Author: CoinFound

I. Introduction: The Terra Old Case Revisited, the Market Needs a "Villain"

In February 2026, the script of the Terra Collapse, which should have long been written into history, was once again dragged to the forefront. The difference is that this time, the narrator no longer emphasizes "algorithmic stability mechanism failure," but reconstructs the causal chain in a more viral way: In the critical minute window before the collapse, someone possessed significant non-public information and accurately front-ran, turning systemic disaster into accounting profit.

This narrative has three inherent advantages:

1. It is simple enough: from complex systemic risks to "someone front-running."

2. It is concrete enough: from mechanism flaws to "a specific institution."

3. It is emotional enough: victims can easily accomplish "attribution" and "projection."

The object of projection just happens to be a character in the crypto world that is "visible yet unclear": top-tier market makers + ETF authorized participants (AP).

When market sentiment is already seeking a named explanation, a symbolical name like "Jane Street" is almost destined to be put on the hot seat.

II. Trigger: How the Old Case Accusations Complete the Collage with "10am Dump"

At the surface level, crypto traders have a concrete memory of the "10am Dump":
Around 10 AM Eastern Time, BTC often experiences a rapid drop of 1%-3%, triggering a cascade of leverage long liquidations, followed by a rebound or stabilization.

Such "highly regular fluctuations" are naturally easy to explain as "manipulated." When the Terra old case lawsuit provided a narrative template for "minute-level front-running," social media naturally stitched the two into the same storyline:

• Past: Someone acted in advance during the "critical window" before the Terra collapse.

• Present: Someone is precisely dumping at "critical windows" of BTC every day at 10 AM.

• Conclusion: The same type of institution, the same strategy, the same black box.

Thus, the "10am Dump" upgraded from a trading sensation to a collective judgment on ETF mechanisms, AP privileges, and TradFi market makers.

III. Why Jane Street is "Named Specifically": Identity, Channels, and Past Conviction Filter

Putting Jane Street on the hot seat isn't just because it "might be"; it's also because it "fits the narrative."

1) Identity: The "Visibility" of Top TradFi Market Makers in Crypto

Jane Street's typical position is as a quantitative liquidity provider:

• Earnings from price differentials and execution efficiency.

• Using multi-market hedging to break down exposures into controllable fragments.

• Using inventory management and risk budgeting to survive across cycles.

The actions of such institutions in a high-leverage crypto environment can easily be misread:
A routine risk management action (reducing positions/hedging/adjusting inventory) can appear as "precise harvesting" under the magnification of a liquidation waterfall.

2) Channels: ETF/AP Mechanism as an "Off-Chain Black Box"

The creation and redemption mechanism of ETFs is a mature arbitrage device in traditional finance.
However, APs carry "original sin" in the crypto context:

• Execution does not occur on-chain.

• Order flows are un-auditable.

• Details are protected by confidentiality agreements and internal risk control measures.

• Disclosure (such as 13F) is lagging and incomplete.

When the market sees "10 AM plunges + liquidations," but does not see "hedging paths + redemption rhythms + OTC settlements," conspiracy theories become the most effortless explanatory model.

3) Filter: Cross-Market Controversies Get Quickly Transferred to Crypto

Once an institution is labeled as "manipulative" or "controversial" in other markets (regardless of factual details), any unusual phenomenon in the crypto market will prioritize it as a "suspect."
This is not a chain of evidence but a social communication rule: A priori suspicion will automatically seek a posterior justification.

IV. Key Divergence: You Think You're Arguing "Manipulation," but It's Really About "Explanability"

In the controversy surrounding the "10 AM Dump," what both sides are actually arguing about isn't "whether institutions are stronger," but rather:

• Retail Perspective: I see regular liquidations, and I cannot explain them.

• Institutional Perspective: What I am doing is hedging and rebalancing; you only see the price outcomes.

• Regulatory Perspective: Disclosure rules allow for "semi-transparency," thus any explanation cannot be falsified.

In other words:

The essence of this dispute is a transparency gap: Crypto needs to be "on-chain verifiable," whereas the ETF/AP system is "off-chain executable."

When the transparency gap persists long-term, "conspiracy theories" will become an "alternative explanatory infrastructure."

V. Breaking Down the "10 AM Dump": Phenomenon, Dissemination, and Possible Mechanisms

To discuss "10 AM Dump," it must be broken down into three layers:

A) Phenomenon Layer: Volatility is More Likely Around 10 AM

Many traders have a sensory perception of this, but perception does not equal statistical proof.
Even if there are high-frequency "10 AM fluctuations" at certain stages, it may also be a temporary result of market structure.

B) Dissemination Layer: Social Media Writes "Related" as "Causal"

Social media dissemination favors three things:

• A single villain.

• Clear motives.

• A repeatable script (“smashing every day at 10 AM”).

Thus, "screenshots + time alignment + emotional narratives" will quickly outperform "backtesting + confidence intervals + counterfactual verification."

C) Mechanism Layer: More Plain, More Likely Explanation Paths

Even if we acknowledge that the 10 AM window tends to be more volatile, multiple "more everyday" mechanism explanations exist:

1. Liquidity Reconstruction After U.S. Stock Market Opening
   For a period after the U.S. stock market opening, cross-asset risk budgeting, volatility surfaces, ETF flows, and basis of spot versus futures may be repriced.
   BTC, as "part of the basket of risk assets," experiencing synchronous fluctuations in this window is not unusual.

2. Leverage Structure Magnification + Insufficient Order Book Depth
   When derivatives leverage is high and the order book is thin, moderate selling pressure may trigger a liquidation chain reaction, forming a waterfall.
   This explains "why it looks like someone is pressing a button," but does not require the assumption of "someone must manipulate."

3. Dynamic Hedging of Market Maker Delta-Neutral Inventory

   One common misunderstanding in the market is: just because you see institutions "holding a lot," it doesn't mean they are "bullish."
   Many positions are to hedge against derivative risks. Hedging behaviors concentrating within certain time windows do not equate to directional smashing.

VI. The "Evidence Illusion" of 13F: You Only See Half of the Books

'Manipulation theory' often employs a common puzzle, citing an institution's 13F disclosures to prove "it has a huge position, so it can manipulate."
However, 13F only discloses part of its long positions in U.S. stocks, and does not disclose:

• The direction of options and futures

• Swaps and off-market hedges

• Inter-exchange splitting paths

• AP redemption and inventory allocation details

Thus, 13F is more like a "photo taken from the front only":
You can see what it is holding up front, but cannot see how it hedges, balances, and neutralizes exposure behind the scenes.

This is not washing the institutions clean, but pointing out: merely relying on 13F cannot complete the evidential loop for "manipulation" accusations.

VII. The Dissemination Logic of the Terra Lawsuit: Legal Procedures Are Slow, Public Opinion Judgment Is Fast

The reason the Terra old case exploded again in 2026 was not because it suddenly provided more sufficient facts, but because it provided a story structure that is more suitable for dissemination:

• "Old cases being revived" inherently carry drama.

• "Critical minute windows" naturally lend themselves to K-line screenshot alignment.

• "Secret communications" are naturally suited for secondary creation.

• "Wall Street giants" are inherently suitable to become villains in the crypto world.

As court evidence is still progressing, and details remain obscured, social media has already resolved "conclusions first."
And once conclusions come first, all subsequent data will be used to "confirm biases."

VIII. The Real Structural Problem: ETFs Bring TradFi Rules into Crypto

Taking a higher perspective, you will find that the "10am Dump" controversy is only a surface issue. The deeper change is:

1) BTC Pricing is Being Reshaped by "Traditional Financial Timetables"

In the past, BTC was more like a 24-hour crypto-native asset.
But as ETF flows, AP hedging, and traditional institutional risk management rhythms enter, BTC's volatility will increasingly appear at "key moments in traditional finance."

2) The Transparency Standards of Crypto Encounter the Execution Black Box of TradFi

The culture of crypto is "on-chain transparency."
But the culture of ETFs is "efficiency first, execution confidentiality."
The two are not about who is right or wrong, but a friction between two systems:

When "verifiable" meets "executable," the market will prioritize explanations that resemble conspiracies.

3) Disclosure Regulations Determine "Controversies Will Persist Long-term"

As long as the rules allow:

• Delayed disclosures

• Incomplete disclosures

• Off-chain executions are un-auditable
  Then the market can never distinguish:

• Price impacts caused by normal hedging

• Manipulative actions that intentionally impact prices for profit.

Thus conspiracy theories will periodically resurface until stronger audits and more explainable infrastructures appear.

IX. CoinFound Perspective: Rather Than Guessing "Who is Selling," It's Better to Place Structural Variables on the Same Timeline

CoinFound is more focused on quantifiable, verifiable structural variables, pulling the controversy back from "personalized attribution" to "mechanisms and data":

• The windows in which price fluctuations occur (time structure)

• Leverage and liquidation intensity (market microstructure)

• ETF funding flows and demand-side absorption (funding structure)

• Mint/Burn, redemption, and on-chain vs off-chain flow difference (infrastructure structure)

• Changes in the concentration of subject holding distributions (concentration structure)

You may not immediately prove "who is the seller," but you can distinguish more clearly:

• Whether it's "stabilization caused by increased demand sides."

• Or "short-term behavioral changes triggered by a single event."

• Or "chain reactions caused by structural fragility."

This is the first step in transforming "conspiracy theory controversies" into "researchable issues."

X. Conclusion: This Controversy Will Not Disappear, It Will Become the Norm of the New Cycle

Does a certain repeatable structural pattern exist in the "10 AM Dump"? Possibly.
Is it currently difficult to attribute "manipulation" to a specific institution based on public information? Yes.
But this does not mean the discussion is meaningless—on the contrary, it reveals a more crucial fact:

The BTC of the ETF era is entering a "semi-transparent market."
On-chain transparency still exists, but key executions and risk management are increasingly occurring off-chain.

When the market is in a "high leverage + multi-market execution + delayed disclosure" combination, any regular fluctuations will be quickly personalized.
This is not that traders are "more foolish," but rather that the system leaves "explainability" vacant.

The real solution is not to manufacture another villain, but to enhance the market's auditability, explainability, and the visibility of structural variables.

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。