Summary BTC tested the prior defensive zone almost directly: spot reached $75,182 on May 23, then returned toward $77K by May 25. The strongest BTC session was May 21: PCR 0.20, options volume $1.71M, net delta +$1.18M, and buy-heavy flow in the Jun. 12 $77K/$78K call area. That was real upside flow, but not broad confirmation. Adjusted PCR moved back to 1.09 after the dominant-call effect was removed. May 25 looked defensive on raw PCR at 8.23, but the report marked the flow as hedge_not_short and net delta stayed slightly positive. That is protection for me, not clean shorting. ETH remains a fragile confirmation layer: defensive on May 21, better on May 23, then back to put-heavy readings on May 25-26. May 26 is too thin to use as a full signal. 1) Investment Thesis BTC ( BTC-USD ) is no longer only defensive near $77K. The new tape is better than the previous report. It just has not done enough to earn a clean bullish reset. The market tested the old defense area, reached $75,182 on May 23, and then came back toward $77K. That keeps the range-repair case alive. It does not fully change the character of the tape. The May 21 session is the reason I cannot stay purely defensive. BTC printed PCR 0.20, $1.71M in options volume and +$1.18M net delta. The Jun. 12 $77K call was the dominant instrument, and the Jun. 12 $78K call also showed buy-heavy execution. This is where I stay cautious. The signal was concentrated, and adjusted PCR moved back to 1.09 after the dominant-call effect was removed. May 21 was strong call demand. It was also narrow. That is not enough for me to call a full reset. My current view is range repair. I would upgrade the view only if call activity broadens above $78K-79K, net delta stays positive on better volume, and the near-term futures stress fades. 2) Data Limits And Method Notes This is a Deribit market structure read. It is not a CME options study, not a spot ETF flow study, and not a full cross-exchange liquidity map. That limitation matters. A narrow Deribit signal can still be useful, but it should not be presented as complete market positioning. I also avoid open-interest language because this report gives volume, buy ratio, delta, PCR, IV fields and basis, but not a clean open-interest change for each option line. When I write aggressive_buy, I mean the report label supported by a very high buy ratio. I do not claim that the trade opened a new position rather than closed an old one. Adjusted PCR is used only as an IVCompass distortion check. Here I treat it as a dominant-instrument adjustment reported by the system, not as an exchange-native metric and not as a complete model of positioning. The report includes point IV fields, not a full IV surface, skew table, or vol term-structure model. I use IV as context and keep the conclusion narrow. 3) Market Context The prior article framed BTC around three zones: stabilization near $75.5K-77K, recovery if BTC could reclaim $78K-79K with positive delta, and breakdown risk below $75.5K if put flow expanded. The new report tested that map almost directly. BTC was at $76,730 on May 19, reached $77,401 on May 21, fell to $75,182 on May 23, and moved back to $77,381 on May 25. May 26 shows BTC at $76,910, but options volume was only $12,569, so I treat that day as thin. The universe filter stays strict. BTC_USDC and ETH_USDC rows are not used as article evidence. That matters most for May 20, where a BTC_USDC put appears as a dominant instrument in the raw report. I exclude it from the thesis instead of forcing it into the BTC inverse-options read. After that filter, the story is cleaner: BTC held the lower part of the prior defensive zone, but the follow-through above $77K still depends on one strong call session. 4) BTC Options: Better Tone, Narrow Confirmation May 21 was the real improvement May 21 is the strongest BTC session in the report. Spot was $77,401, PCR was 0.20, total options volume was $1.71M, and net delta was +$1.18M. The system regime label was semi_inst; I treat that as an internal flow tag, not as proof of institutional origin. The key instrument was BTC-12JUN26-77000-C. It traded $1.17M with a buy ratio of 0.989. BTC-12JUN26-78000-C added $142,275 with a buy ratio of 0.991. Under the IVCompass rules, buy ratios above 0.90 are classified as aggressive buying. That is execution pressure, not proof of new open interest. I take the session seriously. It is the best upside evidence in the window. The check that keeps me cautious The adjusted PCR check changes the tone. Raw PCR at 0.20 looked very bullish. Adjusted PCR at 1.09 says the broader tape was less one-sided after the dominant-call effect was removed. That is why I do not frame the report as a bullish breakout. A strong call block can repair sentiment. It cannot carry the whole thesis unless the next sessions confirm it with breadth. May 25 was protection, not clean shorting May 25 moved back to a defensive print. BTC PCR jumped to 8.23. Short-dated 0-7 day put volume was $49,278, or 88.4% of the day bucket, while 0-7 day call volume was only $5,985. At first glance, that looks bearish. The report gives a more careful label: hedge_not_short. Net delta was still slightly positive at +$13,898, and total options volume was only $55,746. I read the day as protection around the range, not as aggressive downside positioning. May 26 is a footnote, not confirmation May 26 shows PCR 0.15 and BTC-29MAY26-76500-C as the dominant instrument. I do not use it as confirmation because total BTC options volume was only $12,569 and the dominant call represented most of that small tape. A tiny, concentrated call day can make PCR look cleaner than the market actually is. For now, I want proof, not just a clean-looking PCR. 5) Volatility Check I do not want this read to rely only on PCR and delta. The report gives useful IV points, but not enough to build a surface or skew thesis. For BTC, the May 21 call demand came with average IV of 36.2% on the Jun. 12 $77K call and 35.2% on the Jun. 12 $78K call. The more notable volatility outlier was May 22 in the 0-7 day bucket: median IV 24.6%, max IV 51.8%, and max-vs-median 2.1 on $173,318 of volume. I read that as short-dated volatility dispersion, not a clean directional signal by itself. For ETH ( ETH-USD ), the IV layer stays more defensive. On May 25, the dominant ETH-31JUL26-1500-P showed average IV of 62.4%. On May 22, ETH-26MAY26-1800-P had average IV of 78.2% and an IV ratio of 2.24 versus its bucket median. That supports my cautious ETH read: rebound attempts exist, but tail protection remained visible. 6) ETH: A Fragile Rebound, Not Leadership ETH still does not confirm BTC cleanly. On May 21, BTC had its strongest call session in the report. ETH went the other way: PCR 2.03, total options volume $459,808, net delta -$157,369, and ETH-25MAY26-2150-P as the dominant instrument. The report flags that day as BTC_bullish_ETH_defensive. ETH improved on May 23. Spot was $2,046, PCR was 0.44, total options volume was $314,034, and net delta was +$76,578. The report also shows long-dated call activity in ETH-25SEP26-1800-C and ETH-26MAR27-1600-C. That gives ETH a rebound attempt from the lower side of its range. The problem is follow-through. May 25 moved back to extreme_put with PCR 6.03, total volume $110,196, and ETH-31JUL26-1500-P as the dominant instrument. The report also marked hedge_not_short, so I read it as defensive protection rather than a clean short signal. May 26 was even less useful as a full signal. PCR was 10.19, but total ETH options volume was only $1,869 and the same put represented nearly all of the day. That is too thin and too concentrated. My ETH read is cautious. ETH can still recover from the $2,100 area, but the tape has not earned a leadership label. 7) Futures Context The futures layer keeps me from turning too bullish too quickly. I keep it modest because the report gives basis and small inverse futures flow rows, not a full funding-rate history or a separate futures research set. BTC near-term contracts still show backwardation: BTC-26MAY26 at -0.0018% average basis, BTC-27MAY26 at -0.4040%, and BTC-28MAY26 at -0.0031%. BTC-12JUN26 moves back into mild contango at +0.1038%. That shape is not a disaster. It is also not a clean reset. Stress sits in the front of the curve, while the longer-dated BTC contract is already back in contango. ETH shows the same split in a simpler form. ETH-26MAY26 is in backwardation at -0.2006%, while ETH-12JUN26 is in mild contango at +0.0553%. I use this futures layer as context, not as the main driver. The options tape is still the primary evidence. Futures basis simply tells me the market has not fully relaxed yet. 8) Scenario Map These are options market reference zones, not mechanical support or resistance levels. The range-repair case is still the base case. The upside case needs broader call demand. The bearish case needs more than one put-heavy but thin session. 9) What I Am Watching Next The next test is breadth. I want to see whether BTC call buying moves beyond the Jun. 12 $77K-78K area. A repeat of May 21 with broader participation would matter. Another low-PCR day caused by one instrument would not. The $78K-79K area stays important because the previous report already had it as the recovery test. The new report gives call demand close to it, but not enough proof above it. Below the market, I am watching whether puts migrate under $75K. May 25 was defensive, but not clean shorting. If new put flow appears below $75K with higher volume and negative delta, the range-repair thesis weakens. For ETH, I stay focused on $2,100. ETH had a rebound attempt on May 23, but the May 25-26 put readings keep the setup fragile. ETH needs positive delta to return around $2,100-2,200 before I would call it confirmation. 10) Risks To The Thesis The biggest risk is concentration. The strongest bullish evidence in BTC came from one day and a narrow call area. That is not the same as broad upside demand. Liquidity is the next problem. Several sessions are thin, especially May 25 and May 26. Thin tapes can move PCR sharply without giving a clean full-day signal. Open interest is also missing from this report. Without OI change, I cannot say whether buy-heavy execution created new exposure or closed existing exposure. I can only describe the observed volume, buy ratio, delta and PCR. The futures curve still deserves respect. Near-term backwardation is visible in both BTC and ETH. If that stress spreads further along the curve, I would become more defensive. The final limitation is coverage. This article is based on Deribit BTC and ETH inverse options and futures. CME options, spot ETF flows, offshore perpetuals and broader spot liquidity could confirm or challenge the Deribit signal, but they are outside this report. 11) Final Investor Takeaway BTC is in better condition than it was in the previous defensive article. The market tested the $75K area and did not break down cleanly. May 21 also gave a real positive-delta call session. Still, I would not call this a bullish reset. The best call signal was narrow, adjusted PCR made the session look much less one-sided than raw PCR suggested, and the front futures curve still showed stress. The tape improved, but it did not fully change character. My current view is range repair. BTC can keep stabilizing if the May 23 low area holds and net delta stays positive. I would upgrade the view if calls broaden above $78K-79K and the near-term futures stress fades. I would step back if puts migrate below $75K with higher volume and negative delta. ETH remains a secondary, fragile layer. It can still rebound from around $2,100, but it has not confirmed BTC strongly enough for me to call it leadership. Data: Deribit BTC and ETH inverse options + futures, May 19-26, 2026. BTC_USDC and ETH_USDC rows excluded from the article evidence. May 26 is treated as thin / partial where reported volume is very small. Disclaimer: This analysis is intended for informational purposes only. It reflects my reading of market structure and options positioning based on available data and should not be treated as financial or investment advice. Past positioning patterns do not guarantee future results. Always conduct your own research before making any investment decisions. Original Source: Author
