On May 8, 2026, the distribution of Bitcoin chips was torn apart by a clear crack: after a period of continuous net inflow, the US spot Bitcoin ETF recorded a single-day overall net outflow of approximately $145.6 million for the first time, particularly with Fidelity FBTC seeing an outflow of about $97.6 million, BlackRock IBIT an outflow of about $27.22 million, and Ark ARKB an outflow of about $26.56 million. This string of numbers corresponds to a batch of short-term funds flowing in and out through compliant channels, collectively choosing to reduce positions at high prices. In stark contrast, on the same day, Morgan Stanley’s MSBT recorded an opposite net inflow of about $5.74 million, increasing its holdings by about 91.739 BTC, raising its total position to approximately 2,922 BTC; earlier, Coinbase had purchased 1,103 BTC using its own balance sheet in the first quarter, costing about $88 million, pushing its holdings up to 16,492 BTC, while BlackRock’s large transfer of BTC and ETH to Coinbase was viewed by the market as an institutional-level migration related to custody or ETF operations. Against the backdrop of prices rebounding to over $80,000, traders like Yi Lihua have begun to "gradually close positions and wait to buy again near the $50,000 level", standing at opposite ends of the chessboard to traditional institutions that continue to increase their positions through MSBT, corporate reserves, and custody systems: on one side are the short-term funds extracting liquidity through the ETF channels, and on the other are long-term allocators increasing their positions amidst the volatility. This misalignment in the structure of funds is reshaping Bitcoin's risk preference curve and raises a question running throughout this text—when retreat and accumulation happen simultaneously, to which side will the marginal buyer, price center, and future volatility path ultimately lean in terms of chip logic?

ETF Sees $140 Million in Single-Day Outflows: US Funds Cool Down

The net outflow of about $145.6 million on May 8 was not evenly spread across the board, but rather highly concentrated in leading channels: Fidelity FBTC saw an outflow of about $97.6 million in a single day, BlackRock IBIT approximately $27.22 million, and Ark ARKB about $26.56 million. Previously, they had just experienced a round of continuous net inflow in early May, and now they suddenly reverse direction, resembling a group of traditional funds that entered through compliant channels, collectively pressing the cash-out button after prices had been pushed up to "over $80,000" as mentioned by Yi Lihua. For these investors, the spot Bitcoin ETF is essentially a convenient and transparent position management tool: increasing positions as prices rise and reducing positions when target returns are met, making the subscription and redemption data the most direct risk preference curve—once net inflow is replaced by net outflow in a single day, it indicates that a portion of short-term funds is reassessing the cost-effectiveness of this rebound.

From a trading structure perspective, the reduction of positions in these passive products will translate into marginal sell orders for the spot market through custodial and market-making links, but its intensity is more reflected in "marginal" rather than "panic selling." On one hand, the net outflow from leading ETFs means that the compliant increments that previously drove the price rebound are slowing or even reversing in the short term, placing certain upward pressure on Bitcoin's current price and compressing the risk premium of other high-beta crypto assets; on the other hand, this single-day withdrawal of over $100 million, relative to previous continuous net inflows and larger long-term allocation demands, simply pulls the market back from an overheated state to a more neutral temperature range, making it more akin to a phase of profit-taking by short-term bulls rather than a signal that a long-term trend has already reversed.

Morgan Stanley and Coinbase Increasing Bitcoin Exposure Against the Trends

On the same day that the overall net outflow from the ETF channels was approximately $145.6 million, Morgan Stanley’s MSBT presented a decidedly different answer: a net inflow of about $5.74 million, corresponding to an increase of about 91.739 BTC, raising its total holdings to about 2,922 BTC, with an estimated value of about $235 million. This behavior is more reminiscent of typical asset allocation by large banks—not chasing intraday price differences, but steadily increasing long-term exposure to a single asset amidst increasing volatility and reductions in passive funds, utilizing price corrections and improved liquidity. From a macro variable perspective, the holding curve of leading institutional ETFs like MSBT is more akin to a slow rebalancing trajectory of “pension funds” than to short-term subscriptions and redemptions, indicating that when the price returns to their determined valuation center, a portion of counter-cyclical buying will naturally be released, forming a hedge against the emotional fluctuations of retail and trend funds.

In line with this, Coinbase—more closely tied to the crypto industry itself—directly purchased 1,103 BTC using its own balance sheet in the first quarter of 2026, amounting to about $88 million, raising its holdings to 16,492 BTC, valued at about $1.3 billion. Placing Bitcoin on the company’s balance sheet is no longer just a neutral position for “custodial services”, but viewed as a reserve asset and business risk hedging tool that can be held long-term, which macroeconomically equates to locking in part of a company's free cash flow on-chain, separating it from traditional currency and bond combinations. From the market structure perspective, when short-term funds in the ETF channels opt to reduce positions at high levels, this type of institution expands its Bitcoin exposure at the same stage, essentially providing sustained and disciplined structural buying during price correction periods, raising the “fundamental” demand for Bitcoin in the medium to long-term, thus imposing a more solid lower limit constraint on its pricing range for the next few years.

BlackRock's Large Transfers on Chain: Custody Transfers Cause Emotional Fluctuations

At the same time that ETF funds were experiencing overall net outflows, BlackRock was found transferring large amounts of BTC and ETH to Coinbase. On-chain monitoring first captured the "incredible" scale of the funds' movements, but existing public information did not disclose specific numbers and amounts; what can be confirmed is that funds flowed from BlackRock-related wallets to centralized platform accounts like Coinbase. Research briefs subsequently provided relatively restrained judgments: this type of transfer behavior "is closer in nature to custody or ETF-related transfers," and is likely associated with the physical subscription and redemption of the spot ETF, custodial account restructuring, or internal reconciliations, rather than simply “moving coins to exchanges to prepare for dumping.” Nevertheless, in a tense environment, the very fact that the recipient of the funds is a trading platform sparked imaginations about “whether institutions intend to sell”: some traders immediately viewed it as a prelude to new selling pressure, while others insisted it was an ETF-related transfer, the differing interpretations themselves amplified the short-term volatility pricing of Bitcoin and ETH.

A deeper change is that these large custodial activities and ETF-related on-chain traces are impacting the past simple framework of "on-chain inflows to exchanges = selling pressure, outflows = reduced pressure." For asset managers like BlackRock managing multiple products, a transfer of BTC to Coinbase may correspond to the redemption and adjustment of IBIT or intertwine with Coinbase’s own balance sheet allocation, rather than immediately selling in the open market. The result is that the same on-chain record, after the macro fund structure has been reshaped by ETFs, may mean either the redemption of passive products or the passive building of positions by another institutional account. The complexity of the funding path has shifted the interpretative authority of “exchange balances” from retail investors to institutional researchers who understand custodial paths; any large transfers that are not promptly clarified resemble a magnifying glass, illuminating the market's divergent expectations about institutional behavior, and what traders really need to adapt to is a new paradigm in which on-chain custody flows become increasingly decoupled from price volatility.

Yi Lihua's Post-War Bullish Scenario: Reducing Positions Above $80,000, Ambushing Below $50,000

As custody paths and fund flows become increasingly difficult to read directly, some of the discourse power has shifted to a few traders who can articulate macro narratives clearly. Yi Lihua's "post-war" script given on X serves as an important reference point in this round of the Chinese trading community. He clearly states that the current Bitcoin trend aligns with his expectations of "market performance after the war"—with prices rebounding to above $80,000, he chooses to go with the flow, gradually closing positions as the crypto market rebounds, viewing the area above $80,000 as a phase of profit-taking rather than chasing the final stretch of emotional stretching. At the same time, he reserves the real "heavy hammer" for a deeper pullback: if Bitcoin provides a buying opportunity near $50,000, then the next round could still have about four times the upside potential. Coupled with his statement that "there is no bubble in the AI sector in the long term," the script reflects a typical medium to long-term tech bull market believer—daring to reduce positions in the short term while still betting on the resonance of technology and asset prices in the long term.

This open and concrete path with price levels and multiples directly impacts emotional management and leverage behavior in the Chinese trading community. On one hand, it sets an "acceptable depth" for the current retracement—near $50,000 has been internalized by many followers as a medium-term defense or even accumulation range, partially hedging against panic about deeper pullbacks; on the other hand, the narrative of "next round with four times the space" provides a narrative endorsement for high-beta positions, encouraging some funds to leverage for long-term gains during the retracement, rather than simply passively reducing positions to mirror short-term ETF net outflow data. This price-time-multiples script provided by leading traders is effectively participating in building a collective expectation anchor of "retracements have a bottom, and the long bull market is not over," and invisibly redefines who is willing to bear volatility and who chooses to trade short-term, which will directly shape the distribution of chips and rebound rhythms for Bitcoin during the next phase of extreme volatility.

Short-term Funds Retreat, Long-term Institutions Increase Positions: The Next Step for Bitcoin Pricing

The net outflow of about $145.6 million from the spot ETF on May 8 reflects the attitude of short-term funds written on the charts: FBTC, IBIT, and ARKB collectively reducing positions is a high-level cashing out of previous continuous net inflows and price spikes, while on the same day, Morgan Stanley’s MSBT recorded an opposite net inflow of about $5.74 million, raising positions to approximately 2,922 BTC, combined with Coinbase's self-purchase of an additional 1,103 BTC in the first quarter, boosting total reserves to 16,492 BTC. The chips related to Bitcoin in compliant channels have effectively shifted from passive funds to the asset-liability balance sheets of institutions willing to withstand longer cycle volatility. BlackRock’s transfers of large BTC and ETH to Coinbase, even if more likely merely related to custody or ETF migrations, have been interpreted emotionally as “institutions ready to dump at any time,” amplifying the short-term risk premium; meanwhile, Yi Lihua is gradually closing positions above $80,000 while publicly marking potential accumulation areas near $50,000. This inherent expectation of significant volatility will itself push up the volatility pricing of BTC and ETH, making the near-month futures spreads and options implied volatility respond more sensitively to macro and geopolitical risks. At the current juncture, Bitcoin's pricing is being pulled by two forces: on one side, the quick in-and-out of ETF channels has raised the probability of short-term retracements and volatility centers; on the other side, institutions like Morgan Stanley and Coinbase are increasing positions against the trends and migrating custody, providing a bottom support for medium to long-term allocation demands, and reinforcing the institutional attributes of the entire mainstream asset sector through synchronous layout in ETH. What needs to be closely monitored next is the daily subscription and redemption data of the US spot Bitcoin ETF, the position disclosures of products like MSBT and listed companies, and the large on-chain circulation of BTC and ETH on custodial platforms like Coinbase, combined with the rhythm of macro interest rates and external risk events such as geopolitical shocks. These variables will jointly determine whether this round of chip redistribution evolves into a new high after healthy turnover or transforms into a high-level shock pattern of long-term elevated risk premiums.

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。