At 2 AM on February 14 in the eighth time zone, data showed that during the trading session of US stocks on February 13, the overall funding direction for US spot Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs shifted from a previous net outflow to a moderate net inflow. Among them, the Bitcoin spot ETF recorded a net inflow of about 15.1 million dollars, while the Ethereum spot ETF recorded a net inflow of about 10.2 million dollars, whereas on the previous day (February 12), the two types of products still experienced massive net outflows of about 411 million dollars and 113 million dollars, respectively. This change from a large-scale redemption in a single day to small-scale replenishment provides a new observation window for whether funds have stabilized. However, in terms of scale and rhythm, this round of inflow appears more like a short-term capital rebound following large-scale redemptions; whether it indicates a true trend reversal remains to be further analyzed from the perspectives of volume ratio, historical net inflows, and differentiation among issuers.
From 400 million net outflow to slight replenishment
● Comparative volume shows that although the funding direction for Bitcoin ETFs has "turned around," the intensity is limited. On February 12, the Bitcoin spot ETF had a net outflow of about 411 million dollars, corresponding to a large-scale redemption; while the net inflow on February 13 was only about 15.1 million dollars, a difference of nearly 27 times in volume before and after. This means that the current funds have only replenished a very small part of what flowed out the previous day, which is still insufficient to change the pressure accumulation formed the day before.
● The rhythm of the Ethereum ETF also shows characteristics of "rapid outflow and slow return." On February 12, the Ethereum spot ETF recorded a net outflow of about 113 million dollars, while on February 13 it turned to a net inflow of about 10.2 million dollars, with the inflow size being less than one-tenth of the redemption amount from the previous day. In terms of amplitude changes, the funding direction has switched from unilateral outflow to marginal inflow, but overall, it is still in the recovery stage after the shock, rather than a strong offensive phase.
● Judging comprehensively from the two dimensions of "direction turnaround" and "scale grade," the current fund return is closer to a technical correction after large redemptions rather than a clear signal of a trend reversal. Only two days have passed experiencing "first large outflow, then small inflow," which is still insufficient to support a conclusion about a complete reversal of the mid-term trend; it remains to be seen whether funds can maintain positive inflows over more trading days and gradually expand in scale.
Relative scale of Bitcoin and Ethereum ETF fund return
● Placing the daily inflow within the total scale framework, Bitcoin ETF's current marginal change appears more restrained. Research reports indicate that the overall scale of the Bitcoin spot ETF is about 87 billion dollars, accounting for about 6.33% of the total BTC market capitalization. Based on this volume base, the net inflow of about 15.1 million dollars on February 13 corresponds to an extremely small proportion of the overall scale, indicating that the daily capital changes have limited impact on the overall holding structure, leaning more towards a slight fill of the redemption gap from the previous day.
● In contrast, the daily net inflow of the Ethereum ETF occupies a higher proportion within its own scale. Currently, the total scale of the Ethereum spot ETF is about 11.7 billion dollars, accounting for about 4.75% of the ETH market capitalization, and the relative weight of the net inflow of about 10.2 million dollars on February 13 is slightly higher than that of the Bitcoin ETF's inflow that day as a proportion of its total scale. Under the context of a smaller base and ongoing historical expansion, the Ethereum ETF is relatively more sensitive to marginal changes in daily funds.
● From the perspectives of "proportion to underlying asset market capitalization" and "relative to their respective historical inflows," we can see the differences in funding sensitivity between BTC and ETH ETFs: the Bitcoin ETF operates at a higher volume and deeper liquidity level, and changes at the tens of millions level are more reflected in short-term volatility management; the Ethereum ETF is still in the phase of increasing volume and penetration rate, so similar-sized inflows or outflows have a more direct impact on the slope of the cumulative net inflow curve. Interpretation of funding signals for both should not be treated as equivalent.
● There are also voices in the market indicating "internal funds showing differentiation among different issuers," suggesting there may be rotation funds between BTC and ETH: part of the funds are not merely flowing in and out of the entire ETF system, but rather shifting between different assets and products. Although current data is insufficient to quantify the specific structural scale of this rotation, we can consider that within the ETF ecosystem, there is ongoing refinement of position reallocation.
Significance of the historical net inflow of 11.6 billion dollars as a support
● The historical cumulative net inflow of the Ethereum spot ETF has reached approximately 11.6 billion dollars, almost equivalent to the current total scale of about 11.7 billion dollars. This set of data corresponds to the fact that since the product's launch, net new funds have basically composed the bulk of the current stock scale. Even with recent single-day net outflows exceeding a hundred million dollars, the overall bullish structure remains solidly supported by this historically high net inflow curve.
● In light of such a substantial historical net inflow, the current daily fund movements resemble "micro-adjustments" atop existing long positions. Whether it was the net outflow of about 113 million dollars on February 12 or the net inflow of about 10.2 million dollars on February 13, their absolute values represent only a very small part of the historically accumulated net inflow, indicating that structural long positions are still predominant, and short-term fund fluctuations have yet to shake the overall configuration of mid-term fund allocations.
● From the perspective of shock absorption mechanisms, the thicker the historical net inflow, the easier it becomes for the switch from net outflow to net inflow to dilute its marginal impact on price and structure. For the Ethereum ETF, this approximately 11.6 billion dollars in historical net inflow provides a significant "buffer," weakening the decisive influence of single-day positive and negative values on subsequent trends, making trend judgments more reliant on funding trajectories over the middle to long term rather than on fluctuations from a single trading day.
● Therefore, future observations should shift from "is the single day positive or negative" to "has the cumulative net inflow curve slowed down or turned around": only when the cumulative curve is clearly leveling off or even continuing to decline does it indicate that mid-term funds have started to exit systematically; while if the cumulative net inflow still maintains a gentle upward trend, even with several days of net outflows interspersed, the damage to the overall bullish structure remains relatively limited.
Funding differentiation among issuers reflects internal games
● Around the market commentary on "internal funds showing significant differentiation among different issuers," the more reasonable interpretation is: the funds at the ETF level are not just simply "coming in or going out," but rather being maneuvered and rebalanced among multiple issuers and products. Some investors may adjust their product holdings while maintaining overall exposure to crypto assets, aligning with their preferences for cost, liquidity, and brand. This internal migration of funds is often obscured by aggregate data but has a significant impact on the scale and influence of individual products.
● The public dimensions influencing the performance differentiation of different issuer ETFs include: details on compliance and custody architecture, fee structures, the depth of liquidity in secondary market trading, and the quality of spreads and order depth provided by market makers for products. Fee factors will directly impact holding costs over the medium to long term, while liquidity and market-making quality determine whether institutional and large funds can enter and exit with minimal shock costs, thus significantly affecting which products funds choose to carry exposure.
● In the absence of precise funding data and authoritative segmented statistics for individual ETFs, we can only make directional judgments, confirming "the existence of funding differentiation and migration between issuers," but we cannot or should not provide specific product funding flow numbers and detailed rankings. Research reports also make it clear that the funding flow data for some products remain to be validated, further limiting the analytical space for quantifying individual products, and it is crucial to avoid making excessive inferences based on incomplete data.
● For participants wanting a more precise grasp of internal funding migration paths, future key tracking should focus on publicly available position reports, periodic disclosures by issuers, and data on ETF scale and position changes released by regulatory agencies. As these higher-frequency and more granular official or semi-official information gradually become public, it can help validate and correct observations of current "internal rebalancing," thereby reliably restoring true funding flows between different issuers and assets.
Implications of funding turnaround for the linkage between spot and derivatives
● Starting from the basic role of ETFs as a channel for spot allocation, the shift from net outflow to net inflow on February 13 indicates an improvement in marginal passive buying through the ETF channel for the spot. The large redemption on February 12 created certain selling pressure or buying withdrawal effects on the spot market; while the return of net inflows corresponds to the recovery of some buying and the entry of new funds, helping to partially hedge and restore the pressure from the previous day.
● Without making subjective assumptions about market sentiment, we can deduce the objective impact pathways of ETF funding direction on price volatility and the price differences between spot and other instruments mechanism-wise: continued net outflows often exacerbate selling or reducing actions on the spot side, increasing the volatility within the price downtrend; whereas net inflows increase buying support, thereby temporarily compressing the range of short-term price volatility, and may indirectly alter the convergence or divergence pace of related price difference structures by influencing the supply and demand balance between spot and other trading tools.
● It is important to emphasize that the absolute scale of this round of funding return is still significantly lower than the substantial redemption from the previous day. For Bitcoin, the net outflow of 411 million dollars corresponds to the intensity of capital withdrawal that cannot be completely offset by the net inflow of 15.1 million dollars; similarly, Ethereum also has an evident gap between 113 million dollars and 10.2 million dollars. Therefore, from the perspective of spot pricing, this return is more about "relieving pressure" and "weakening selling pressure," rather than a strong driver to significantly push prices upward.
● Looking ahead, if ETF funding can maintain a net inflow status over multiple trading days, and the inflow scale gradually expands, while also enhancing the proportion of total scale to BTC and ETH market capitalization, then the medium to long-term allocation of capital entering through the ETF channel could provide stronger support for the mid-term trend of spot prices. A single day of moderate net inflow is merely an early signal; whether it can evolve into a more solid trend foundation depends on the consistency and strength of the funding direction over the forthcoming period.
Short-term return does not alter the mid-term validation period pattern
The current rhythm transition from a massive net outflow in a single day to a moderate net inflow feels more akin to a technical repair occurring after significant redemptions rather than a confirmed trend reversal. A notable difference in scale exists between the hundreds of millions worth of redemptions on February 12 and the tens of millions worth of replenishment on February 13, insufficient in a short time to reshape the previously formed mid-term funding structure comprised of continuous inflows and localized outflows. The differences in the Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs in terms of total scale as a proportion of underlying asset market capitalization and historical accumulated net inflow thickness also determine their differing sensitivities to subsequent changes in funding direction: Bitcoin tends to exhibit "steady micro-adjustments" post-large volume buffering, while Ethereum is more prone to reflect changes in the historical curve slope within single-day data.
On the operational side, a more executable tracking framework is: first, continuously observe the number of consecutive net inflow or net outflow days to judge whether the funding direction possesses trend characteristics; second, focus on the dynamic changes in the proportion of ETF total scale to BTC and ETH market capitalizations as a mid-term indicator measuring traditional funding participation depth; simultaneously, pay attention to the pacing of funding rebalancing among issuers, validating internal funding migration direction and intensity through public holdings and regulatory disclosures. In the current environment lacking finer-grained driving information, excessively elevating interpretation of single trading day data poses significant risks; a more prudent approach is to observe whether funding direction forms consistency over a longer time window, combined with changes in volume and structure, to assess the actual impact of ETF funding on mid-term trends of crypto assets.
Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin’s Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
