BlackRock IBIT masuk ke dalam aliran masuk mingguan lebih dari 600 juta dolar AS: Mengapa institusi tetap menambah posisi meskipun mengalami kerugian unrealized 20%?

13 April 2026, weekly data shows that the US spot Bitcoin ETF recorded approximately $786 million in net inflows, with BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) leading the weekly inflow at $612 million, surpassing the total of all other ETF providers combined, accounting for about 78% of the market’s weekly inflow. Meanwhile, on-chain analysis estimates that the average purchase cost for IBIT investors is about $89,000 per Bitcoin, and at the current market price of around $70,000, most holders face over 20% unrealized losses. An intriguing phenomenon emerges: unrealized losses coexist with continued buying. What underlying decision logic explains this seemingly contradictory capital flow?

Who is the dominant force behind IBIT’s contrarian inflow?

To understand the persistence of capital flow, first answer a basic question: who are the buyers behind this inflow? From IBIT’s holdings structure, its main holders are not retail investors but large institutions. As of now, IBIT holds a total of 790,808 Bitcoins (about $572 billion), making it the largest Bitcoin ETF position globally. Institutional funds operate on quarterly or annual rebalancing cycles, with much higher tolerance for short-term volatility than individual investors. In the context of Bitcoin’s price retreating about 40% from its all-time high, the continued accumulation by large institutions also sends a self-reinforcing market signal. The structural implication of this signal is that institutional capital does not change its strategic allocation to BTC due to short-term paper losses; instead, it views the current price range as a window to increase exposure.

Why do institutions continue to buy despite unrealized losses: what is the cognitive gap between institutions and retail investors?

The coexistence of unrealized losses and ongoing buying reflects core cognitive differences between institutional and retail investors. For retail investors, short-term paper losses often trigger stop-loss or “chasing the rally” behaviors; for institutions, unrealized losses do not constitute a decision-ending signal and may instead serve as a trigger to lower the average cost. Institutions typically adopt dollar-cost averaging or phased position-building strategies, increasing holdings during price dips to reduce overall cost basis rather than exiting the market. The underlying logic is that institutions maintain strategic confidence in Bitcoin’s long-term store of value, rather than engaging in event-driven short-term trading based on price fluctuations. Harvard Management disclosed holding $442.9 million in IBIT, a 200% increase from the previous quarter, making it their highest-valued US-listed stock position. Their increased buying during declines largely reflects a strategic expression of long-term optimism for digital assets.

How does IBIT’s monopoly pattern reshape the capital flow structure of the Bitcoin ETF market?

IBIT’s weekly inflow of $612 million exceeds the total inflow of other ETF providers, accounting for about 78%. This concentration pattern is not a short-term phenomenon. In previous market phases, IBIT once accounted for over 100% of daily net market inflows, with the other 10 funds collectively experiencing net outflows. IBIT’s monopoly structure means that the capital flow in the Bitcoin ETF market heavily depends on a single product’s buying power. When IBIT continues to attract funds, the overall market shows net inflows; if its inflow slows, the market may quickly shift to net outflows. This concentration amplifies the dominant role of institutional capital in the short term but also significantly increases the market’s exposure to risks associated with reliance on a single product, creating notable two-way risks.

Why is dollar-cost averaging (DCA) more attractive during market dips?

During market corrections, institutional dollar-cost averaging strategies become more appealing. The core logic of DCA is to diversify price risk over time, avoiding the pressure of market timing at a single entry point. When IBIT’s average purchase price is about $89,000 and the current price is around $70,000, unrealized losses reach approximately 20%. Continued incremental buying can lower the overall position’s average cost, amplifying future gains when prices rebound. The effectiveness of this strategy depends on two premises: first, that institutions’ long-term value judgment remains unchanged; second, that they have sufficient capital and investment horizon to dilute short-term losses. From IBIT’s capital flow data, these premises still hold at this stage. The ongoing implementation of DCA also signals to the market that institutions are accumulating at the bottom, attracting more allocative capital to follow.

What does IBIT’s concentration mean for the crypto market?

IBIT’s size and dominant position make it a “benchmark variable” for the Bitcoin ETF market and the broader crypto asset market. Currently, IBIT holds about 790,808 Bitcoins, a significant proportion of the circulating supply, with a management scale exceeding $57 billion. This concentration means that changes in IBIT’s capital flow directly impact market supply and demand: continuous net inflows support prices by meeting buy demand, while net outflows could trigger chain reactions of selling. From a macro perspective, this structure also reflects the evolution of the Bitcoin ETF market from “dispersed competition” to “leading player dominance.” For market participants, understanding the risks of IBIT’s concentration is an essential dimension in assessing overall market liquidity.

How do macro variables influence institutional asset allocation to Bitcoin ETFs?

IBIT’s ongoing inflows are not happening in a macro vacuum. Recently, the macro environment shows mixed signals: on one hand, US March core CPI data was below expectations, combined with easing geopolitical tensions, improving risk appetite and driving weekly net inflows into crypto products of about $1.1 billion; on the other hand, expectations for the Federal Reserve’s rate path in 2026 have shifted dramatically, from pricing multiple rate cuts to a roughly 30% chance of rate hikes, with a strengthening dollar and rising Treasury yields putting pressure on non-yield assets. In this context, institutions’ allocation to Bitcoin via IBIT is not purely chasing price appreciation but is more about tactical rebalancing amid geopolitical uncertainties and macro volatility.

What chain reactions might continuous IBIT inflows trigger?

Persistent inflows into IBIT could influence market structure through three pathways. First, buy demand supports spot Bitcoin prices. In recent environments where prices faced resistance at around $76,000 and retreated to about $74,000, ongoing ETF institutional buying helps absorb sell pressure from derivatives and short-term traders. Second, the concentration of inflows reinforces the narrative of institutional allocation, providing reference signals for more cautious investors. The continued execution of dollar-cost averaging itself signals that institutions are accumulating at the bottom, attracting more strategic capital. Third, IBIT’s inflows validate institutional confidence in Bitcoin’s long-term value. However, ETF inflows are not purely linear; monthly data shows a significant slowdown after February’s peak. While IBIT’s market dominance amplifies institutional influence, it also increases dependence on a single product’s capital flow, introducing risks.

Summary

BlackRock’s IBIT recorded a weekly net inflow of $612 million, with an average purchase price of about $89,000 and unrealized losses exceeding 20%, yet continues to buy more. This phenomenon reveals several key features of the institutional evolution of the Bitcoin ETF market: the decision logic of institutional capital differs fundamentally from retail investors; cost averaging and phased accumulation are primary tools for institutions to handle corrections; IBIT’s monopoly pattern temporarily strengthens institutional dominance but also makes the market’s capital flow highly dependent on a single product; macro variables and geopolitical uncertainties are driving institutions to incorporate Bitcoin ETFs into broader tactical asset allocation frameworks. As the market shifts from “whether to allocate” to “how to allocate,” understanding the contrarian buying logic and concentration effects of institutions will be crucial for grasping market trends.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Why do IBIT investors continue to buy despite unrealized losses?

Most IBIT investors have an average purchase cost of about $89,000, while current Bitcoin prices are below that, resulting in significant unrealized losses. Institutional investors typically adopt cost-averaging strategies during market dips, increasing holdings to lower overall cost basis rather than stopping losses and exiting. This reflects a strategic long-term value view of Bitcoin rather than short-term trading.

Q: Why can IBIT continue to attract inflows amid market uncertainty?

IBIT has become one of the main compliant channels for institutional investors entering Bitcoin markets. Its long-term operational horizon and the brand reputation of BlackRock, along with deep liquidity, give it a competitive edge when institutions choose ETF tools.

Q: How was the overall weekly capital flow of Bitcoin ETFs last week?

Total weekly inflow of Bitcoin ETFs was $786 million, with BlackRock IBIT accounting for $612 million. Ethereum ETFs saw inflows of $187 million, XRP funds about $12 million, and Solana-related products experienced outflows of $6 million. Capital is heavily concentrated in Bitcoin and Ethereum.

Q: What is the current price range of Bitcoin?

As of April 16, 2026, data from Gate shows Bitcoin trading around $74,000–$75,000, about 40% below the October 2025 high of $126,198, with strong technical resistance near $76,000.

Q: Will institutional allocation to Bitcoin ETFs continue?

The pace of institutional allocation depends on multiple factors, including Fed monetary policy, global liquidity, regulatory developments (like the CLARITY Act), and Bitcoin’s market structure. However, the ongoing inflow into IBIT indicates that the overall trend of including Bitcoin in asset allocation remains unchanged, with the main variables being the speed and scale of deployment.