XRP Tests Key $1 Level Amid Rising Exchange Reserves and Declining ETF Demand

November 13, 2026 | The Crypto Managers | Market Analysis

XRP is confronting an uncomfortable combination of market signals: more tokens reportedly held on centralized exchanges, slowing demand for U.S. spot exchange-traded funds, and a price hovering around the psychologically important $1 threshold. The concern is straightforward. If more XRP is available for trading while an important source of new demand is faltering, the market may need stronger buyers to absorb potential supply.

But the evidence deserves a closer reading than the familiar assertion that coins moving onto exchanges must be getting sold. Exchange reserves measure where assets sit, not why an owner moved them. ETF net flows measure creations and redemptions through investment products, not the entirety of institutional demand. And a $1 price level is a closely watched trading reference, not a physical barrier.

The Crypto Managers' assessment: The significant development is a potential liquidity imbalance, not a confirmed mass liquidation. What happens next will depend on whether spot demand, ETF flows and derivatives positioning begin to reinforce one another or diverge.

What Happened: A Supply-and-Demand Squeeze

A November 13 report by CoinGape, referencing CoinGlass data, estimated that XRP balances held by exchanges increased by approximately 335.76 million XRP over three months. That claim is important enough to investigate, but it should be attributed precisely: TCM was not able to independently reproduce the historical reserve comparison from a timestamped, publicly accessible underlying dataset during this review. It should therefore be treated as a reported estimate, not a freshly verified on-chain total.

Separately, the U.S. spot XRP ETF complex has experienced a sharp reduction in net new money. Bitcoin.com News reported that the products recorded no net inflows between November 3 and November 6, after a modest net outflow on November 2. It also reported that October brought approximately $18.8 million in net inflows, down from $121.4 million in September. A secondary tracker citing SoSoValue displayed approximately $18 million of outflows over a recent seven-day window as of November 13, while warning that its data source had been paused. Those limitations make exact intraday flow totals inappropriate to treat as final.

Meanwhile, price data from CoinGlass placed XRP around $1.02 during November 13 trading and showed an intraday print below $1. The threshold is therefore being tested and briefly breached, rather than defended without exception. Market data can vary slightly among venues because trading is continuous and exchange-specific highs and lows differ.

Taken together, these developments point to weakening conditions. They do not, by themselves, establish which wallets are selling, how much of the reported exchange inventory has reached order books, or whether fund flows caused the price decline.

Exchange Reserves Are a Warning Signal, Not a Sell Order

An exchange-reserve indicator typically estimates tokens controlled by wallets attributed to trading platforms. An increase can matter because assets placed at an exchange may be easier to sell than assets held in self-custody. Yet several different behaviors can produce the same data pattern.

A holder might deposit XRP to sell. An institutional custodian might shift inventory between labeled addresses. Market makers could relocate collateral or operational balances. An exchange might reorganize hot and cold wallets. Derivatives traders may transfer assets as margin. Some wallet-labeling methodologies can also change over time.

The difference is consequential. Inventory on an exchange is potential liquidity; it is not equivalent to executed sell volume. To determine whether reserve growth is translating into actual selling pressure, investors need to compare reserve changes with spot taker activity, trading volume, order-book depth and price behavior.

There is also a distinction between two flow measurements that are easily confused. On-chain exchange inflows track tokens arriving at exchange-controlled wallets. Spot-market net flows, depending on a provider's methodology, may describe a separate dollar-denominated or volume-based measure. Neither metric can automatically be substituted for the other.

The reported addition of 335.76 million XRP therefore deserves attention primarily because it coincides with price weakness and diminished ETF subscriptions. The combination is more informative than the reserve figure in isolation.

XRP ETF Demand Has Lost Momentum

Exchange-traded funds gave XRP another channel through which brokerage-account investors could gain exposure without directly managing token wallets. When such funds receive net subscriptions, their creation process can generate demand for underlying XRP, depending on the fund's operating arrangements. Redemptions can work in the opposite direction.

However, ETF flows require careful interpretation. A fund reporting zero net inflows has not necessarily seen zero trading or zero investor interest. Buyers and sellers may trade existing ETF shares with each other on the secondary market without creating new fund shares. Similarly, a decrease in fund assets can reflect a lower XRP market price rather than net redemptions.

The slowdown is nonetheless material. Bitcoin.com News documented a dramatic decline in reported monthly net subscriptions from September to October, followed by a near-flat first week of November. Secondary SoSoValue-derived tracking then indicated modest net withdrawals later in the month. The trend suggests that fund-related buying is no longer providing the same visible support it did earlier in the fall.

That does not prove all institutional investors are withdrawing from XRP. Direct token custody, over-the-counter transactions, market-making activity and non-U.S. investment vehicles are not fully represented by U.S. ETF creation-and-redemption figures. ETF flows are an important piece of the demand picture, not a census of every sophisticated holder.

Why the $1 Level Matters to Market Structure

Round-number prices matter in financial markets because traders tend to cluster attention, stop orders and limit orders around them. For XRP, $1 is also an easily understood reference following its decline through the $1.20 and $1.10 regions earlier in November.

A test of $1 can develop in more than one way. Buyers may absorb sell orders, producing a rebound. Price may temporarily break below the level, trigger stop orders and quickly reclaim it. Or a sustained break may encourage further selling if market participants interpret the lost level as evidence that demand has weakened.

The distinction between a brief intraday excursion and sustained trading below $1 is critical. CoinGlass data showed a November 13 low near $0.9975 during the observed session. That alone is not confirmation of a durable breakdown. Subsequent closes, traded volume and the ability or inability to reclaim the level provide stronger information than a single tick.

One broader observation also matters: XRP is not trading in isolation. CoinMarketCap's November 13 market commentary identified general cryptocurrency market weakness as an important part of the day's decline and did not establish a unique XRP-specific catalyst as the primary driver. A move below $1 during a broad risk-off session carries a different interpretation from an isolated XRP selloff while Bitcoin and the rest of the market remain stable.

The Algorithmic Trigger Question: When Selling Can Become Self-Reinforcing

For readers watching machine-driven markets, the practical question is not whether a secret algorithm has selected $1. It is whether visible conditions could create a feedback loop among automated strategies, liquidations and discretionary traders.

Many trading systems incorporate common signals: moving-average breaks, momentum changes, volume acceleration, volatility expansion, order-book imbalance and derivatives funding. When several signals shift together, different strategies can act in similar directions even without coordinating.

A possible downside sequence would look like this:

1. XRP trades repeatedly below $1 as spot sell orders consume nearby bids.
2. Bid liquidity thins and the spread widens, allowing smaller orders to move price farther.
3. Stop orders or leveraged-position liquidations add market selling.
4. Short-term momentum and trend-following strategies respond to the price break, potentially reinforcing the move.
5. The market either finds new buyers and stabilizes or continues lower until sufficient bids return.

This is a conditional market-mechanics scenario, not evidence that such a chain has already occurred. Testing it would require synchronized exchange-level order-book, futures open-interest, liquidation and spot-trade data. The reserve and ETF figures alone cannot establish that bots have been triggered or that a cascade is underway.

A bullish reversal could involve the opposite pattern: XRP briefly trades under $1, sell pressure fails to extend, price recovers the threshold, and short positions close into returning spot bids. The same concentration of attention around a widely watched level can amplify movement in either direction.

Three Scenarios for XRP's Next Move

Scenario 1: $1 Holds After a Liquidity Sweep

XRP could dip below $1 without attracting sustained follow-through selling. In this scenario, buyers would need to reclaim the threshold and demonstrate continuing demand rather than relying solely on a temporary absence of sellers. Falling exchange reserves, improved spot buy-side participation and stabilization in ETF net flows would strengthen the interpretation. A rebound toward recently traded areas around $1.05 to $1.10 would be a monitoring zone, not a promised target.

Scenario 2: A Sustained Break Opens Lower Price Discovery

A more bearish scenario would involve repeated failure to recover $1, accompanied by rising spot selling and widening downside participation. Traders may then monitor the nearby $0.98-$0.99 area, including recent reported intraday lows, for signs of demand. A break through one reference level does not mechanically imply a plunge to a distant target such as $0.65. That outcome would require additional deterioration and cannot be inferred reliably from the available reserve and ETF figures.

Scenario 3: Price Stabilizes but Demand Remains Weak

A third possibility is a prolonged sideways range. Exchange inventory may remain elevated while holders refrain from aggressive selling. ETFs could continue to show little net creation activity, leaving the asset without a strong marginal buying catalyst. A range-bound market would challenge both immediate-crash narratives and expectations of a rapid recovery.

The TCM Market Intelligence Watchlist

The next meaningful signals are not predictions about a specific price. They are measurements that could distinguish accumulation, orderly selling and forced deleveraging.

Indicator	Potential warning	Potential stabilization signal
Exchange reserves	Continuing increases alongside weakness	Sustained withdrawals with improving price action
Spot order flow	Sellers repeatedly crossing the bid	Buyers absorbing offers without lower lows
ETF net flows	Repeated net redemptions	Return of consistent net creations
Futures open interest	Rising leverage as price falls	Disorderly leverage unwinds subsiding
Liquidations	Clusters of forced long closures	Fewer forced exits following a test
Order-book depth	Thinning bids near $1	Replenishing bids and narrower spreads
Relative strength	XRP underperforming a stable broader market	XRP stabilizing as market-wide pressure eases

No single metric should determine the conclusion. For example, falling open interest during a decline may mean leveraged positions are being closed rather than new shorts being established. Rising reserves while price is stable might indicate available inventory is being absorbed. The relationship between indicators matters more than their individual direction.

Risks, Limits and Open Questions

Several questions remain unresolved as of the November 13 research snapshot. The precise 335.76 million XRP reserve change has not been independently reconstructed from historical wallet-level data. ETF trackers show slight timing and availability differences, which complicate exact cumulative-flow comparisons. There is no verified attribution connecting particular reserve deposits to executed sales or connecting those deposits directly to ETF redemption activity.

It is also impossible to measure how much of XRP's latest decline is uniquely attributable to token-specific conditions rather than broader crypto risk aversion without a more formal comparative analysis.

These gaps do not make the warning irrelevant. They define what the market can and cannot currently know.

What Comes Next

The next U.S. trading sessions will help clarify whether XRP funds continue experiencing redemptions or begin recording net subscriptions again. At the same time, continued monitoring of exchange balances, spot execution and derivatives positioning can reveal whether the reported supply increase is actually meeting weak demand.

For the price itself, the first test is whether XRP can reclaim and hold the $1 area after its brief intraday breach. If it cannot, the behavior of bids just beneath the threshold becomes increasingly important. If it can, market participants should still look for corroboration from improving flows and volume before treating one rebound as evidence of a lasting trend change.

The Bottom Line

XRP's latest warning is best understood as a potential mismatch between accessible supply and marginal demand. A reported increase in exchange holdings may expand the amount of XRP available to trade at the same time U.S. ETF subscriptions have faded. That combination is a legitimate market-structure concern, especially near a heavily watched price level.

It is not proof of a coordinated selloff, an inevitable crash or an algorithmic trigger already firing. For independent traders, the advantage lies in separating setup conditions from confirmation: watch whether selling actually accelerates, whether buyers absorb it, and whether price behavior is corroborated by order flow, ETF data and derivatives positioning.

This article is original market analysis for educational purposes and is not individualized investment advice. Data reflects the cited providers' reporting available during the November 13, 2026 research review and may change.