Почему рынок не обвалился, несмотря на продажу связанного с BlackRock кошелька более чем на 1 миллиард долларов в биткоинах?

On-chain monitoring agency Arkham Intelligence's tracked data shows that over the past week, multiple crypto wallets associated with BlackRock have experienced continuous and stable Bitcoin outflows, totaling approximately 15,000 Bitcoins. At current market prices, this is worth about 1.01 billion USD. These funds were not moved in a single transaction but showed outflows on each trading day over the past week, indicating a persistent rather than sudden pattern.

The flow of these Bitcoins points clearly to a specific destination—transfers were all conducted via Coinbase Prime. Coinbase Prime is a digital asset trading and custody platform designed for institutional clients, widely used by large asset managers like BlackRock for daily settlement of ETF underlying assets. This suggests that the observed Bitcoin movements on-chain are not a one-time “whale dump,” but rather a routine process closely tied to the daily operations of ETF products.

Are the ETF redemption outflows driven by BlackRock’s judgment or client decisions?

The key to understanding this issue lies in distinguishing two entities: BlackRock (asset manager) and the fund holders of IBIT (investors). BlackRock operates the iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT), one of the largest spot Bitcoin ETFs globally. When investors buy IBIT shares, BlackRock purchases an equivalent amount of Bitcoin as the underlying asset for custody; when investors redeem shares, BlackRock must sell an equivalent amount of Bitcoin to settle.

Therefore, the so-called “BlackRock selling” tracked on-chain is actually a passive settlement triggered by the redemption actions of IBIT fund holders. Senior ETF analyst Erik Balchunas from Bloomberg clearly defined this: “The outflow of funds is a mechanical result of ETF redemptions, not a directional judgment by BlackRock.”

More direct evidence comes from BlackRock’s own strategic moves. During the same week when the market widely focused on IBIT fund outflows, BlackRock submitted an application to the U.S. SEC for a second tokenized fund. A firm expanding its digital asset business is hard to interpret as “shorting and exiting” the Bitcoin market.

Why did a sell-off of over a billion dollars not trigger a severe market crash?

This is a critical question that must be answered from the perspective of market microstructure. Looking at price behavior, Bitcoin remained above $74,000 after this wave of institutional selling pressure, reaching a high of around $70,000 mid-year. Although it later retreated, the overall price structure did not experience a catastrophic breakdown.

In contrast, during early Bitcoin market development (2020–2022), just a few hundred million dollars of concentrated selling could trigger a 10% to 20% price drop. The fact that the market withstood a $1 billion sell pressure while maintaining stability indicates two structural changes: first, the depth of market liquidity has fundamentally improved; second, the presence of institutional bid support has altered supply-demand dynamics.

Which funds are absorbing the continuous selling pressure from institutions?

Arkham Intelligence, after tracking on-chain data, posed a core question: “If BlackRock is selling… then who is buying?”

Based on current information, at least the following participant groups are involved:

Retail investors are a clear buying force. On social media platforms, narratives of “buying the dip” continue to ferment, with many small and medium investors viewing the recent price correction as an entry opportunity. This retail buying creates an opposing force to institutional outflows, serving as an important buffer for price stability.

The OTC (over-the-counter) market also plays a significant role in absorbing sell pressure. Public market data shows a large OTC block trade of about $1.29 billion worth of IBIT shares executed via Nasdaq dark pools. Analysts note that such trades are typically conducted off-exchange or within deep liquidity pools to minimize direct impact on public order books.

Large holders (whales) also show signs of differentiation. On-chain data indicates that wallets holding at least 100 Bitcoins increased during the price correction, suggesting some large investors are actively accumulating against market panic.

How does the macro environment influence institutional Bitcoin allocation decisions?

The macro backdrop of this ETF outflow cannot be ignored. Recent U.S. inflation data shows April CPI rose 3.8% YoY, and PPI surged 6% YoY, hitting nearly three-year highs. The broad rebound in inflation pressures has shifted market expectations of Federal Reserve monetary policy—expectations of rate cuts within the year have significantly diminished.

Meanwhile, the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield has risen to a 16-month high. The high-interest-rate environment creates objective pressures for institutions to rebalance their portfolios, and reducing certain risk exposures is a normal part of asset management, not necessarily a bearish view on Bitcoin.

Additionally, the Q1 13F filings reveal a highly differentiated institutional landscape. Jane Street cut its Bitcoin ETF holdings by about 71%, while JPMorgan increased holdings by up to 174%. Bank of America continued to add to IBIT positions this quarter, and Abu Dhabi’s sovereign wealth fund Mubadala has maintained a quarterly increase since late 2023. This divergence indicates that institutional fund flows are not a unified retreat but rather a varied adjustment based on individual investment frameworks.

How do on-chain reserves and OTC markets coordinate to balance supply and demand?

From the supply side on-chain, aside from ETF-related redemptions and sales, other supply pressures are also being released. A Bitcoin miner wallet from the early days (Satoshi’s initial mining phase) recently transferred 2,650 BTC (worth about $203 million) to OTC platforms FalconX and Cumberland in three transactions. The wallet still holds about 6,000 BTC (worth about $46 million).

Transferring large amounts of Bitcoin to OTC platforms is a common way for large holders to find trading counterparts—this allows transactions to occur without flooding the exchange order book and causing direct price impacts. However, it effectively converts dormant, inactive supply into tradable inventory, increasing potential sell pressure.

Meanwhile, exchange reserves of Bitcoin have increased by approximately 14,200 BTC over the past week. This rise in reserves indicates that liquidity supply available for trading is growing, and market absorption capacity is being continuously tested. These are interconnected dynamics: increased seller supply and the market’s depth and willingness to absorb are balancing each other.

Does market resilience imply that institutional confidence in Bitcoin remains intact?

The current price resilience signals an important point: hundreds of millions to billions of dollars in institutional sell orders have not triggered a collapse of the price system. Analysts suggest two interpretations: “temporary risk reduction” and “structural confidence collapse.”

CryptoQuant analysts note that this wave of concentrated IBIT trading is part of large-scale institutional de-risking. But “de-risking” does not necessarily mean a directional bearish stance—it can also involve reducing positions or rebalancing across products.

On the other hand, the total holdings of physical Bitcoin ETFs still amount to about 1.3 million BTC, nearly 7% of the circulating supply. This substantial stockpile provides a significant support level for the market and indicates that institutional exposure to cryptocurrencies has not been systematically wiped out.

Market analysts interpret the inability of this $10 billion sell-off to cause a price crash as a sign that Bitcoin has entered a higher level of institutional maturity. The deep liquidity provided by spot ETFs has changed the previous paradigm where large outflows would inevitably lead to sharp price declines.

What key signals should the market monitor moving forward?

The core question now is whether the recent ETF outflows are short-term risk management or indicative of a fundamental shift in institutional allocation strategies.

In the short term, daily ETF fund flow data is the most critical indicator. The duration and scale of outflows will directly reflect institutional confidence in the current price range. Changes in on-chain reserves are another leading indicator; sustained growth in exchange Bitcoin reserves will test market absorption capacity.

At the institutional level, upcoming quarterly 13F filings will provide more definitive clues about allocation directions. Key points to observe include whether previously reducing institutions continue to cut holdings, and whether those that increased positions earlier are changing their strategies.

On the price structure front, attention should be paid to short-term volatility risks during periods of low liquidity. The London trading session’s closing and New York’s opening hours are historically more volatile due to thinner order books, warranting close monitoring. If on-chain reserves continue to accumulate while ETF outflows persist, market absorption pressures will intensify.

Summary

BlackRock-related wallets sold about 15,000 Bitcoins over the past week (worth over $1.01 billion). This is not a reflection of the world’s largest asset manager’s bearish outlook but a passive settlement triggered by IBIT fund redemptions. Meanwhile, U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded a net outflow of approximately $1.26 billion in mid-May, marking the most severe weekly fund drain since 2026.

However, Bitcoin’s price did not crash sharply during this period, remaining above $74,000. This market resilience results from multiple factors:

Macro level: The unexpected rebound in U.S. inflation data and rising Treasury yields provide a macro backdrop for risk reduction by institutions;
Market structure: The deep liquidity introduced by spot ETFs enhances market buffering capacity, while OTC markets absorb some sell pressure without directly impacting public prices;
Participant behavior: Retail “buy-the-dip” narratives and some whales’ contrarian accumulation create a bifurcated buying distribution;
Institutional actions: The highly divergent changes in Q1 13F holdings show no unified retreat but rather varied adjustments based on individual strategies.

The key takeaway is that recent $10 billion outflows are likely temporary risk mitigation rather than a fundamental change in institutional Bitcoin allocation. Future ETF fund flow trends, on-chain reserve changes, and next quarter’s institutional disclosures will be crucial signals for market direction.

FAQ

Q: Does BlackRock’s $1 billion Bitcoin sell-off mean it’s bearish on Bitcoin?

A: Not necessarily. The “BlackRock sell” tracked on-chain is actually a passive settlement triggered by investor redemptions of its IBIT fund. BlackRock itself has not changed its long-term stance on Bitcoin; it also submitted an application for another tokenized fund during the same week.

Q: So who bought the $1 billion worth of Bitcoin that BlackRock sold?

A: Mainly three groups:

1. Retail investors engaging in “buying the dip”;
2. OTC block traders acting as counterparties;
3. Some institutional and whale investors accumulating against the panic.

Q: Is the market price stable because demand is strong?

A: Yes, but not only. Market resilience also stems from supply-side improvements (OTC market distribution), increased liquidity depth (via spot ETFs), and participant divergence (not all institutions are selling).

Q: What data should be monitored to judge future market direction?

A: Focus on three aspects: the persistence of ETF daily fund flows, the trend in exchange Bitcoin reserves, and the upcoming institutional 13F disclosures.

Q: How does current market condition differ from the 2022 bear market?

A: The biggest difference is in liquidity structure. In 2022, only exchange spot markets absorbed selling pressure, whereas today’s spot ETF ecosystem provides a deeper and broader liquidity buffer, making billion-dollar sell-offs less likely to cause sharp crashes.

Q: Why do JPMorgan and Jane Street take opposite positions?

A: Different institutions make decisions based on their own asset allocation frameworks, risk preferences, and investment horizons. This illustrates that institutional flows are highly diversified rather than one-sided.

Q: Where are the key support levels for Bitcoin’s price?

A: Based on on-chain chip distribution and current market structure, the $75,000–$76,000 range is a significant support zone; the $78,000–$80,000 zone is a short-term cluster of supply, representing technical resistance. For real-time prices, refer to Gate’s official market data.