On February 10, 2026, Beijing time, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of Thailand announced the inclusion of digital assets in the category of underlying assets under the Futures Contract Act; immediately following this, on February 11, the Ethereum and Bitcoin spot ETFs in the US market recorded a rare massive net outflow in a single day this year. While Asian regulators are opening up compliance channels for crypto derivatives and tokenized assets, traditional Western funds are continuously reducing their positions through ETFs, creating a stark contrast. This discrepancy between "regulatory acceleration" and "capital withdrawal" raises a key question: why are funds choosing to quietly exit on one end when some regulatory jurisdictions start to more friendly and systematically accept crypto assets?
Thailand Liberates Crypto Derivatives: Regulatory Path Gradually Taking Shape
● The core change is that the Thai SEC announced the formal inclusion of digital assets into the category of underlying assets in the Futures Contract Act, placing them under the same regulatory framework as traditional commodities and foreign exchange. This means that contract products designed around digital assets, such as forwards and swaps, will for the first time receive clear legal positioning and regulatory paths, providing a compliance basis for local institutions and licensed platforms to engage in crypto derivatives business rather than remaining in a gray area or relying on regulatory exemptions.
● According to public statements, the secretary-general of the Thai SEC, Pornanong Budsaratragoon, emphasized that the policy objective is "inclusive growth and risk management", rather than merely allowing speculation or suppressing trading. This statement reinforces the official positioning of digital assets: the aim is to incorporate them into a unified legal framework to make risks visible and manageable, while also providing institutional tools and protection for innovative financial products and a broader range of investors, rather than rejecting this asset class in a one-size-fits-all manner.
● The action of writing digital assets into the Futures Contract Act aligns closely with Thailand's previously proposed three-year plan—which has already listed crypto ETFs and tokenization as one of the important goals. The policy path shows a "top-down" continuity: first clarifying the underlying assets at the legal level, then reserving space for ETFs and various tokenization products, ultimately building a complete regulatory closed loop from spot, derivatives to asset securitization, rather than isolated pilot projects.
● Policy documents and various social media messages mentioned that this adjustment may also involve physical delivery assets like carbon credits being included in the potential scope of the Futures Contract Act. However, this part remains details to be verified in public information, especially since no clear technical description for the specific classification standards for carbon credits and other physical assets has been given. Based on existing information, it is not possible to reasonably infer its subcategories and execution methods, and it can only be considered a directional signal, without excessive technical breakdown.
RWA and Carbon Assets: Thailand Opens Up Compliance Derivatives Entry
● Within the unified framework of the Futures Contract Act, digital assets and physical delivery assets are listed as basic categories, providing a potential channel for tokenized physical assets and RWA (Real World Assets) to enter the compliant derivatives market. In the future, whether it’s physical goods mapped by tokens or structured tokens based on the returns of real assets, there will be opportunities to design forwards or swaps under this framework, bridging the gap between "on-chain rights" and "off-exchange legal relationships" with institutional tools.
● For local and cross-border institutions, the new regulations open up a new imaginative space for arranging carbon credits, commodities, and other physical-related derivatives in a compliant environment: on one hand, local financial institutions can issue or trade forward contracts linked to carbon credits through licensed platforms, attracting funds focused on ESG and emission reduction goals; on the other hand, cross-border institutions may leverage Thailand's regulatory positioning as a hub for structuring multi-asset structured products or regional hedging, thus participating in relevant markets without touching the gray areas.
● Comparing Thailand's path with Hong Kong and Japan, we can see the synergy and competition within the Asian regulatory block on tokenization and crypto ETFs. Hong Kong is promoting various crypto-related ETFs and tokenized structured products, combining it with a trading and custody regulatory license system; Japan is gradually clarifying the accounting and compliance treatment logic of crypto assets and stable tokens within a legal framework. At this moment, Thailand is opening the derivatives entry through the Futures Contract Act, effectively joining this regional competition and laying the groundwork for attracting regional funds and project parties in the future.
● However, it is necessary to emphasize that the specific details and timetable of Thailand's policies have not yet been publicly laid out, regardless of carbon credit-related derivatives or more broadly categorized RWA structured products, their feasible arbitrage space still primarily remains at the "expected pricing" rather than "immediate execution" strategic level. For funds attempting to seek profits amidst regulatory and information discrepancies, the truly actionable window depends on subsequent details, license issuance, and infrastructure construction progress, all of which are currently incomplete.
US Market ETH and BTC ETF Funds Turn Back: Signal of Position Reduction Amplified
● Almost simultaneously with Thailand releasing regulatory benefits on February 10, single-source data on February 11, Beijing time, indicated that the US Ethereum spot ETF recorded a single-day net outflow of $129 million, while the Bitcoin spot ETF experienced a total net outflow of $276 million on the same day. This large-scale withdrawal occurring in a short time, combined with changes in the global regulatory environment, has amplified the signal of "money voting with feet," making it an important slice to observe changes in the risk appetite of Western funds.
● Among Ethereum products, single-source data shows that Fidelity FETH has a historical total net inflow of $2.515 billion since its listing, which is a strong endorsement of the on-chain and institutional narrative. However, against this backdrop of long-term capital accumulation, a single-day outflow of $129 million stands in stark contrast: on one hand, it indicates that institutions and qualified investors indeed made large-scale medium- to long-term layouts; on the other hand, when macro and regulatory uncertainties rise, this portion of funds may choose to rapidly reduce their positions through ETFs, a highly liquid vehicle, rather than passively holding.
● Within the Bitcoin ETF, single-source data shows that Fidelity FBTC had a single-day net outflow of $92.59 million on February 11, ranking among the highest outflows that day among Bitcoin spot ETF products. As a star product issued by traditional financial institutions, this action is interpreted as a sign of reduced risk appetite among traditional funds: whether due to concerns over macro interest rate trends, expectations of tightening regulation, or worries regarding the volatility of crypto assets themselves, institutional investors are choosing to exit some positions on the most liquid vehicles first.
● It is important to particularly caution that what can currently be observed is merely the correlation between capital outflows and price fluctuations, and it is impossible to establish a robust causal chain based on existing data. A single-day net outflow may coincide with macro data releases, portfolio rebalancing, or even adjustments in the strategies of individual large holders. To directly view policy changes or specific news events as "decisive causes" not only exaggerates the intrinsic influence of information but also misleads the understanding of long-term capital allocation logic.
Whales with High Leverage Taking Long Positions: Derivatives Market Provides Opposite Answers
● In contrast to the large funds leaving through ETF channels, the on-chain and synthetic derivatives markets have shown entirely different signals. Reports indicate that a whale has rebuilt a long ETH position of approximately $18.5 million at 25x leverage on Hyperliquid. Such a high-leverage directional bet indicates an extremely aggressive viewpoint on the short- to medium-term price trend of Ethereum, with the willingness to bear amplified liquidation risks amidst volatility to seek higher book profits.
● When we observe the net outflow on the ETF side alongside the high-leverage long positions in the derivatives side within the same time frame, we can see a significant divergence between traditional institutional capital and high-risk traders: the former tends to compress positions and reduce volatility exposure through compliant ETF channels, while the latter enlarges volatility returns using high leverage in derivatives. This structural divergence reflects deep differences in asset pricing logic and risk tolerance, rather than a simple "bullish" or "bearish" outlook on crypto assets.
● If we further incorporate the context of regulatory easing in Asia, a more complex scenario can be envisioned: off-exchange institutional funds may gradually transfer liquidity to more regulatory-friendly Asian markets, while on-exchange high-frequency and high-leverage funds navigate through global derivatives platforms, utilizing differences in regulatory rhythms and capital flows for cross-market pricing. The introduction of new rules in places like Thailand provides a regulatory "anchor" for such dislocation, allowing for greater reallocation of liquidity.
● However, it is also necessary to remind readers that the sample size of single whale behavior is extremely limited, and behind it may be multi-dimensional strategies such as hedging, arbitrage, and cross-platform arbitrage, which do not necessarily represent widespread consensus or a long-term trend across the market. Exaggerating individual high-leverage positions as "institutional bullish" or "bottom confirmation" not only violates statistical significance but also weakens the risk control awareness in investment decisions, with their value being more about reflecting a certain moment's sentiment and risk appetite slice.
Asian Liquidity Puzzle: From Thailand to Hong Kong
● Almost simultaneously with the adjustment of Thailand's Futures Contract Act, OSL HK has launched the XAUT lightning trading function in the Hong Kong market, providing a high-efficiency on-exchange liquidity entry for the gold-backed token. By juxtaposing this time point with Thailand's new policy, a forming trend can be observed: major Asian financial centers are attempting to build a closer liquidity loop between traditional safe-haven assets like gold and crypto assets, enabling funds to switch and hedge more smoothly between different asset forms.
● When gold-related tokens are combined with compliant derivatives, funds seeking hedging and cross-asset allocation will gain a new path: in Hong Kong, positions can be quickly built or adjusted through tokenized gold like XAUT; in Thailand, as physical and digital asset derivatives gradually open under the Futures Contract Act, there is potential to build a multi-dimensional derivatives composition covering gold, carbon credits, commodities, and crypto assets. For professional funds, this means the ability to implement more complex risk management and yield enhancement strategies within the same time zone and similar regulatory culture.
● From a regional perspective, Asia shows an overall upward trajectory in regulatory and infrastructure friendliness, while Europe and the US exhibit tightening on multiple levels and accelerating patterns of fund withdrawals. This "east rises, west falls" discrepancy is causing global liquidity to reassess capital anchoring locations: whether to remain in traditional centers with gradually tightening regulations but still the deepest market depth, or to shift towards emerging hubs with more proactive policies and greater innovative space, is a question that institutions and high-net-worth funds are weighing.
● This discrepancy provides fertile ground for cross-market and cross-species strategies: whether utilizing pricing differences between ETFs and Asian on-exchange derivatives, or building multi-leg combinations between gold tokens, RWA tokens, and mainstream crypto assets, the theoretical strategic space is expanding. However, in practice, executing these strategies still faces significant hurdles, including compliance licenses, capital controls, tax handling, and cross-border settlement issues; any seemingly "risk-free arbitrage" opportunity must be realized after detailed cost assessments and compliance evaluations.
Regulatory East Rising, West Falling: When Will Funds Turn Back?
As markets represented by Thailand accelerate the release of crypto derivatives and tokenized assets, the US Ethereum and Bitcoin spot ETFs recorded hundreds of millions of dollars in single-day net outflow on February 11, forming a clear "dual narrative" picture: the regulatory cycle and capital cycle are not synchronized. One side is refining the legal foundation and releasing institutional dividends, while the other is reducing exposure through the most liquid compliant tools, and this rhythm's misalignment itself is the core background of the current structural reshaping of crypto finance.
In the short term, traditional institutional funds are likely to continue reducing or adjusting their positions through the ETF channels, remaining highly sensitive to macro and regulatory uncertainties; meanwhile, funds with a high-risk appetite and participants more familiar with Asian markets will attempt to explore new opportunities in places like Thailand, Hong Kong, and Japan using derivatives and RWA channels, seeking excess returns between regulatory friendliness and product innovation. The divergence of these two types of capital across geographical and risk dimensions may become a norm in the near future.
Looking ahead, key nodes worth watching include: the implementation details and licensing framework around Thailand's Futures Contract Act; the launch rhythm and interconnectivity level of crypto ETFs and tokenized products in major Asian markets; and whether the currently exiting or reducing ETF funds will flow back in, viewing Asia as a new hub for risk asset allocation once these regulatory frameworks gradually mature. These variables will collectively determine whether "the east rises in regulation" will ultimately guide "capital backflow."
For investors, it is more important to maintain a cautious attitude toward single-day inflow and outflow data and unverified regulatory details. Whether it’s the ETF net outflow on February 11 or an individual whale's heavy bet on a derivatives platform, these can only be regarded as localized signals rather than definitive trends. What truly deserves attention are the medium- to long-term evolution of regulatory paths, directions of liquidity migration, and which markets and assets will be reshaped into new price discovery and risk management centers throughout this process.
Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Reward Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Reward 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。
