During this observation window (from April 27 to May 4, 2026), the two funding chains of spot and derivatives provided dramatically different signals. On one end, the Bitcoin spot ETF recorded approximately $154 million in weekly net inflows from April 27 to May 1 (Eastern Time), and this week continued to push forward the record of "five consecutive weeks of positive net inflows"; on the other end, on May 4, a certain four-hour interval saw the entire contract market experiencing about $226 million in liquidations, with nearly all of the forced liquidations being borne by short positions—approximately $218 million from shorts and only about $7.91 million from longs, which was directly defined by the bulls as a short-squeezing event dominated by shorts.

Further examining the funding structure, the weekly net inflow of $154 million consisted mainly of about $136 million contributed by BlackRock's IBIT, accounting for around 88%, effectively covering the new buying volume on the spot ETF side, while such products are generally viewed as a major entry point for traditional institutions to allocate Bitcoin. In contrast, the liquidations on the derivatives side were concentrated on high-leverage short positions, highlighting the structural opposition between "low or no leverage institution buying on the spot ETF side" and "high-leverage short funding on the derivatives side" in the same asset. Even if the existing data is insufficient to accurately describe the causal paths between the two, the combination characteristics of this week still point to a clear pattern: the spot side is continuously being allocated by institutional funds, providing a slow but stable inflow backdrop, while the short-term shorts are passively exiting, with short positions significantly suppressed in the short term.

Five Weeks of Continuous Inflow: Bitcoin ETF Becomes the Main Battleground for Institutions

From the funding perspective, from April 27 to May 1, the Bitcoin spot ETF recorded a total weekly net inflow of about $154 million (SoSoValue), marking the fifth consecutive week of positive weekly net inflows, indicating that there had been no weekly net outflows for at least the previous four weeks. Several crypto media (such as Odaily, PANews, Jinse Finance, etc.) cited the same data from the same source at the same time, further reinforcing the consensus of "five consecutive weeks of net inflows." For institutional investors, this is not just an accumulation of single-week numbers but reflects a real, steadily paced allocation behavior in a volatile price environment—funding is not a one-time bet but a continuous increase in Bitcoin's weight in the portfolio across several weekly windows.

In this round of inflow, BlackRock's IBIT almost played the role of the "main battleground": with a weekly net inflow of about $136 million, accounting for about 88% of the total weekly net inflow in Bitcoin spot ETFs. As one of the largest Bitcoin spot ETFs currently, the changes in IBIT's subscriptions and redemptions have been viewed as a barometer for traditional institutional sentiment; this week, where it "almost monopolized" the net inflow pattern, indicates that the dominant allocations are still made by traditional funds entering through leading products. Since the approval of Bitcoin spot ETFs, this channel has become an important pathway for compliant funds to enter the crypto asset market. The five consecutive weeks of net inflows, combined with IBIT's absolute dominance, signal that while shorts are passively exiting in the derivatives market, long-term funds on the spot side have not chosen to stand aside in hesitation but are rhythmically increasing their positions amid volatility, treating Bitcoin as a new type of risk asset that needs to be "gradually filled in" on the asset allocation sheet, rather than as a short-term trading chip.

$226 Million in Liquidations over Four Hours: A Concentrated Cleanup of Leverage Shorts

From the micro-market observations on May 4, leveraged shorts were concentratedly liquidated over a short period. According to the current statistics from a single source, within a certain four-hour interval that day, the total liquidation scale across all contracts was about $226 million, with forced liquidations mainly concentrated in the short direction: shorts accounted for about $218 million, while longs experienced liquidation amounts of approximately $7.91 million, with almost all the pressure structurally borne by the side betting on a downturn. In other words, in these four hours, the market did not simply experience a situation of both longs and shorts being liquidated, but rather shorts were massively passively liquidated amid price fluctuations, while leveraging losses on the long side were relatively controllable.

Multiple market voices described this phase as "mainly a short liquidation," directly using the term "short squeeze" to summarize the market characteristics at that time. The typical mechanism of a short squeeze is that prices quickly rise first, leading the side betting against it to suffer margin shortages, being forced to either add margin or face automatic liquidation by the system; and liquidation itself means buying on the market, thereby creating additional upward buying pressure that further pushes prices up and accelerates the exit of shorts. Under the structural condition of continuous inflows from medium- to long-term funds on the spot side, while there exists a large number of high-leverage shorts on the derivatives side, this passive buying amplification effect will emotionally reinforce the perception that "shorts are squeezed, and trends are confirmed," although with the current data limits, we can only discuss this directional correlation, making it hard to derive strict quantitative causation.

From an asset distribution perspective, this round of four-hour liquidations was not an isolated phenomenon of the Bitcoin asset alone. In the same statistical measure mentioned above, BTC-related liquidations amounted to about $135 million, with ETH-related liquidations at approximately $58.74 million, leaving the remainder being constituted by other assets, indicating that the short squeeze spanned both the two largest mainstream assets by market capitalization and impacted the overall leverage structure of the market. It is essential to emphasize that the current figures regarding the approximately $226 million liquidation over these four hours originate from a single statistical source and lack validation from a longer-term dimension and multiple source cross-verifications, which may result in discrepancies related to statistical standards and asset scopes. Thus, this set of data is more suitable as an approximate reference for observing the concentrated clearing of leveraged shorts at that time rather than being an accurate replay of every liquidation action in the entire market.

How Spot Capital Inflows Translate into Short Squeezes: The Funding Chain of Bull and Bear Forces

From the capital flow perspective, the continuous five-week positive net inflow into Bitcoin spot ETFs effectively established a "persistent buying" funding chain on the spot side. Just in the week from April 27 to May 1, the total net inflow into the ETF was about $154 million, in which BlackRock's IBIT contributed roughly $136 million, accounting for nearly 90%, indicating that the main force is still institutions and traditional funds focusing on long-term allocations. This type of low-leverage funding entering through ETFs, once in place, is not in a hurry to realize profits in the short term; rather, it behaves more like a continuously stabilizing buyer that keeps raising the "floor price" in the spot market, thus increasing the difficulty and cost for shorts to push prices down in the medium to short term.

This spot funding chain often extends to the derivatives market via market makers and arbitrageurs. When the ETF side sees continuous subscriptions, relevant institutions need to simultaneously buy Bitcoin on the spot or near-month contracts to hedge or build positions. In a context of limited liquidity, this will create an upward support effect on prices. For shorts participating with high leverage, each upward price swing erodes their margin safety net; when fluctuations accumulate to a certain extent, it triggers a round of concentrated passive liquidations. On May 4, within a certain four-hour interval, the total liquidation across all networks was about $226 million, with shorts roughly accounting for $218 million and primarily involving BTC and ETH shorts (BTC-related about $135 million, ETH-related about $58.74 million according to a single source), which aligns with the characteristics of a short squeeze, reflecting how leveraged shorts can be "automatically cleared" by the risk management systems at the end of the funding chain during price rises.

A more profound contradiction lies in the existence of two completely distinct funding curves for the same asset: on one end are the slow entries of medium to long-term institutional bulls through spot ETFs with low or no leverage; on the other end is speculative shorts concentrated in the contract market betting on high leverage for short periods. When the former continues to net buy, and the latter bets on price declines, the mismatch of time dimensions and leverage structures between the bulls and bears can easily evolve into a short squeeze at certain points. However, it is crucial to emphasize that the existing public data only provide the weekly net inflows for ETFs and the four-hour liquidation scale from a single source, lacking precise intraday capital flows and price paths, making it impossible to calculate "how many shorts are cleared by each unit of ETF inflow." At this stage, a more reasonable expression is to view "continued capital absorption by the spot ETF + concentrated liquidations of shorts" as a narrative with directional correlation, rather than as a strictly verified causal function.

Data Gaps and Noise: Acknowledging Uncertainty in Interpreting This Price Movement

From the most straightforward liquidation data, this round of analysis relies on a single statistical source: on May 4, during a certain four-hour interval, the total liquidation across all contracts was approximately $226 million, with forced liquidations mainly concentrated in the short direction—about $218 million from shorts and around $7.91 million from longs, BTC-related approximately $135 million, and ETH-related approximately $58.74 million. The issue lies in the lack of more comprehensive statistical explanations for this set of data, as well as the absence of cross-validation from other data providers. The research briefs also clearly indicate that liquidation data on a 24-hour dimension and percentages such as "short positions" are currently pending verification, and conclusions such as "a certain percentage of shorts were cleared on a particular day" that appear precise but exceed the sample resolution should not be drawn; neither should data from a single time window be extrapolated to infer leveraged structural changes over an entire week or longer periods.

On the spot funding side, the information we possess is also relatively coarse: from April 27 to May 1, Bitcoin spot ETFs collectively saw a weekly net inflow of about $154 million, with IBIT contributing around $136 million. The fact that there have been five consecutive weeks of net inflows is confirmed, but the details of daily inflows and outflows during this period have not been disclosed or reliably integrated. Lacking daily or even hourly ETF funding curves, alongside the absence of precise price points and paths during the latest inflows and liquidations, we cannot seriously reconstruct detailed time series like "ETF funding accelerates on a certain day → price rises → triggers a chain of liquidations," nor can we artificially align emotions with market rhythms at specific price points. Currently, what can be established is only a contemporaneous narrative aligned in direction, not a causal chain described minute by minute or at price points.

Equally important is that the boundaries of the data itself delineate the asset scope of analysis. The funding flow information for Ethereum spot ETFs and their net inflow and outflow data have yet to be confirmed, and related 24-hour liquidation statistics have not formed a reliable standard, under such circumstances, any analogy that transfers this round of Bitcoin narrative to ETH would fall under excessive extension. Overall, the current lack of day-level details for Bitcoin spot ETFs, Ethereum spot ETF funding flows, 24-hour liquidation data, and precise price paths means that our depiction of the "ETF inflow – price volatility – liquidation chain" can only remain at the levels of general direction and structural patterns. Readers constructing long-short narratives on this basis should remain mindful of these statistical noises and gaps to avoid overfitting limited samples into seemingly complete stories, mistaking correlation for already-verified causal relationships.

The Era of Institutional Dominance in Bull and Bear Dynamics: Key Signals to Watch Next

The core outline of this price movement has become quite clear: on one side, the Bitcoin spot ETF recorded about $154 million in net inflows during the week from April 27 to May 1, extending the weekly consecutive net inflow record to the fifth week; on the other side, during a certain four-hour interval on May 4, about $226 million in contract liquidations occurred across the network, with shorts cashing out about $218 million, significantly surpassing the approximately $7.91 million from longs (according to a single source), and total liquidations related to BTC and ETH exceeding $190 million. The combination of continuous net inflows and short-focused liquidations makes "spot funds providing a bottom, and leveraged shorts being passively exited" the most prominent structural characteristic during this period. BlackRock's IBIT contributed about $136 million in net inflows during the latest week, accounting for approximately 88% of the total net inflow, further highlighting the leading role of top institutional products in capital absorption and sentiment pricing: institutions slowly enter with low leverage through ETFs, while high-leverage shorts endure passive squeezes on the same asset.

Looking forward to the future bull and bear dynamics, as long as the overall Bitcoin spot ETF maintains positive weekly net inflows, and leading products like IBIT continue to contribute significant increments, shorts in the derivatives market will remain structurally disadvantaged. Should sentiment fluctuations trigger a wave of price swings, similar to the short-focused liquidation scenario of May 4 may repeat; conversely, should ETF capital flows shift from net inflows to net outflows, the "bottoming" effect would disappear, rapidly switching risks to high-leverage longs and passive selling pressure. Hence, the objective data worth continuously tracking include: net inflow trends of Bitcoin spot ETFs over weekly and longer periods, changes in the proportion of IBIT in total net inflows, the overall leverage level and long-short bias in the derivatives market, as well as whether future liquidation events remain predominantly bearish. In the absence of daily ETF details, Ethereum spot ETF funding flows, and detailed 24-hour liquidation tables, any extrapolations of specifics beyond the confirmed data above can only be regarded as hypotheses rather than facts; with the increasing dominance of institutions, investors should base their decisions on verifiable capital flows and position structures, rather than on emotional fluctuations and unverified rumors.

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。