BTC's return was sold for 729 million dollars, and FBTC lost more than the total market

According to Woofun AI, the US spot Bitcoin ETF market experienced a withdrawal of $729 million in capital within two trading days. This sharp fluctuation happened at the point where the Bitcoin price rebounded to the estimated average purchase price. Investors see the return of prices to break-even as an opportunity to exit rather than a sign of long-term holdings, leading to an accelerated withdrawal of funds as soon as they paid back.

This 'pay back and go' behavior model reveals that current market participants lack confidence in the long-term value of assets, and short-term arbitrage logic dominates capital flows. It is worth noting that although the overall market showed a net outflow trend, there were significant differences in the performance of different funds, and some leading products even showed capital trends that deviated from the general market, reflecting extreme differentiation in investors' strategies.

Bloomberg Intelligence ETF analyst James Seyffart (James Seyffart) estimates that the average cost benchmark for US spot Bitcoin ETF holders is $81,722. When Bitcoin broke through this level at the end of September, holders' asset conditions first corrected, but this buffering advantage only lasted two weeks. As of the latest data, Bitcoin was trading at $81,607, down 2.2% from the previous day, making the average position value slightly below the cost line again. Faced with falling prices, holders did not choose to wait and see, but acted quickly: on October 7, there was a net outflow of $484.9 million from the market, which completely offset the previous day's net inflow of $118 million; on October 8, there was another outflow of $244.1 million. The two-day sell-off wave erased early October profits, bringing the cumulative net outflow for the month to US$407.4 billion.

Data compiled by Woofun AI shows that this kind of intensive trading near the break-even point indicates that the cost benchmark has been transformed into a psychological resistance level that hinders further purchases, and investors prefer to lock in principal rather than obtain higher returns.

Judging from the performance of individual funds, capital flows showed extreme structural differentiation. According to Farside data, from October 1 to October 8, Fidelity's Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund (FBTC.US) outflows even exceeded the total net outflow of the entire market. The fund experienced outflows on five of the six trading days in October. In contrast, BlackRock's iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT.US) attracted net inflows of $3325 million and became a safe haven in the market. Excluding IBIT, the total loss of the remaining ETFs was as high as $7399 million. Even though IBIT's overall performance was strong, it was not fully immune to market sentiment, and it had its biggest single-day outflow of US$207.7 million on October 7.

This difference shows that selling pressure is mainly due to specific groups of investors, rather than the simultaneous reduction of holdings by the entire market. FBTC's huge loss of blood and IBIT's bucking the trend reflects the essential differences in the investor structure behind different funds. Some of the funds may have carried out stop-loss operations in FBTC, while seeking new allocation opportunities in IBIT.

This financial pressure is not limited to the Bitcoin sector; US spot Ethereum ETFs are also facing serious challenges. According to the data, spot Ethereum ETFs have experienced capital outflows for eight consecutive trading days, with a cumulative loss of US$641.3 million since September 29. The trend previously followed by BeInCrypto shows that during the rise from September 21 to September 30, spot ETFs were the main buyers, absorbing more than $2.3 billion in capital.

However, current buying demand appears to be based more on short-term considerations of price levels than on long-term optimism. Once prices break out of the break-even point, whether these funds can attract new investors will be the key to testing the real needs of the market. From a structural point of view, current market liquidity is more dependent on the cost recovery effect brought about by price rebound rather than long-term allocation driven by fundamentals. If the price fails to stay above the cost line, the ETF market may face the risk of further liquidity depletion.