On the morning of January 21, 2026 (Eastern Time), a sudden and severe divergence in the funding of the US spot XRP ETF occurred. According to SoSoValue data, Grayscale XRP ETF (GXRP) experienced a net outflow of approximately $55.39 million in a single day, while Franklin XRP ETF (XRPZ) recorded a net inflow of about $2.07 million on the same day. During the same trading period, there were significant redemptions and slight subscriptions for XRP-related products, while the overall US Solana spot ETF recorded approximately $3.08 million in net inflow, forming a stark contrast. Considering GXRP's historical total net inflow of about $232 million, this single-day outflow is relatively high, significantly deviating from the norm, leading the market to view it as an abnormal fluctuation in the funding structure of the XRP ETF sector and even a potential turning point signal.

Relative Impact of GXRP's Large Redemptions

● Funding Proportion and "Annual Maximum" Statement: According to SoSoValue data, GXRP had a net outflow of approximately $55.39 million on January 20, which is close to a quarter of its historical total net inflow of about $232 million. Some media described this as the "largest single-day outflow since 2026." In terms of proportion, this outflow not only constitutes a substantial contraction of GXRP's own funding pool but also amplifies investors' concerns about the safety margin of XRP-related ETF allocations on a psychological level.
● Grayscale Product Characteristics and Redemption Mechanism: Based on Grayscale's past operational experience with Bitcoin, Ethereum, and other products, its products typically come with higher management fees and significant fluctuations in secondary market premiums and discounts. When market sentiment weakens or discounts continue to widen, it often triggers concentrated redemptions and portfolio rebalancing behaviors. For GXRP, if the spot price of XRP comes under pressure, the ETF's secondary market pricing is weaker than investors' expectations, or if there is a need for reallocation in Grayscale's overall asset portfolio, it may amplify the daily volatility on the redemption side, leading to concentrated outflows being reflected in a short period.
● Resonance Effect of Sentiment and Liquidity: In the absence of obvious fundamental bearish factors, if the overall cryptocurrency market experiences a decline in risk appetite, an increase in long liquidation in the XRP-related derivatives market, or price drops due to weak liquidity, institutions often prefer to redeem more liquid ETF products to quickly reduce their position exposure. This "sentiment + liquidity" resonance may be one of the triggering factors for the rapid withdrawal of funds from GXRP on that day.
● Media Statements and Data Boundaries: The statement regarding the "largest single-day outflow since 2026" comes from secondary media such as Planet Daily, with the total judgment based on publicly available data, but there has been no official daily scale ranking confirmation from exchanges or issuers. Therefore, this statement should be viewed as a market interpretation rather than a strict statistical conclusion; based on the currently disclosed data, the $55.39 million single-day outflow is indeed an abnormal amplification, but whether it is the absolute "maximum" for the year still has uncertainties in statistical criteria and sample intervals, and investors should maintain risk awareness when citing this statement.

Product Differences Maintaining Net Inflows for XRPZ

● Contrasting Subscription Data: In stark contrast to GXRP's large net outflow, Franklin XRP ETF (XRPZ) recorded approximately $2.07 million in net inflow on January 20. Although the absolute scale is much smaller than the changes in GXRP's funding volume, XRPZ still maintained net inflows against the backdrop of overall pressure on the XRP sector on the same trading day, indicating structural differentiation at the product level and differences in investor preferences.
● Possible Differences in Fees and Market-Making Strategies: Based on industry experience, traditional asset management institutions often attract medium- to long-term funds to newly launched or smaller-scale crypto ETFs through relatively more competitive fees, more proactive market-making arrangements, and collaboration with brokerage and investment banking channels. If XRPZ has advantages over GXRP in terms of management fees, bid-ask spread control, and market maker depth, it may exhibit a "reverse trend in attracting funds" even if the underlying assets are the same. This logic is currently based on general industry patterns and reasoning, rather than confirmation of specific fees or contract terms.
● Channel Distribution and Client Profiles: The traditional financial institutions behind XRPZ may be more inclined to connect with wealth management, pension funds, or family offices for medium- to long-term allocation funds, resulting in a holder structure and trading frequency that often differ significantly from products primarily driven by trading and arbitrage. If some holdings in GXRP are mainly short-term or strategy funds, they are more likely to respond quickly to market fluctuations, while XRPZ maintains stable subscriptions driven by "slow variable" funds. This difference in client structure can present starkly different subscription and redemption scenarios for the same underlying asset.
● Structural Differentiation is More Significant than Single Point Interpretation: Observing the massive single-day outflow from GXRP alongside the small net inflow of XRPZ reveals structural differentiation between the same asset and different products, rather than a simple "unified withdrawal of funds from XRP." Instead of over-interpreting the data of a single ETF, it is more insightful to focus on the fund redistribution among various XRP-related products: which types of products attract long-term funds and which are more susceptible to short-term sentiment-driven movements. These structural signals often reflect the true attitudes of funds more closely than the daily fluctuations of a single product.

Contrast in Fund Flows Between XRP and Solana

● Key Inflow Data for Solana ETF: On the same trading day when XRP-related ETFs showed divergence, the overall US Solana spot ETF recorded approximately $3.08 million in net inflow (according to a single source), with Fidelity's Solana ETF—FSOL—recording a net inflow of about $2.25 million, bringing its historical total net inflow to approximately $145 million. Among current crypto assets, there are not many public chain assets that can continuously attract funds through compliant ETF channels, and the ongoing "fund-absorbing" performance of Solana-related products is accelerating its weight increase in the compliant fund allocation basket.
● Sector Rotation and Preference Differences: By juxtaposing the $55.39 million large net outflow from GXRP with the continuous net inflow of the Solana ETF, one can observe a preference tilt and sector rotation in compliant public chain assets: on one end is the redemption pressure and emotional fluctuations surrounding XRP, while on the other end is the capital increase around the "new public chain narrative" of Solana. Although it cannot be directly proven that the funds leaving GXRP immediately flowed into the Solana ETF, the directional flow of funds indicates that the market is repricing the "old narrative" versus the "new story" with real money.
● Market Perspective Diverted Attention: Some media (such as Jinse Finance) have suggested that "the continuous attraction of funds to the Solana ETF may divert market attention from XRP," arguing that in a limited compliant fund pool, the newly performing Solana is more likely to become the incremental choice for institutions, thereby marginally weakening XRP's allocation position. This view is currently based on a single source and correlation observation, lacking direct evidence at the fund account level, making it more suitable as a reference clue for changes in sentiment and preferences rather than a definitive causal conclusion. Investors should exercise caution and prudent interpretation when using this perspective.

The Role of Regulatory Memory and Emotional Amplification

Surrounding the recent funding anomalies in the XRP ETF, the regulatory environment and emotional memory are background variables that cannot be ignored. The long-standing compliance framework in the US has shaped institutions' "compliance risk pricing" for different assets. XRP has previously experienced intense disputes with the SEC over issues such as the classification of securities, and this history of regulatory controversy, even with some legal outcomes at certain levels, continues to profoundly influence institutions' risk control models and asset pool whitelist. In contrast, assets like Solana, which are packaged as "high-performance public chains" and "new infrastructure," are often narrated as representatives of technological iteration and ecological expansion at this stage, making them more likely to attract funds that prefer high beta and seek growth premiums in the short term. In this context, short-term funds are more willing to embrace "new narrative assets" like Solana while maintaining a more cautious and defensive position management towards XRP, which still carries regulatory shadows and compliance disputes, becomes an understandable behavioral choice.

From the perspective of price and derivatives markets, if the spot price of XRP has already seen a certain increase and liquidity is relatively weak near key price levels, once market sentiment weakens, long liquidations in the futures and options markets and rising volatility may amplify the redemption fluctuations on the spot and ETF sides through leverage chains. The massive single-day redemption from GXRP may logically be the result of multiple factors, including price fluctuations, tightening liquidity, and deleveraging in derivatives, and this reasoning is more based on general patterns of past fluctuations in the crypto market rather than specific confirmations of this event. For institutional investors, the allocation choices between XRP and Solana also involve a trade-off between "existing and incremental": XRP, as a long-established cross-border payment-related asset, is already an existing position in many institutional portfolios that needs to be rebalanced within existing risk budgets; while Solana is often viewed as a new growth curve and incremental opportunity, allowing for increased allocation to share in the industry's iterative dividends. This difference in mindset between "existing competition" and "incremental betting" is subtly changing the proportion trends of the two types of assets in medium- to long-term funding pools and amplifying the structural implications reflected behind the single-day ETF redemptions.

Will the XRP Narrative Be Rewritten by a Single Outflow?

In summary, the data performance on January 20, with GXRP's rare single-day net outflow of approximately $55.39 million, alongside XRPZ still recording about $2.07 million in net inflow and the Solana ETF overall net inflow of approximately $3.08 million, with FSOL accumulating about $145 million in funds, collectively outlines a dual differentiation at the product and asset levels: within the same underlying asset, funds are structurally migrating between different ETFs; among public chain assets, the market is voting for new narratives like Solana with continuous net inflows. This resembles a redistribution of funds across different containers and tracks rather than a linear "comprehensive sell-off of XRP."

From the currently visible information, this outflow from GXRP is more akin to a concentrated manifestation of structural repricing and position rebalancing, rather than a definitive signal declaring "funds completely abandoning XRP." The interplay of regulatory memory, product characteristics, institutional preferences, and market sentiment at this moment amplifies the impact of the single-day figures, but the medium- to long-term landscape still requires more data for validation. For future trends and assessments of fund attitudes, key indicators to track in the coming days include: first, whether the redemption data for GXRP, XRPZ, and other XRP-related ETFs continues to show the same or opposite changes; second, whether the trading volume and price fluctuations of XRP spot and related derivatives exhibit amplification or stabilization; third, whether there are new enforcement actions, settlement progress, or framework guidelines from the regulatory level. Only by forming continuous signals across these dimensions can the market more confidently determine whether the $55.39 million single-day outflow is merely a one-time "technical squeeze" or the starting point of a larger migration of funds.

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。