NEW YORK — The traders who spent July betting against bitcoin were right for about four weeks. Then roughly $4 billion of their positions were closed for them, at prices they did not choose.
Bitcoin changed hands near $80,253 on Friday, up close to 10 percent over the week and back at a level it had not touched since May. It reached $81,237 on Tuesday before stalling. The stall is the more interesting half of the story.
What happened in August is a clean reversal of what happened in July, and the disagreement now is about the engine. One reading is that institutional money came back and kept coming, eight sessions running. The other is that the move manufactured its own buyers by forcing bears to cover. Both readings are supported by the same tape, which is why the next two weeks matter more than the last two.
The flow data is the stronger argument for the first reading. U.S. spot bitcoin exchange-traded funds took in money for eight consecutive sessions through August 26, including roughly $232.2 million on that day alone, of which about $200.8 million went to BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust. August inflows passed $3 billion, CoinDesk reported, with a six-day stretch inside that run drawing more than $2.5 billion.
That is not squeeze money. A short position being liquidated buys once, at whatever price the exchange can find, and then it is gone. An ETF creation is a different animal. Someone wired cash to an authorised participant and asked to hold the asset. Eight straight days of that is a pattern rather than an event.
The case for the second reading is that the squeeze was enormous and it came first. Roughly $4 billion in short positions were force-closed as the price climbed, and the earlier leg through $69,000 leaned on about $3 billion of the same thing, according to Cointelegraph. Forced buying is real buying while it lasts, and then it is structurally absent. The shorts that funded this rally cannot fund the next one.
Both of those figures deserve an asterisk. Liquidation totals are compiled from exchange feeds by data vendors that do not all cover the same venues, and the headline number is usually a subset of the market grossed up by estimate rather than a measured total. ETF flow figures are cleaner, reported daily by the issuers, but they measure something narrower than sentiment. A meaningful share of institutional ETF demand in any given week is not a directional bet at all. It is the long leg of a basis trade, buying spot against a short futures position to harvest the spread, and in the inflow column it looks identical to conviction.
What stopped the rally was a line on a chart. Bitcoin was rejected at $81,000 with the 50-week moving average sitting directly overhead, a level that has capped every attempt this year. Technical resistance is not a law of physics and traders who treat it as one lose money, but enough desks watch that particular average that it becomes self-enforcing for as long as they do.
The starting point matters for how impressive the move looks. Bitcoin hit a 21-month low at the start of July, dropped below $63,000 in the middle of the month, and closed July with four straight sessions of ETF outflows totalling $526 million and a price under $65,000. Measured from there, $80,000 is a rally of roughly 28 percent in about eight weeks. Measured from January, it is still a recovery rather than a breakout.
Sentiment has followed price, as it does. The market moved into greed territory for the first time since late 2024 without, as of Thursday, reaching the extreme greed threshold that several accounts had already declared it had passed. The distinction is small and worth keeping. The index is a composite of volatility, momentum, volume and social chatter, and it tends to confirm moves rather than anticipate them.
The regulatory backdrop has improved in ways that are structural rather than immediate. The Securities and Exchange Commission has been moving toward a bespoke offering framework for digital assets that would replace staff guidance with actual rules, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission approved guidance in May for perpetual futures, the dominant crypto derivative worldwide and one that had developed almost entirely offshore. Neither explains an eight-day inflow streak in August. Both change what the market looks like in two years.
What the public data cannot settle is the split. Neither the issuers nor the exchanges publish a breakdown of how much ETF demand is directional and how much is hedged basis exposure, and the funding rates that would hint at it are noisy at these volumes. Until somebody discloses it, the difference between a market that institutions are accumulating and a market that briefly ran out of sellers is a matter of interpretation rather than evidence.
The shorts are gone. The moving average is not.
Related Posts
