U.S. spot Bitcoin funds went from a $524.8 million net inflow on October 21 to a $635.6 million net outflow the next day. The reversal was sharp, but fund-flow figures alone don’t show how much Bitcoin was sold or who ultimately bought any coins that changed hands.
- Five dated entries: $301.2 million in net inflows overall.
- October 22-23: $773.5 million in net outflows, according to Farside Investors.
- What the numbers show: Changes in fund flows, not a direct count of Bitcoin trades.
Three inflow days, then a sharp reversal
Farside reported $526.7 million in net inflows on October 19, followed by $23.2 million on October 20 and $524.8 million on October 21. Together, the three days brought in $1.0747 billion.
Then the direction flipped. Farside reported $635.6 million in net outflows on October 22 and $137.9 million on October 23. The withdrawals totaled $773.5 million, about 72% of the inflows from the preceding three days. Across all five dates, the net remained positive at $301.2 million.
The shift from an inflow on October 21 to an outflow on October 22 amounted to a $1.1604 billion swing in daily net flow. That’s the difference between two daily totals, not a single $1.16 billion redemption.
BlackRock’s IBIT recorded a $254.1 million outflow on October 22, while Fidelity’s FBTC lost $217.5 million. Together, they accounted for $471.6 million, or about 74% of that day’s net outflow. Ark Invest and 21Shares’ ARKB lost $109.4 million, Bitwise’s BITB lost $27.4 million and Grayscale’s GBTC lost $29.5 million. Morgan Stanley’s MSBT recorded a $2.3 million inflow.
On October 23, IBIT had a $110.3 million outflow and FBTC lost $31.8 million. MSBT took in $4.2 million. Farside’s table showed a dash for one issuer that day, so the displayed total may be revised.
What an ETF outflow does, and doesn’t, show
ETF flow providers report or calculate net changes tied to fund creations and redemptions. These figures don’t tally every ETF share trade or provide an audited count of Bitcoin sold on public exchanges.
Most investors trade ETF shares with one another on stock exchanges. Those secondary-market trades don’t, by themselves, change a fund’s Bitcoin holdings. Fund assets change when authorized participants, financial firms that can transact directly with a fund, create or redeem large baskets of shares.
A redemption may be paid in cash, Bitcoin or a combination of the two, depending on the fund’s procedures. If a fund pays cash, it may need to sell Bitcoin to raise the money. With an in-kind redemption, the fund transfers Bitcoin to an authorized participant instead. That firm may hold, sell or transfer the coins, or hedge its exposure using spot markets or derivatives. A hedge is a position intended to offset price risk. It doesn’t necessarily signal a longer-term view of Bitcoin.
In July 2025, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission permitted in-kind creations and redemptions for spot crypto exchange-traded products, ending the cash-only requirement that applied when spot Bitcoin products launched in January 2024. That permission doesn’t tell us how any particular redemption in October was settled.
BlackRock’s IBIT prospectus allows redemptions in cash, Bitcoin or a combination, at the sponsor’s discretion. Ordinary shareholders can’t directly demand Bitcoin from the trust. These mechanics matter, but the reported daily flow doesn’t reveal which settlement method was used or what happened to any Bitcoin afterward.
Who buys when the funds have outflows?
There may be several buyers at different points in the process. An investor selling ETF shares may sell to another investor. If a basket is redeemed, an authorized participant may receive cash or Bitcoin. If Bitcoin goes to an intermediary, that firm or someone else may later buy or sell it in the market.
Public blockchain activity doesn’t necessarily settle the question. An omnibus address can hold assets for multiple customers, so a transfer involving that address may not identify the beneficial owner or explain why the assets moved.
At a hypothetical Bitcoin price of $81, 000, $773.5 million would equal about 9, 549 BTC. That gives a sense of scale, not an observed count of coins sold. The flow total doesn’t establish the settlement method, timing or amount of any later Bitcoin trades.
Outflows coincided with market pressure
Bitcoin was reported trading around $80, 000 to $82, 000 as the withdrawals arrived. A separate October 23 price report put BTC near $81, 450, after a retreat from the $84, 000 to $85, 000 area. The timing stands out, but it doesn’t establish that ETF redemptions caused the decline.
CoinGlass recorded more than $400 million in broader crypto liquidations in its October 23 report. Liquidations are forced closures of leveraged positions and can add buying or selling pressure independently of ETF activity. The available figures don’t show how much of the price move came from fund-related selling or hedging, liquidations or other market trading.
Glassnode’s October 21 market study described buying around $80, 000 to $81, 500 after an October 15 dip. It also estimated potential selling and liquidation clusters between about $85, 000 and $87, 500. These estimates are based on market data, not guaranteed support or resistance levels. They don’t tell us what ETF investors or other holders will do next.
Why published flow totals can differ
Farside reported $635.6 million in outflows on October 22, while SoSoValue reported $635.49 million. For October 21, Farside showed $524.8 million in inflows and SoSoValue about $528.4 million. The figures are close, but not identical. The available information doesn’t explain the differences. The five-date calculation here uses Farside’s figures throughout.
Farside’s October 23 table listed $57.251 billion in cumulative net inflows to the funds it covers. That running total of inflows minus outflows isn’t the funds’ current Bitcoin holdings or their current market value.
Key questions and answers
-
Were ETF flows negative across October 19-23?
No. The October 22 and 23 entries showed net outflows, but the five-date total was a $301.2 million net inflow using Farside’s figures.
-
Did ETFs sell $635.6 million of Bitcoin on October 22?
That was the reported net fund outflow, not a direct measure of Bitcoin sold on exchanges. The figure doesn’t specify how redemptions were settled or what happened afterward.
-
Can in-kind redemptions avoid an immediate Bitcoin sale by a fund?
Yes. A fund can transfer Bitcoin to an authorized participant instead of selling it for cash. The recipient may then hold, sell, transfer or hedge the coins.
-
Can ETF outflows pressure Bitcoin’s price?
They can contribute to selling or hedging pressure, but the flow totals can’t measure that effect or separate it from liquidations and other market activity.
-
Does an estimated $80, 000-$81, 500 cost basis guarantee support?
No. It reflects estimated past costs and buying activity, not a standing bid or a promise of future demand.
Related market coverage: Bitcoin ETFs Lose $487 Million: the Reasons.
Bitcoin Holds $64K as Record ETF Outflows and MicroStrategy Pressure Mount
