A company called Santiment looks at how many of these digital coins called Shiba Inu, Ethereum, and Chainlink are being kept on big websites where people trade them. They found that less coins are there now than before, which usually means people think the prices will go up in the future. This is because when they want to sell, they keep the coins in their own digital wallets. So, it's good news for those who have these coins or want to buy them. Read from source...

1. The article title is misleading and sensationalized. It claims that there is a "long-term bullish signal" despite the recent drop in prices for Shiba Inu, Ethereum, and Chainlink. However, it does not provide any evidence or data to support this claim. The author seems to be trying to manipulate readers into thinking that these coins are still valuable and have potential for growth, even though they are experiencing losses.
2. The article relies heavily on the opinions and findings of Santiment, an on-chain analytics firm. However, it does not provide any critical analysis or evaluation of their methodology or data sources. It simply cites their conclusions without questioning them or providing alternative perspectives. This is a weak way to support the main argument of the article and shows a lack of journalistic integrity.
3. The article focuses on one metric, which is the reduction in exchange supplies for these coins, as the sole indicator of a long-term bullish signal. However, this metric alone does not prove anything about the future performance or value of these coins. There are many other factors that influence the market and affect the prices of cryptocurrencies, such as regulatory changes, technological innovations, competitors, adoption rates, etc. The author should have discussed some of these additional factors in order to provide a more balanced and comprehensive view of the situation.
4. The article uses vague terms and phrases, such as "typically", "point towards", "spike", "increased", etc., without explaining what they mean or how they are measured. For example, it claims that reduced exchange supplies point towards a long-term bullish signal, but it does not explain why this is the case or how it is calculated. It also says that there was a spike in holdings of long-term investors for these coins, but it does not specify what constitutes a spike or how it was detected. These ambiguities make the article confusing and unconvincing for readers who want to understand the underlying logic and evidence behind the claims made by the author.