On February 11, 2026 (Eastern Time), significant fund withdrawals from both Bitcoin and Ethereum spot ETFs in the US market drew dual attention from traditional finance and the crypto space. According to multiple data sources, the Bitcoin spot ETF saw a net outflow of approximately $276 million on that day, while the Ethereum spot ETF experienced a net outflow of about $129 million. There were slight discrepancies in the figures reported for individual products due to rounding; however, the overall trend of "blood loss" was highly consistent. This round of synchronized net outflows brings to the forefront the conflict between institutions opting to hedge in the face of short-term volatility versus those maintaining long-term allocations and also releases a cautionary signal regarding whether the market is entering a new round of risk repricing.
$276 Million in Bitcoin Withdrawn in One Day
● Statistical Scope: The currently cited total net outflow of $276 million from Bitcoin spot ETFs in the market is derived from multiple aggregated data sources, but there are discrepancies in the breakdown of individual products that are subject to verification. The research brief explicitly indicates that, aside from individual products like Fidelity FBTC and WisdomTree BTCW, the detailed fund flows for other individual funds remain "pending verification." Therefore, the analysis should focus primarily on the overall scale and verified samples, avoiding excessive fine-tuning of each ETF.
● Institutional Withdrawal Structure: Among the confirmed data, Fidelity’s FBTC became the main window for outflows in the Bitcoin sector, with a single-day net outflow of approximately $92.6 million (according to a single source), accounting for a significant portion of the total $276 million outflow. This indicates that traditional asset management giants, previously regarded as "long-term friendly," also opted for clear reductions in their positions on that trading day. The overall direction of other mainstream issuers' products also leaned toward outflows, forming a pattern of "multiple simultaneous withdrawals," which reinforced market perceptions of a collective risk reduction by institutions.
● Price and Flow Relationship: Observing the recent price and trading performance of Bitcoin, in early February, the price entered a phase of high volatility and correction after a strong rally. Trading volume expanded alongside the volatility. The net outflow of funds occurred after the price had already adjusted, resembling more of a "post-risk hedge" against previous gains and volatility rather than a reactive panic sell-off on a single day of significant decline. The timing of the price correction and the fund withdrawals intertwined, making it difficult to simply define a causal relationship. However, it can be confirmed that ETF funds are effectively voting with their feet, reappraising the pricing for high volatility.
Ethereum ETF $129 Million Out...
● Scale and Calibration Discrepancies: Synched with Bitcoin, the total net outflow from Ethereum spot ETFs in the US market on February 11 amounted to approximately $129 million, with this figure also sourced from an aggregate of data. At the specific product level, there are minor discrepancies in data due to rounding, for instance, Fidelity's FETH was reported in different articles as -67.09M and -67.1M, while BlackRock's ETHA had slight variations between -29.49M and -29.4M. These discrepancies do not change the overall conclusion of "significant net outflows," but remind us to allow for statistical error space when interpreting individual products.
● Outflow Structure: Analyzing the structure, the blood loss from Ethereum spot ETFs on that day was primarily contributed by a few major products. Fidelity's FETH saw a net outflow of approximately $67 million, and BlackRock's ETHA had about $29.5 million in outflows, together accounting for nearly the entirety of the overall outflow. Moreover, Grayscale's ETHE and its mini-version together experienced a net outflow of approximately $15.9 million (according to a single source), indicating that the redemption pressure surrounding Grayscale products has not completely dissipated, but continues amidst a new round of market volatility. Overall, the structural withdrawal characteristic in the Ethereum sector is more pronounced: newly established Wall Street flagship products and "old era" Grayscale products have simultaneously become targets for fund outflows.
● ETH Price and Volatility: In relation to the performance of ETH prices during the same period, it can be seen that Ethereum was in a state of "high expectations, high volatility" amidst dual backdrops of technical upgrade expectations and regulatory uncertainties. The magnitude of ETH price pullbacks on that day and recently, along with the rise in implied volatility, correspond to the $129 million net outflow, reinforcing the market’s perception of ETH as a "risk asset with stronger properties." The choice of funds to exit Ethereum spot ETFs at this moment reflects, to some extent, a greater caution among institutions regarding potential regulatory pathways and whether future technological upgrades can support the current market value assumptions, indicating a more sensitive risk aversion compared to Bitcoin.
The Only Dollar-Cost Averaging BTCW
● Minority Inflow: Amidst the overall net outflow of $276 million from Bitcoin spot ETFs, WisdomTree’s BTCW stood out as the only Bitcoin spot ETF to record a net inflow on that day. Relative to its size, BTCW's asset volume is much smaller than that of leading products like FBTC and IBIT, and its daily inflow constitutes a limited proportion of the overall market. Nevertheless, on a day when funds were flowing out en masse, even a small volume net inflow is enough to highlight its minority status, providing a contrary small sample to market sentiment.
● Product and Investor Characteristics: From WisdomTree's positioning and the characteristics of the BTCW product, it can be reasonably inferred that its investor structure leans more towards long-term allocations and strategic funds, rather than large-scale tactical trading accounts. Compared to mega ETFs that pursue liquidity and scale efficiency, BTCW resembles more of a "dollar-cost averaging" tool, often seen as a part of a diversified layout by asset allocators. Even on days when overall fund selection is reducing positions, there are still funds increasing their holdings in BTCW, indicating that some institutions or family offices are employing rule-based or periodic buy strategies, showing less sensitivity to short-term volatility and more focus on long-term risk-reward ratios.
● Contrarian Accumulation Signal: The contrarian inflow into BTCW, while not sufficient to change the overall directional outflow of Bitcoin ETFs, emits a marginally noteworthy signal: not all institutions view this bout of volatility as a "moment to flee," with some funds instead seeing the price adjustment as an opportunity to accumulate at lower levels. Such contrarian behavior may not decisively impact short-term market trends but could ease extreme pessimistic expectations on the emotional front, providing a precursory sample and psychological reference for potential fund inflows in the future.
Regulatory Shadows and Institutional Hedging Instincts
● Banking Sector Stance: At the macro level, the US banking system's attitude towards crypto-related exposures continues to lean towards caution. The American Bankers Association (ABA) recently emphasized in public comments submitted to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) that safety and soundness standards should be "fully understood and implemented," urging regulatory bodies to enhance risk controls when dealing with crypto-related businesses. This statement was not directly aimed at a single product, yet it clearly conveys a conservative posture from core traditional financial institutions towards crypto assets, even suggesting a tightening of their overall stance.
● Amplified Risk Management Effects: Within large institutions, regulatory signals from organizations like the ABA are often incorporated into risk management frameworks and interpreted as forward indicators of "stricter regulatory tendencies." For compliance departments and investment committees, such signals often provide reasonable justifications for reducing positions in high-volatility assets and compressing risk-weighted assets. Consequently, even before policies are concretely enacted, decisions regarding the redemption of ETFs and other secondary market instruments have already begun to reflect a "defensive posture," reducing holdings in Bitcoin and Ethereum spot ETFs to lower overall risk exposure.
● Liquidity Preference: Correspondingly, there's a sustained market narrative where assets with ultra-high liquidity, such as Tether, are viewed as safe havens. Bloomberg analyst Mike McGlone has pointed out that one of the most persistent trends in the crypto market is Tether's continuous "outperformance" over other assets. Although specific value scenarios regarding its relationship with ETH prices remain to be verified, it can be confirmed that during a phase of heightened risk and regulatory uncertainty, traditional institutions prefer to hold assets that are liquid and controllable regarding risk while reducing allocations to high beta assets like Bitcoin and Ethereum, which provides an institutional explanation for the collective reduction in ETF positions observed on February 11.
From US Stocks to Global: The Echo of Regulatory Tightening
● Polarized Regulatory Samples: Around February 11, global regulatory events relating to technology and crypto echoed prominently. On that day, Russia announced the blocking of WhatsApp, affecting around 72 million users, showcasing a tough regulatory stance on social and crypto-related gateways. Conversely, Hong Kong planned to issue the first batch of licenses related to crypto-linked assets in March 2026, attempting to incorporate this domain into regulatory oversight through a licensing path. This "blockage vs. licensing" combination provides a stark contrast to the global regulatory climate.
● Compliance and Geopolitical Risk Pricing: For large multinational institutions, the divergence in technology and crypto policies across different jurisdictions signifies not just an increase in compliance operational challenges, but also means a whole new set of geopolitical and judicial risk factors need to be accounted for in asset pricing. The Russian-style blockage heightens the likelihood of "policy black swans," while Hong Kong's licensing efforts remind the market that regulatory friendliness can be accompanied by more detailed rules and costs. The intersection of these two factors makes institutions more conservative in allocating related assets globally, opting instead to preemptively create buffer space against possible policy fluctuations by reducing ETF holdings.
● Discounting Uncertainty: In such a noisy environment, the outflows exceeding $400 million from both Bitcoin and Ethereum spot ETFs in a single day resemble a concentrated discounting of future uncertainties rather than merely passive selling driven by price fluctuations. Both the trajectory of regulatory discourse within the US and policy actions in places such as Russia and Hong Kong contribute to a collectively "harder to predict, harder to model" external environment, prompting risk-averse institutions to pull back high-volatility exposures in anticipation of institutional and geopolitical risks.
Hedging or Reconfiguration: What Institutions Will Do Next
● Dual Nature of Signals: Returning to the data itself, the simultaneous net outflow of $276 million from Bitcoin and $129 million from Ethereum spot ETFs on the same trading day clearly delineates a scenario where institutional short-term hedging preferences are on the rise; while WisdomTree BTCW's contrarian net inflow reveals that some long-term buyers are still committed to dollar-cost averaging or accumulating at lower prices amid the mainstream withdrawal. The combination of these two aspects forms the "crack" in current institutional behaviors: defense has become the consensus, but belief in long-term value has not completely waned.
● Boundaries of Conclusions: It is crucial to emphasize that we currently lack complete tracking of the specific directions and transmission mechanisms of capital: we cannot rigorously outline the precise transmission path between ETF redemptions and secondary market sell pressure, nor can we confirm whether the outflowing funds have actually gone into fiat currencies or flowed into other crypto assets. In the absence of data on these critical links, simply classifying the net outflow on February 11 as "trending withdrawal" or "periodic reallocation" carries a risk of over-interpretation, more so to be seen as a collective risk contraction by the market during a high uncertainty phase.
● Observation Checklist for Readers: For market participants attempting to assess the nature of this round of volatility, several dimensions deserve ongoing tracking: first, will the subsequent days’ redemption data for Bitcoin and Ethereum spot ETFs in the US continue to reflect net outflows or show notable inflows; second, do regulatory policies regarding crypto and technology domestically and in other major jurisdictions have clearer paths to implementation, especially whether initiatives such as the ABA’s translate into specific rules; third, how Bitcoin and Ethereum prices and volatilities respond to inflows and outflows—if prices stabilize despite ongoing net outflows, it may indicate that the "strong players hold stronger" position structure remains intact; conversely, vigilance is required to see if this round evolves into a starting point for a new mid to long-term reshuffling of chips.
Join our community to discuss together and become stronger!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin 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。
