I have seen many theories over the past weeks on X about Jane Street systematically dumping Bitcoin at 10 a.m. in the morning. The story sounds tempting: a large trading firm manipulates the market, buys ETFs at a discount, and quickly makes legal money by exploiting the market. But let’s take a look at the facts.

The accusations are quite specific. Jane Street is said to sell Bitcoin every day around the opening of the U.S. market to push the price down, then buy cheap IBIT shares. Some point to the company's $81.27k position in BlackRock's IBIT as evidence. After the lawsuit last week, these dumps supposedly stopped suddenly, and Bitcoin rose more than 6% to nearly $70,000.

All of that sounds suspicious, right? The problem is that market data doesn’t really support this story. Alex Kruger, a crypto economist I follow regularly, took a close look at the data. What he found: the cumulative returns of IBIT in the 10:00-10:30 window since January are actually +0.9%. In the 10:00-10:15 window —1%. Those are noise, not systematic dumps.

Even more interesting: both windows exactly follow the performance of the Nasdaq. This suggests that what we see isn’t targeted manipulation but rather a broad reassessment of risky assets. Bitcoin isn’t falling because Jane Street presses a button, but because the entire market for risky assets is being revalued.

Now, Jane Street is indeed an authorized participant (AP) in the ETF ecosystem, which gives them certain powers. They can, for example, short shares without borrowing costs (thanks to Reg SHO exceptions) and use in-kind creation. Yale ReiSoleil from Untrading has an interesting point here: the structure itself can delay price discovery, not because someone is breaking rules, but because the system’s mechanics create gray areas.

How does this work in practice? When BTC rises during Asian hours, demand for ETFs increases. APs short shares (without borrowing costs) to meet that demand. Later, they buy Bitcoin via OTC channels and hedge their position with futures instead of spot. The result: the spot market never sees the full buying pressure. But this isn’t necessarily manipulation; it’s how the system operates.

Kruger also argues that none of this really matters. Whether the AP buys spot or a basic trader, the net demand for BTC spot remains the same. The idea that hedging with futures first and then buying spot undermines price discovery simply isn’t true.

What I notice: there’s no on-chain data or exchange information directly linking Jane Street to a coordinated campaign. The timing of the lawsuit and the sudden stop of the 10 a.m. dumps is suspicious, but that’s not proof.

The reality is probably less dramatic than conspiracy theories suggest. The market reacts to broader macro sentiment, and the AP mechanism indeed creates certain effects, but not through deliberate manipulation. It’s more about how the system is designed than criminal behavior.

BTC is now at $81.27K. Whether you see this as an opportunity or a warning depends on your own analysis. But don’t get too carried away by the narratives on X. The data tells a different story.