In the first quarter of 2025, under Eastern Eight Time, the quantitative trading giant Jane Street is surrounded by multiple pressures: on one side, it faces a media storm accused of insider trading, fraud, and market manipulation; on the other side, it is under legal pressure from Indian regulatory agencies and bankruptcy administrators of Terraform Labs. At the same time, amidst the continued net inflow of funds into Bitcoin spot ETFs, the market finds that the buying pace on-chain does not match the off-chain, raising deep doubts about the ETF structure and the role of authorized participants. The controversies surrounding Jane Street are coalescing into a central question: as quantitative institutions play a key role in high-frequency trading, cross-market arbitrage, and ETF redemption mechanisms, what constitutes "legitimate arbitrage" and what constitutes "crossing regulatory red lines" is being redefined by regulators and market sentiments.
From UST Collapse to Role Migration on the ETF Stage
● Quantitative Giants Shift to Crypto: Jane Street started with traditional stock, option, and ETF quantitative trading and is known in traditional financial markets for high-frequency market making and cross-asset arbitrage. As liquidity and derivatives in the crypto market expanded, the company gradually entered the crypto space, initially engaging in over-the-counter quotes and derivatives market making, extending to providing crypto-related trading services to institutional clients, and becoming an important participant in the Bitcoin spot ETF structure, upgrading its role from "peripheral quantitative player" to "key liquidity node."
● Involved in the UST/LUNA Storm: During the UST/LUNA Collapse event around 2022, Terraform Labs' bankruptcy administrator filed a lawsuit against Jane Street, accusing it of problematic trading behaviors during the collapse. Public information only shows that the lawsuit targets the trading patterns during the collapse phase and its impact on the overall liquidity environment, while specific amounts and liability ratios have not been disclosed in verifiable materials. On the timeline, Jane Street was included in the lawsuit framework afterward, rather than being officially named at the onset of the incident.
● Media's "Linear Splicing": Market opinions quickly linked Jane Street's derivatives trading and liquidity provision role during the UST/LUNA period with its current important position in the Bitcoin spot ETF, forming an emotional narrative chain of "from collapse to ETF." Some have implied that institutions that "benefited from volatility" in the crypto derivatives market now controlling structural fund flows in ETFs can naturally control prices, a conjecture widely circulated on social media.
● Break in the Causal Chain: However, from the currently available information, Terraform's lawsuit only indicates its doubts about Jane Street's trading behavior during the collapse and does not provide evidence to prove that Jane Street "directly caused the collapse." Research briefs explicitly call for avoiding fabricating any amounts and direct causal relationships, indicating that this accusation is still in the phase of legal controversy and fact verification, more like a part of a systemic liquidity crisis rather than a simple story of a single institution "pressing the collapse button."
Indian Accusations of High-Frequency Manipulation and Gray Arbitrage Boundaries
● Unverified Indian Accusations: According to briefs, Indian regulatory agencies accuse Jane Street of influencing price trends on the expiry date of a major local index derivative through high-frequency trading, and this accusation is currently marked as unverified information. Existing public reports only point to "anomalously high-frequency order behavior near the expiry date," but there are no authoritative conclusions on "whether it constitutes manipulation" or "the scale and degree of impact." The regulatory aspect is still in the investigation and procedural advancement stage, rather than having made a final ruling.
● Expiration Mechanism and Amplified Volatility: On the expiry dates of index futures and options, concentrated trading often arises from position liquidations, extensions, and delta hedging. If high-frequency algorithms submit, cancel, and reorder intensely before and after expiry, it can technically amplify small quote differences in price ranges where liquidity is thinner, causing settlement prices to shift favorably for the positions. This behavior of "amplifying already existing price pressures" is the most easily suspected scene of manipulation by regulators and places high-frequency and programmatic trading naturally under the spotlight.
● Compliance Misalignment in Emerging Markets: In developed markets, cross-market arbitrage and market making often operate under relatively mature regulatory frameworks, with clear exemptions and boundaries for liquidity providers. In some emerging markets, however, derivatives rules and high-frequency regulatory standards are still evolving, and the same arbitrage and hedging strategies may be regarded as "market-making behavior that improves efficiency" in one market, while suspected of "exploiting institutional loopholes to influence settlements" in another. Global quantitative institutions like Jane Street can easily find themselves in such gray areas when operating across markets that are not fully aligned in rules.
● Indeterminate Results and Information Vacuum: Currently, there is no authoritative, detailed public conclusion regarding the final ruling and potential confiscation measures from India. Briefs also emphasize that specific confiscation figures circulating in the external environment are unverified information and should not be treated as established facts. It is precisely in this "accusations are public, but judgment is not yet rendered" information vacuum that the market and media are likely to fill the gaps with the most pessimistic imaginings, allowing the impression of "suspected shadow manipulation" to take hold.
Misalignment of Authorized Participants and Price Structures
● Bridging Mechanism of Authorized Participants: In Bitcoin spot ETFs, Authorized Participants (AP) act as a bridge between fund shares and underlying assets through the subscription and redemption mechanism. Theoretically, when an ETF shows a premium, the AP can buy shares based on NAV and sell in the secondary market; when there is a discount, they can purchase the ETF in the secondary market and redeem it for spot assets. This "arbitrage closed loop" should strengthen the anchoring of ETF prices to spot prices on paper, but in actual operations, the AP's risk considerations, capital costs, and derivative positions mean their execution rhythm doesn't always fully synchronize with spot buying.
● Questions of Fund Inflows and Disconnect from Spot: According to reports from Decrypt and other media, Bitcoin spot ETFs continue to record net inflows, but the direct buying in on-chain and off-chain spot markets has not proportionately increased. This suggests that some funds may manage exposures through futures hedging, internal inventory adjustments, or cross-exchange position restructurings, without needing to correspond to instant large-scale public spot buy orders. This structural phenomenon of "ETF funds inflowing without synchronizing with spot buying" is viewed by many market participants as a point of concern in the ETF mechanism design, which subsequently reflects on the operations of authorized participants.
● Futures Dominating Price Discovery: Industry commentary notes that more and more important price signals are migrating from the spot market to futures and other derivatives markets. When futures depth far exceeds that of a single spot market, price discovery is more easily completed on the derivatives side, which then transmits through arbitrage back to the spot market. In this context, even if the ETF is labeled as "spot," its pricing anchor is often initially shaped by the volatility of futures and swaps. The result is a tightly-coupled price system between ETFs, futures, and off-exchange derivatives, where the "spot price" ordinary investors see is likely just the terminal result of derivative games.
● Doubts of Dual Roles in High-Frequency and Derivatives: When institutions serving as authorized participants are also high-frequency traders and major players in derivatives, the market naturally raises doubts: will they utilize control over the redemption cadence to position in the futures and options markets, then use the anticipated ETF fund flows to push prices to evolve favorably? Even if such actions technically remain within the scope of "legitimate arbitrage," they can easily be labeled as "structural manipulation beneficiaries" in the public opinion arena. Jane Street faces not just compliance boundary questions, but also a trust crisis regarding its role positioning within complex structures.
Increasing Regulatory Pressures and Shrinking Compliance Space
● Over $30 Billion Confiscation Signal: According to a single source, the U.S. confiscated over $30 billion in crypto-related assets between 2022 and 2025. This figure may have disputes regarding statistical criteria and sample scope, but as a macro signal, it sufficiently reflects the regulatory trend—enforcement intensity has significantly increased, leaning more towards direct asset disposals to convey deterrence. For all quantitative institutions operating between on-chain, offshore, and traditional finance, this means once asset structures and transaction paths are deemed "suspicious," the potential costs include not only fines but even rapid freezing and confiscation of key assets.
● Framework Effects of Proposed GENIUS Rules: Additionally, according to a single source, the U.S. OCC issued a proposed rule titled GENIUS Act, interpreted as an attempt to bring the crypto-related businesses of large financial institutions under tighter regulatory frameworks. Although the technical details of the act are complex and still under discussion, its symbolic significance is clear: traditional financial license holders will face stricter capital, risk, and compliance reviews when engaging in crypto businesses. This trend is particularly critical for institutions like Jane Street, whose core competitiveness lies precisely in cross-asset and cross-market integrated quantitative structures.
● Sense of Squeeze among Quantitative Institutions: Under such a macro regulatory environment, institutions like Jane Street experience "squeeze" on multiple dimensions: first, compliance costs rise sharply, necessitating design of distinctly different trading and risk control lines for different legal jurisdictions; second, the actionable strategy space gets compressed, as cross-border and cross-product arbitrage previously tolerated in "regulatory vacuums" may now be redefined as compliance risk points; third, any actions that provoke controversy in public opinion will more quickly be incorporated into the regulatory focus review list, creating a cycle of "negative expectations—increased scrutiny—further reduced space."
● Encirclement from Multiple Lines Rather than Single Point Enforcement: It is noteworthy that the current regulatory pressure on quantitative institutions is not caused by a single case or a single law, but rather composes from multiple pathways: on one hand, there are hard means like large-scale asset confiscations and freezes, on the other hand, there are tightening rules aimed at authorized participants, custodians, and clearing structures, layered with framework documents like GENIUS that delineate red lines for traditional financial institutions' crypto businesses. Jane Street finds itself in a "besieged" environment constructed by lawsuits, legislation, regulatory guidelines, and public opinion, where any misstep could be magnified into a systemic risk exemplar.
Crossfire of Public Opinion Trials and Market Games
● Labels of "Beneficiaries of the Collapse": In public narratives, Jane Street and similar quantitative institutions are often depicted as "shadow players who profit from every market surge and collapse." From the UST/LUNA collapse to significant declines in Bitcoin, social media frequently features accusations of "quantitative dumping" and "high-frequency harvesting," simplistically framing them as direct beneficiaries of the collapse and price manipulators. This labeling narrative provides a simple target for emotional venting about complex market mechanisms but struggles to withstand scrutiny at the data level.
● Single Source and Media Amplifiers: Some media and analytical articles often lack adequate background explanations and uncertainty prompts when quoting single-source information (such as the U.S. $30 billion asset confiscation, GENIUS Act details, etc.), intertwined with fragmented disclosures on social platforms, easily amplifying negative expectations around institutions like Jane Street. Facts, investigations, conjectures, and conspiracy theories continually mix in the dissemination pipeline, ultimately solidifying into a vague certainty in public perception that "they must have done something," while true standards of evidence are quietly lowered.
● Misalignment of Regulatory Pace and Emotional Fermentation: Lawsuits and investigations by regulatory agencies often require years of time, involving cross-border cooperation, data collection, and procedural justice, making their pace necessarily slow and restrained. In contrast, market sentiment and public opinion can completely flip within days. The result is that while regulators are still in the early stage of "fact determination—legal application," public opinion trials have long issued a "presumption of guilt," creating a time mismatch. Jane Street's current situation, in some sense, is magnified by this imbalance: unformed accusations are discussed as established facts within emotional arenas.
● ETF and Futures Landscape as Unresolved Targets: As long as there is a clear disconnect between fund flows into Bitcoin spot ETFs and on-chain spot buying, and as long as futures and derivatives continue to dominate price discovery without mainstream institutions and regulators providing convincing structural explanations to the market, quantitative institutions will continue to be seen as "the most natural suspects." Within this framework, whether Jane Street technically constitutes manipulation or not, its high visibility in the structure, complex strategies, and cross-market arrangements make it a prime target for emotional attacks and conspiratorial imaginations.
Long-term Game of Survival in the Gray Area
The controversies surrounding Jane Street reflect the tension of the logic of quantitative trading and the inherent liquidity of crypto, coexisting and contending for the long term within regulatory gaps. On one hand, complex high-frequency and cross-market arbitrage are viewed as technological advancements that improve market efficiency and enhance liquidity; on the other hand, as these mechanisms become embedded in the still-maturing crypto market and ETF structures, they can easily be understood as "institutional arbitrage" or even "structural manipulation." This is not just a problem for a single institution, but an inevitable growing pain of the entire market structure in its process of institutionalization.
Looking ahead, the structure of ETF authorized participants and the boundaries of derivatives regulation are likely to be redesigned by regulators: including more detailed requirements for redemption transparency, stricter segregation of proprietary and client businesses, special reviews of key expiration day high-frequency activities, and establishing clearer price transmission disclosure mechanisms between futures and spot. The goal is not to eliminate quantitative and high-frequency trading but to reduce the structural risks of excessive overlap in price discovery and suspicious manipulation, making the boundaries between "legitimate arbitrage" and "crossing the red line" clearer and more visible.
For investors, in a highly noise-filled information environment, it is most important to distinguish: which are facts supported by formal lawsuits and regulatory actions, and which remain in the realm of accusations, suspicions, and single-source leaks. Simply demonizing a single institution is unlikely to help understand the true structural problems of the market and easily overlook the genuine sources of systemic risk under emotional coercion. Where the next stage of crypto finance will head—whether it will be fully integrated into a highly institutionalized traditional financial discipline or continue to oscillate in the gray era woven together by quantitative strategies and narrative imaginations—remains an open question and will determine how much maneuvering space quantitative giants like Jane Street can retain in this market.
Join our community, let's 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。
