable or near-stable names, which makes it a limited benchmark for risk comparison.

Inside the risky large-cap cohort, BTC is holding up better than the main stress pocket. BCH is the deepest underwater at -29.48%, and four risky names are deeper underwater than BTC: BCH, ADA, ETH, and LINK.

That leaves BTC looking comparatively resilient, not simply less volatile. Structurally, the drawdown profile supports the same message as the volatility gap: pressure is present in large caps, but it is not landing evenly.

Does BTC dominance still favor the anchor?

BTC dominance is 59.59%, up 1.19 percentage points from the 90-day starting point and 0.70 points above the 90-day median of 58.89%. That keeps capital tilted toward BTC even with mixed action elsewhere in the top-100.

The 90-day low was 57.41% on 2026-04-03, and the current reading is 2.18 points above that trough. This looks like a recovery in BTC’s share of market cap, not a fresh loss of leadership.

Combined BTC+ETH dominance is 69.44%, up 0.92 points over 90 days. In plain terms, the large-cap core has retained share while the rest of the market has stayed more uneven, which reinforces the anchor interpretation.

Why leverage is clustering in BTC, not just alt risk

BTC perpetual funding on Binance Futures is 0.0063%, above the top-10 mean funding rate of 0.0037%, and BTC open interest is $7.64B, the largest in the ranking. That places the heaviest leverage load in BTC even though the weakest spot movers are concentrated elsewhere.

ETH funding is 0.0042% with $4.46B open interest, so leverage is present across the large-cap core but is still led by BTC. Across the top-10 perp set, only ADA has negative funding at -0.0015%.

In plain language, traders are still paying to hold long exposure across most of the major perp market. Structurally, that means leverage is not isolated in a single short-heavy stress pocket; it is clustering around the anchor asset.

What the concentration backdrop adds to the read

The top-10 coins account for 91.04% of top-100 market cap, and BTC alone is 59.71% of that top-10 concentration. That is a strongly top-heavy market structure.

BTC’s share of top-10 concentration is much larger than any other single asset in the basket, with ETH at 9.81% and USDT at 7.33%. This helps explain why BTC can trade with relative stability even when the risk fringe is noisier.

In plain terms, the market’s weight is concentrated in the largest names, and especially in BTC. That structure allows relative stress in risky large caps to coexist with a firm BTC anchor without immediately turning into a broad market-cap unwind.

How this fits the 2021-2022 drawdown regime

BTC’s current open drawdown is -49.6% from the 2025-10-07 peak of 124,774. In absolute terms that is severe, but it remains shallower than the 2018 drawdown of -83.3% and the 2022 drawdown of -76.7%.

The historical comparison matters because large BTC drawdowns have often lasted far longer than the first leg lower. The 2021-2022 cycle took 847 days from peak to recovery, while the 2018 cycle took 1,080 days.

That places the current episode inside a familiar historical pattern of deep but ultimately recoverable BTC resets. The immediate calm in realized volatility does not remove the larger open drawdown context; it only says that current trading conditions are steadier than the broader history might imply.

Bottom line

The key distinction is between BTC as a low-volatility anchor and BTC as a high-dominance asset inside a still-stressed market. Both can be true at once, and the current mix of volatility, dominance, drawdown, and leverage leans toward that split.

For the next update, the interaction among dominance, funding, and drawdown depth matters more than any single reading in isolation. A move in one of those variables can shift the market from anchored stress toward synchronized risk.

What would change this view

Falsifiers

• BTC 30-day realized volatility rises above the risky large-cap average while BTC dominance falls below 58.0% in the same week — the BTC-led anchor read would fail.
• At least 5 of the top-10 worst 7-day movers come from the CR24 risky large-cap set and BTC funding drops below the top-10 mean — the stress pocket would be broadening rather than isolated.
• BTC drawdown deepens past the current -6.64% level while ETH and BCH both recover faster than BTC — relative resilience would no longer be the right framing.

What to watch next

Watch next

• BTC vol vs risky-cap average
• BTC dominance vs 58% threshold
• BTC funding vs top-10 mean

Frequently asked questions

Is Bitcoin volatility analysis showing BTC as a low-stress anchor?

Yes. In this Bitcoin volatility analysis, BTC’s 30-day realized volatility is 1.07%, versus 1.63% for the risky large-cap comparison set. That 0.56-point gap means BTC is moving more quietly than the names most exposed to stress. The structure reads as an anchor, not a stress amplifier.

How is BTC dominance calculated in this article?

BTC dominance (BTC market cap as % of top-100 mcap) is measured from the 90-day dominance series. The latest reading is 59.59%, with a 90-day low of 57.41% and a 90-day median of 58.89%. In Bitcoin volatility analysis terms, that keeps BTC in a leadership-heavy market structure.

What does BTC’s current drawdown signal relative to risky large caps?

BTC is -6.64% from its 90-day high of 82,520, while BCH is -29.48%, ADA is -18.15%, and ETH is -14.07%. That spread shows BTC holding up materially better than the riskier large caps. In Bitcoin volatility analysis, the drawdown gap points to relative resilience rather than synchronized stress.

When does this Bitcoin volatility analysis flip from anchor to stress pocket?

The read changes if BTC volatility moves above the risky-large-cap average and BTC dominance breaks below 58.0% in the same week. That combination would show BTC losing its calm premium while capital rotates away from the core. In Bitcoin volatility analysis, that would mark a regime shift away from BTC-led structure.

What does BTC funding and open interest say here?

BTC funding is 0.0063% with $7.64B open interest, above the top-10 mean funding rate of 0.0037%. ETH funding is 0.0042% with $4.46B open interest. In Bitcoin volatility analysis, that says leverage is not absent from BTC; it is concentrated in the anchor asset rather than only in the risky fringe.