On February 9, 2026, at 8:00 AM UTC+8, Binance's SAFU Fund announced a plan to convert $1 billion worth of stablecoins into BTC within 30 days, having already completed the purchase of 4,225 BTC, corresponding to approximately $299–300 million. After this operation, the SAFU address holds a total of 10,455 BTC, with an unrealized profit of about 1% (approximately $7.3 million). In stark contrast, during the same period, Bitcoin and Ethereum spot ETFs experienced a total net outflow of nearly $500 million in a single day. One is the exchange's user protection fund aggressively accumulating spot BTC, while the other is a regulated ETF continuously reducing its holdings, highlighting a critical question: is this a case of smart money betting in the market, or is it a revaluation of crypto assets within the global asset allocation framework?

Fund Reallocation and Protection Cushion Restructuring

● Scale and Pace: According to official information from Binance, the SAFU plan aims to complete a total conversion of $1 billion from stablecoins to BTC within 30 days, having currently purchased 4,225 BTC, increasing its holdings to 10,455 BTC, corresponding to a market value of approximately $734–741 million. This indicates that about 30% of the planned funds have yet to be executed, and whether subsequent buying can continue and at what pace will directly impact the spot market and market expectations.

● Impact on Market Value and Trading Volume: With the current BTC price at approximately $7,300–$7,400 per BTC × 10,455 BTC, the $1 billion buy order represents a significant portion of the total daily trading volume on mainstream exchanges. If concentrated, it could significantly increase the order book's buy-side thickness and reduce short-term selling pressure. Even with a dispersed execution strategy, this scale will provide ongoing support effects on market depth, slippage, and price elasticity over several days.

● Shift in Asset Allocation Preferences: As a user protection fund, SAFU has previously favored holding low-volatility assets priced in stablecoins to ensure payout capabilities in extreme risk scenarios. This time, switching up to $1 billion from "defensive cash reserves" to a larger exposure to BTC essentially trades higher volatility for potentially higher long-term returns, reflecting confidence in BTC's medium to long-term value and liquidity resilience, while also increasing the fund's net asset value sensitivity to market downturns.

ETF's Nearly $500 Million Net Outflow and Repricing of Funds

● Bitcoin and Ethereum ETF Outflows: On-chain and ETF tracking data show that recently, the Bitcoin spot ETF experienced a net outflow of approximately $318 million in a single day, while the Ethereum spot ETF saw a net outflow of about $166 million, totaling nearly $500 million. In the rhythm of traditional financial markets, such a magnitude of passive fund withdrawal often reflects a systematic downgrade of strategy funds' risk-return ratios for related assets over a period.

● Pressure Points in Institutional Product Distribution: Among various products, Grayscale's GBTC saw a weekly net outflow of up to $174 million, while BlackRock's Ethereum spot ETF ETHA experienced a net outflow of about $152 million in a single day (or single period), becoming the main driver of capital outflow on the Ethereum side. The former represents structural redemption pressure from established high-fee products, while the latter indicates that even top institutional brands struggle to reverse the current reality of Ethereum being "downgraded" in the eyes of some institutions.

● Redistribution Among Varieties Rather Than Total Withdrawal: In contrast to the outflows from BTC and ETH, the XRP spot ETF saw a net inflow of approximately $39.04 million in a single day, with Franklin's XRPZ contributing $20.5 million. This indicates that funds are not completely withdrawing from the crypto space but are switching between different varieties based on relative value and regulatory expectations, with the "bleeding" at the ETF level reflecting more of a structural rotation rather than a total exit driven by a unified risk-averse sentiment.

Divergence of Fund Curves: Accumulation vs. Escape

● Directional Difference of Two Curves: On one hand, Binance's SAFU is gradually converting up to $1 billion in stablecoin inventory into BTC, forming a continuous, predictable central buying curve; on the other hand, the Bitcoin spot ETF shows a $318 million level of net outflow in the statistical scope. The former represents "quasi-own funds" actively accumulating within the exchange system, while the latter reflects passive redemptions of entrusted funds in the public market, with the two curves clearly diverging in direction.

● Differences in Fund Attributes and Constraints: Concentrated exchange-level proprietary or quasi-proprietary funds typically have a higher risk tolerance and more flexible position adjustment space, with investment horizons that can be dynamically extended based on operational and strategic goals; whereas regulated ETF funds are often entrusted assets from institutions or compliant accounts, needing to adhere to established risk limits, rebalancing rules, and redemption mechanisms. Therefore, during periods of increased volatility and elevated correlations, it is easier to trigger "passive downgrades," which do not necessarily equate to a subjective bearish outlook.

● Emotional Signals and Volatility Amplification: This divergence of "protection fund accumulation vs. ETF escape" is interpreted by some market participants as a signal of "smart money bottom-fishing," while it may merely indicate that passive funds are reducing their positions in high-volatility assets based on models. In the short term, this large-scale capital flow in opposite directions will amplify price pulls between the spot and derivatives markets, increasing intra-day volatility, but may not provide a single, clear indication of medium to long-term trends.

Transmission Chain from Stablecoin Pool to Spot Market

● Changes in Internal Liquidity Structure: The conversion of stablecoins at the $1 billion level to BTC will directly reduce the stablecoin inventory available for trading, lending, and market-making on the Binance platform, creating marginal tightening pressure on the depth of certain trading pairs. In terms of funding costs, if the supply of stablecoins tightens, related lending rates and perpetual contract funding rates may rise marginally, prompting a repricing of cost curves for both long and short positions.

● Impact of Execution Path on Order Book: If this buying pressure is completed more through over-the-counter negotiations or internal matching on the platform, the direct impact on the public order book will be relatively limited, with price performance leaning more towards "gentle support"; conversely, if a large proportion is executed directly in the public market, it will quickly raise the ask prices and compress depth, triggering arbitrage funds across exchanges to follow suit, creating more impactful price linkages.

● Intra-Market Selling and External Support: In the context of continuous net outflows from ETFs, the spot and derivatives markets may exhibit a pattern of "intra-market passive selling + external or platform active support." ETF selling brings new selling pressure, while large buy orders like SAFU absorb chips through non-public channels or dispersed execution methods, resulting in increased intra-day volatility, but without a corresponding deep drop in the central price level relative to the scale of net capital outflows.

Macroeconomic Temperature and Reassessment of Crypto Asset Roles

● Cooling of Inflation and AI Expectations: According to a summary survey by the Financial Times and BlockBeats, about 60% of economists believe AI has a limited impact on inflation, indicating that the previous macro narrative of "AI driving productivity but temporarily raising inflation" is cooling. Stabilizing inflation expectations will weaken the market's marginal demand for high-beta inflation-hedging assets, pushing funds back into more traditional risk parity and multi-asset allocation frameworks.

● Reordering of Asset Attractiveness: In a scenario where inflation expectations are no longer continuously rising, the attractiveness of gold and high-rated government bonds as traditional safe havens and nominal yield anchors increases, while BTC's role in institutional asset allocation may shift from "inflation-hedging tool" to "high-volatility risk asset." For institutions with strict risk budgets, this means a systematic reduction in BTC allocation weight, rather than a simple tactical reduction.

● ETF and SAFU Behavior Under Repricing: Behind the outflow of ETF funds is the movement of some institutions removing BTC from the "high-beta inflation-hedging asset" category and reclassifying it into the "high-volatility growth or speculative asset" basket, triggering weight reductions; while SAFU's accumulation appears to be a bet on BTC's medium to long-term value from a longer duration and higher risk tolerance perspective during this repricing process. These two behaviors are not contradictory but are natural results of different funding constraints and objective functions under the same macro narrative.

Observations and Warnings After the Protection Fund Becomes a Buyer

● Core Comparison of the Current Scenario: On one side, Binance's SAFU has incorporated 4,225 BTC under the $1 billion plan within 30 days, increasing total holdings to 10,455 BTC and recording an unrealized profit of about 1%; on the other side, mainstream BTC and ETH spot ETFs experienced a total net outflow of nearly $500 million during the statistical period. The large accumulation by the protection fund and the continuous reduction by the ETF form the most impactful set of capital mirrors within the same time window.

● Short to Medium-Term Judgment Framework: Moving forward, the market needs to closely track the interconnection of three data lines—first, the execution progress and rhythm changes of SAFU's $1 billion plan; second, the daily redemption data of BTC and ETH spot ETFs and their correlation with prices; third, whether the trading volume and market depth in the spot market have significantly changed due to these structural capital flows. The intersection of these three will determine whether this round of "intra-market bleeding vs. external support" manifests in prices as accelerated bottoming or range building.

● Risk Alerts and Interpretation Boundaries: Current public information lacks details on SAFU's specific buying prices and batch execution rhythms, making it difficult to accurately assess its actual cost range and potential drawdown tolerance. In this uncertainty, the market may easily equate large accumulations with "absolute bottom signals," thereby overestimating short-term price support effects. Investors should be cautious of emotional amplification biases when interpreting such large capital movements, viewing them as part of a structural capital reallocation rather than a singular direction of risk-free arbitrage guidance.

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。