Buy more when the on-chain valuation is cheap, less when it is rich, instead of buying the same amount every month. We tested that against flat accumulation over eleven years of real Bitcoin prices. The valuation-weighted plan buys about 23 percent more per dollar and ends ahead, but rides the same drawdown, and a lump sum at the start beat both.
A familiar idea in digital assets is to vary how much you buy according to a valuation signal: buy more when the asset looks cheap on chain, less when it looks expensive, rather than buying the same amount every month. We tested that idea against a flat, equal-sized plan over eleven years of real Bitcoin prices. The valuation-weighted plan does win, but the margin is smaller and the caveats larger than the usual telling.
The easy read: a valuation-timed accumulation plan beats flat buying and protects you from the crashes.
Our reading: it does buy more cheaply and end up ahead per dollar, which is a genuine improvement. It does not reduce the drawdown, because it stays long through the cycle. And a simple lump sum at the bottom beat everything, a reminder that with a rising asset, time in the market rivals timing the valuation.
The honest version of this strategy is modest and worth having: a disciplined way to lower your average cost, not a way to avoid the volatility that defines the asset.
Bitcoin has no earnings, but it leaves a public ledger, and several indicators try to read where price sits relative to an on-chain notion of fair value. The best known is the MVRV Z-score, which compares market value to the aggregate cost basis of all coins. The claim is that accumulation guided by such a score, buying heavily when the score is low and trimming when it is high, beats both flat buying and a single lump sum, by concentrating purchases at moments of capitulation.
Our dataset does not carry the MVRV Z-score, so we substituted the Puell Multiple, which measures miner revenue against its long-run average and is a long-established on-chain cycle-valuation indicator. We standardised it the same way the MVRV version is used, into a z-score on an expanding window so no future information leaks into a past decision. This is a labelled, faithful substitution: a different on-chain valuation series, applied with the identical buy-cheap, trim-rich logic.
Deploy the same capital, but weight it toward the months when the on-chain valuation says the asset is cheap, and your average cost falls.
Both plans run monthly from 2015. The flat plan invests an equal amount every month. The valuation-weighted plan deploys the same total capital but scales each month's purchase by the valuation z-score, buying more when the score is low and less when it is high. We compare the two on a like-for-like basis using return on invested capital, that is, portfolio value divided by the capital actually put in, so the two are judged per dollar even though the valuation-weighted plan deploys its dollars on a different schedule. We also show a single lump sum at the start as a reference point.
The valuation signal is the Puell Multiple standardised to an expanding-window z-score, used as a labelled substitute for the MVRV Z-score the popular version cites; both are on-chain cycle-valuation indicators. Return on capital is value divided by capital invested, which compares the plans fairly per dollar. The lump-sum reference invests the flat plan's total at the 2015 start and is therefore entirely dependent on that date. Fees are ignored. Prices are real daily Bitcoin closes.
Measured per dollar invested, the valuation-weighted plan stays ahead of the flat plan for most of the eleven years and ends clearly higher, at about 51.9 times capital against 42.3. The lead is not dramatic at any single moment; it accumulates because the valuation tilt repeatedly adds more at the cycle lows. Both lines ride the full Bitcoin cycle, soaring and collapsing together, which is the first sign that this is an entry improvement rather than a risk reduction.
The clearest expression of the benefit is the average cost achieved. Against the Bitcoin price on a log scale, both plans build an average cost far below the eventual spot, which is the point of accumulating through a cycle. The valuation-weighted plan's average cost sits below the flat plan's, about 19 percent lower, because it bought more aggressively when price was depressed. That lower basis is exactly where its per-dollar edge comes from.
It would be dishonest to show the two accumulation plans without the reference that beats them. A single lump sum invested at the 2015 start returned far more than either, because Bitcoin rose enormously and accumulation, by design, holds cash back to deploy later. That comparison is not an argument for lump-sum investing; it is timing-dependent and would look very different starting at a cycle top. It is a reminder that for an asset in a long uptrend, getting invested matters at least as much as refining when.
Weighting purchases by an on-chain valuation score is a genuine improvement on flat accumulation: it buys more Bitcoin per dollar, lowers the average cost by about a fifth, and ends ahead per dollar over a full cycle. It is not a way to avoid the asset's volatility, which it rides in full, and it is beaten by a lump sum that happened to start at a low. Sized honestly, it is a disciplined cost-basis tool, not a market-timing system, and that is how we would present it.
Valuation can tell you when it is cheaper. It cannot tell you it will not get cheaper still.
This document has been prepared by Iron Hall Capital for informational and educational purposes. Its content does not constitute personalised investment advice, a recommendation to buy or sell financial instruments, a public offering, or a solicitation to subscribe to any financial product. The opinions and readings reflect Iron Hall Capital's judgement at the date of publication, are based on data considered reliable but not independently audited, and may be revised without notice.
The results shown are from historical simulations on past data. Backtested performance is hypothetical, is computed with the benefit of hindsight, does not reflect trading costs, financing, taxes, slippage or the market impact of real execution, and is not a reliable indicator of future results. Where a data series was not available, an equivalent real series has been substituted and labelled as such in the text. Where a method ignores costs or makes a simplifying assumption, this is stated. Markets can move sharply and without warning.
The author and Iron Hall Capital may hold, have held, or come to hold positions in the instruments referenced. Any reproduction, in whole or in part, requires written authorisation.
Iron Hall Capital · A private investment office · June 2026