On January 16, 2026, Eastern Standard Time, the cryptocurrency derivatives market will welcome its first key expiration date of the new year, with a large-scale expiration of BTC and ETH options contracts, totaling a nominal value of approximately $2.73 billion. This has prompted the market to reassess the dynamics of bullish and bearish forces. According to public data, about 20,000 BTC options (with a nominal value of approximately $2.3 billion) and 120,000 ETH options (with a nominal value of approximately $430 million) will simultaneously reach the end of their lifecycle. The corresponding maximum pain price for BTC is approximately $92,000, and the maximum pain price for ETH is approximately $3,200, providing an important reference for observing the concentration of capital exposure and potential hedging pressure. Rather than simply understanding this expiration as the spot price being "forced towards" the pain points, it is more important to see that it may influence implied volatility and sentiment expectations, potentially changing market risk preferences and trading structures in a short time. All analyses in this article are based on currently verifiable public data, without extrapolating or quantifying assumptions on missing information.
BTC Options Exposure and the $92,000 Game
● Capital Exposure: Currently, about 20,000 BTC options are set to expire on January 16, with a nominal value of approximately $2.3 billion, making it the largest portion of this expiration cycle. Combined with the public data indicating a maximum pain price of $92,000, it is evident that a large number of BTC options positions have formed a dense breakeven area around this level, making the $92,000 line a core anchor point for observing the concentration of long and short costs and risks in this expiration event.
● Bearish Dominance: The Put/Call Ratio for BTC options is approximately 1.39, indicating that the number or nominal scale of put options is significantly higher than that of call contracts. Compared to the current market sentiment, which remains optimistic about the medium to long-term narrative, this structure reflects a stronger presence of hedging or speculative bearish bets at the options level, with some capital possibly increasing put positions to cope with a high volatility environment and potential retracement risks.
● Focus on Positioning: Under the dual signals of maximum pain price and Put/Call Ratio, the market may easily fall into a simplified narrative that the spot price "must converge towards $92,000." However, the existing data is insufficient to support such a definitive conclusion. A more reasonable focus should be on position distribution and market-making hedging demand: as expiration approaches, how institutions and market makers holding large options positions adjust their futures, spot, and other derivatives positions will have a far greater impact on short-term volatility and market liquidity than merely discussing whether the price is close to the pain point.
ETH's 120,000 Options and the $3,200 Focus
● Scale and Price Focus: Compared to BTC, the expiration scale for ETH is significantly smaller—approximately 120,000 ETH options are set to expire on January 16, corresponding to a nominal value of approximately $430 million. Public data points to a maximum pain price of approximately $3,200 for this round of ETH options, which roughly outlines the "cost focus area" for ETH during this expiration cycle, with a large number of long and short options positions interwoven around this level, forming a key reference for observing capital breakeven.
● More Balanced Long and Short: The Put/Call Ratio for ETH options is approximately 1.04, contrasting sharply with BTC's 1.39, indicating a relatively balanced long and short force for ETH in this expiration cycle, slightly leaning towards bearish but without a significant one-sided risk hedging demand. This structural difference suggests that capital is more inclined to use puts for systematic downside protection or directional bets on BTC, while exhibiting a more neutral position management and expectation distribution on ETH.
● Potential Impact on the Market: In nominal scale, the expiration volume of ETH at approximately $430 million is much milder compared to BTC's $2.3 billion. In the absence of key data such as overall open interest and relative positions in the spot market, it is more challenging to view it as a single driving factor to explain the next market direction. This also means that the expiration date for ETH may require a joint assessment with other contract cycles, position structures, and macro sentiment to evaluate its marginal impact on overall market volatility, rather than amplifying it as an independent dominant variable.
The Real Weight of the $2.73 Billion Expiration Volume
The total nominal value of the expiration of BTC and ETH options is approximately $2.73 billion, which is significant enough to attract attention, but its actual weight must be measured within a larger framework. First, this figure only represents the nominal face value of some expired contracts, not the total scale of all open options, and cannot replace a systematic statistic of the overall open interest structure. Currently, there is a lack of authoritative data showing the specific proportion of this expiration contract relative to the total positions, so any claims of "relatively small scale" or "limited impact" should be regarded as market views pending verification, rather than conclusions already proven by facts.
At the same time, nominal value does not equate to the Delta exposure that needs to be managed. Even if the nominal scale at expiration is the same, if most contracts are deeply in-the-money or out-of-the-money, the hedging demand, exercise willingness, and early closing ratios of participants will change significantly, leading to entirely different impact paths on the spot and futures markets. In a high volatility environment with more aggressive leverage use, a similar volume may amplify into more severe price fluctuations; whereas in a period of ample liquidity, dispersed positions, and moderate risk appetite, the same nominal amount may be relatively smoothly absorbed by the market, making it difficult to drive a trend reversal on its own. Therefore, understanding the figure of $2.73 billion is more crucially about analyzing its position and structure within the entire derivatives ecosystem, rather than merely staying at the surface impression of absolute amounts.
Volatility Moves First During Expiration Week
This large-scale expiration is not an isolated event; historically, weeks with concentrated options expirations often accompany leading fluctuations in implied volatility. During this process, market participants will dynamically adjust their hedging and quoting strategies based on changes in price paths and remaining time value. In discussing related phenomena, this article deliberately does not provide any specific IV values or percentage changes to avoid quantitatively describing volatility in the absence of complete data support.
From the perspective of market makers and large funds, approaching expiration means that a large amount of Gamma and Theta will rapidly decay, and positions originally based on options Delta hedging will require more frequent rebalancing. Such rebalancing behaviors often manifest as large buy or sell orders in the spot and futures markets, compounded by the contraction effect of order book depth in extreme market conditions, which can easily amplify price fluctuations and market jumps in a short time. For the market, the first impact of the options expiration week is a repricing of volatility structure, which may then evolve into an amplifier for directional trends.
Thus, it is essential to clearly distinguish between changes in implied volatility and trend direction choices: expiration week is more likely to bring about "intense but bidirectional" volatility enhancement, rather than necessarily corresponding to a one-sided rise or fall. The market may experience wide fluctuations, high-frequency sweeps, and temporary imbalances in liquidity in a short time, but these phenomena alone do not constitute irrefutable evidence of trend reversals or continuations; the true direction often requires a comprehensive judgment combining macro narratives, capital inflows and outflows, and subsequent new position structures.
Data Discrepancies and the MSTR Case
Regarding the scale of this BTC options expiration, there is a discrepancy of approximately 20,000 to 25,000 contracts among different data sources in the market. Some industry views attribute this inconsistency to technical reasons such as different statistical time points and sample update frequencies, but this explanation should also be regarded as information pending verification, rather than a universally accepted conclusion. This phenomenon reminds traders to be cautious of the underlying statistical discrepancies when using options-related data: for example, whether the expiration date covers rolling contracts from adjacent weeks/months, whether it only counts products from specific exchanges or clearinghouses, whether it distinguishes and filters American and European contracts, and whether it excludes positions that have been closed early or exercised.
In a broader asset pricing context, the case of MicroStrategy's market capitalization once surpassing that of Ford Motor Company provides a noteworthy reference—showing a valuation reversal between traditional automotive giants and crypto-related publicly traded companies, reflecting the higher growth premium and risk appetite assigned to crypto assets in the global capital market. However, this case primarily illustrates the evolution of market capitalization of crypto-related assets compared to traditional stocks from a macro perspective and does not imply a direct, linear causal relationship with the impact of this options expiration. Forcing a connection between the two may obscure an objective judgment of the mechanisms and market structures of this expiration event itself.
Returning from Pain Points to Sentiment and Structure
By synthesizing the options data for BTC and ETH, we can see clear differences in the maximum pain prices and Put/Call Ratios: BTC's pain point around $92,000 combined with a Put/Call Ratio of 1.39 indicates a position structure more inclined towards downside protection or bearish bets; while ETH, near the $3,200 pain point, has a Put/Call Ratio of 1.04, showing a relatively balanced long and short force. This structural differentiation suggests that in the coming weeks, BTC and ETH may exhibit asynchronous performances in terms of volatility amplitude, capital preferences, and sensitivity to external news, with BTC more likely to serve as a concentrated pricing vehicle for systemic risks and risk-averse sentiment, while ETH is closer to being driven by individual narratives and technical paths.
However, in the absence of key information such as the proportion of expiration scale to total positions and the degree of deviation of spot prices from pain points, the more prudent positioning for this January 16 expiration event should still be as a potential catalyst for short-term volatility, rather than a definitive signal of trend reversal. For traders, a more actionable approach would be to shift the focus from "whether the price returns to the pain point" to the changes in implied volatility structure, the direction and duration distribution of new positions after expiration, and how leading capital reshapes the combinations of options, futures, and spot in the new cycle.
In practical execution, this means appropriately increasing sensitivity to volatility products, cross-period, and cross-asset strategies before and after expiration, avoiding interpreting a single time point event as an inevitable trend starting or ending point. At the same time, continuously tracking authoritative updated data from leading data services and exchanges, including open interest structure, migration of main contracts, and transaction distribution, is far more beneficial for retaining decision-making flexibility in the complex long and short game than relying on fragmented market views.
Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefits 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。
