- Jeff Park says no evidence shows firms are capping Bitcoin around 10 a.m. daily.
- He says ETF hedging can distort price action without proving deliberate market abuse.
- ETF inflows stayed strong even as Bitcoin faced pressure and drew fresh scrutiny.
Bitwise advisor Jeff Park rejected claims that Bitcoin faces deliberate price suppression around 10 a.m. He said no evidence shows coordinated manipulation or price capping by any firm. The debate grew after speculation linked ETF market-making activity to repeated intraday weakness in Bitcoin prices. Park argued critics misunderstand how ETF liquidity and price discovery operate.
Claims of 10 A.M. Price Suppression
The discussion began after parts of the crypto community questioned recurring price patterns near 10 a.m. Some traders suggested institutional market makers tied to spot Bitcoin ETFs pushed prices lower during that window. Critics cited trading behavior and links to major liquidity providers.
Park dismissed those claims. He said no participant explicitly caps Bitcoin’s price. He added that no meaningful proof supports allegations against firms such as Jane Street or other designated market makers.
According to Park, observers misread normal ETF operations. He said price discovery inside ETF structures often appears complex. He explained that arbitrage and liquidity provision help keep ETF prices aligned with underlying assets. Those mechanics can create patterns without signaling manipulation.
At the same time, he noted that misunderstanding ETF flows may fuel suspicion. Some retail investors see repeated price dips and assume coordinated action. Park maintained that the structure, not conspiracy, drives those outcomes.
Related: Bitwise Adds AVAX Staking to Avalanche ETF Proposal
ETF Structure and Authorized Participants
Separately, Park discussed the role of Authorized Participants in spot Bitcoin ETFs such as IBIT. He said APs operate within a regulatory framework that includes a “gray window” under Regulation SHO. That exemption removes borrowing costs when they short as part of ETF creation activity.
Park explained that APs can hedge ETF creations using futures instead of buying spot Bitcoin. As a result, ETF inflows do not always translate into direct spot purchases. He described the process as structural rather than conspiratorial.
“It’s not a conspiracy, it’s structural,” Park said, referring to how zero-cost, long-duration hedging can shape price action. He argued that this setup may keep Bitcoin from rising as quickly as inflows suggest.
Investors reacted to that assessment. Some agreed that structural hedging may explain why Bitcoin has not reached $150,000 despite strong ETF demand. The debate expanded beyond 10 a.m. price moves to broader questions about ETF influence.
ETF Inflows and Market Reaction
Meanwhile, U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded strong inflows during the controversy. On Feb. 25, 2026, they attracted $506.6 million in one day. BlackRock’s IBIT led with $297.4 million.
The inflow followed $257.7 million recorded on Feb. 24. Together, the two sessions marked a short inflow streak. Earlier in the month, flows alternated between positive and negative days.
Since launch, total net inflows have surpassed $54 billion. Average daily inflow stands near $102.5 million. Peak daily inflows have exceeded $1.3 billion, signaling institutional participation.
Even so, Park argued that these inflows have not fully translated into price surges because of AP hedging practices. Options activity turned bearish during a sharp correction in early February. Yet net ETF flows remained positive.
Park attributed that volatility to risk reduction across traditional finance channels and non-directional hedging by professional traders. He said long-term capital did not exit in large numbers.
