US Spot Bitcoin ETFs Near Yearly Outflow Territory

TheNewsCryptoPublicado em 2026-05-25Última atualização em 2026-05-25

Resumo

US spot Bitcoin ETFs are nearing net annual outflows following six consecutive days of withdrawals, with a significant $105.2 million outflow on Friday alone. This streak, which began May 14, has reduced the total net inflows for 2026 to $536 million. Major funds like BlackRock's IBIT and Fidelity's FBTC led the recent outflows, contributing to an overall withdrawal of $1.55 billion since mid-May. This trend indicates a potential cooling of institutional interest in Bitcoin, with notable reductions in ETF holdings by firms like Jane Street and Goldman Sachs earlier in the year. While the broader US Bitcoin ETF market remains in net positive territory for 2026, inflows are dominated by IBIT and are not expected to reach 2025's levels. In contrast, spot Ether ETFs have seen net outflows, and new altcoin ETFs have struggled to gain traction. A positive note is the Morgan Stanley Bitcoin Trust (MSBT), launched in April, which has attracted $264 million in net inflows.

The US spot Bitcoin exchange-traded fund market is about to see net outflows for the year after six days of withdrawals that began on Friday. After Friday’s market loss of $105.2 million—$68.9 million for BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) and $36.3 million for Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund (FBTC)—net inflows into Bitcoin ETFs for 2026 have decreased to $536 million.

Withdrawal Streak Shrinks 2026 Inflows

The outflow on Friday added to the $1.55 billion that has been drained from the ETFs since May 14, when the last net inflow was reported, even though no other Bitcoin ETF based in the US saw a change in flows.

It is possible to gauge the level of institutional interest in Bitcoin and the flow of new money into the cryptocurrency market by looking at the net inflows into US spot Bitcoin ETFs. The first quarter saw a 70% reduction in Bitcoin ETF holdings at institutional market maker Jane Street and a 10% reduction at investment bank Goldman Sachs.

The majority of the $2.7 billion in net inflows to the US Bitcoin ETF market this year have originated from IBIT, however the industry as a whole is still seeing net inflows for 2026.

While most of its rivals have seen a decline in 2026, its inflows this year are not expected to surpass the $25 billion it received in 2025. So far in 2026, there have been net outflows from US-based spot Ether ETFs, and new altcoin ETFs have failed to meet the same level of demand as their predecessors.

The Morgan Stanley Bitcoin Trust ETF (MSBT) is one encouraging trend; it debuted on April 8 and has received $264 million in net inflows so far.

Highlighted Crypto News Today:

VItalik Buterin Defends Long-Term Vision Amid Token Price Concerns

TagsAltcoinBitcoin

Perguntas relacionadas

QWhat is the main concern regarding the US spot Bitcoin ETF market as mentioned in the article?

AThe US spot Bitcoin ETF market is nearing net outflows for the year, having seen six consecutive days of withdrawals starting from a certain Friday.

QWhat were the specific outflow amounts for BlackRock's IBIT and Fidelity's FBTC on the mentioned Friday?

AOn that Friday, BlackRock's iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) had an outflow of $68.9 million and the Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund (FBTC) had an outflow of $36.3 million.

QWhat does the article suggest is a potential indicator of institutional interest in Bitcoin?

AThe article suggests that net inflows into US spot Bitcoin ETFs can be used to gauge the level of institutional interest in Bitcoin and the flow of new money into the cryptocurrency market.

QAccording to the article, which new Bitcoin ETF showed an encouraging trend and what were its inflows?

AThe Morgan Stanley Bitcoin Trust ETF (MSBT), which debuted on April 8, showed an encouraging trend with $264 million in net inflows so far.

QWhat is the current state of net inflows for US spot Ether ETFs and new altcoin ETFs in 2026 according to the article?

AThe article states that so far in 2026, there have been net outflows from US-based spot Ether ETFs, and new altcoin ETFs have failed to meet the same level of demand as their predecessors.

Leituras Relacionadas

Three Years Later: Looking Back at My Predictions About ChatGPT in 2023

Three Years Later: Revisiting My 2023 Predictions on ChatGPT In March 2023, shortly after ChatGPT's launch, I made 20 predictions about its future. Now, in mid-2026, I've used AI agents to fact-check each one against the latest data. Overall, most major directional forecasts were correct, with only one outright error (incorrectly stating GPT-4 had 100 trillion parameters). Key successes included predicting that RAG and retrieval architectures would become the standard for handling knowledge and hallucinations, that natural language interfaces (LUI) would create a massive new industry layer beyond the models themselves, and that China would develop viable large language models, significantly closing the performance gap with Western counterparts within about three years. Predictions about the absence of mass unemployment, the rise of a new "robot network" for agent communication, and ChatGPT not possessing consciousness also held true in their core arguments. However, the "devil was in the details." Errors frequently involved specific numbers, timelines, or overlooking distributional effects. I tended to overestimate the speed of adoption (e.g., for agent networks) while underestimating the ultimate scale of capabilities or costs (e.g., AI winning IMO gold without tools, or the extreme capital required for frontier models). Other misjudgments included: underestimating how AI would reinforce, not dissolve, information filter bubbles; incorrectly assuming AI-generated content would easily circumvent copyright (it has instead triggered record-breaking settlements); and misidentifying where value would be captured (it accrued overwhelmingly to the compute layer, like Nvidia, not just the application or model layers). Key lessons from reviewing these predictions are: 1) Directional and mechanistic insights are far more reliable than precise numbers or absolute statements. 2) There's a consistent bias to overestimate short-term speed but underestimate long-term magnitude. 3) Errors often lie in missing distributional impacts within a generally correct aggregate trend. 4) Predictions phrased with nuance and caveats aged the best. 5) Some fundamental debates (e.g., on machine consciousness or the ultimate value chain) remain unresolved even after three years. This exercise is less about scoring the past and more about establishing rules for clearer thinking about the next three years of AI.

marsbitHá 53m

Three Years Later: Looking Back at My Predictions About ChatGPT in 2023

marsbitHá 53m

Three Years Later: Looking Back on My 2023 Predictions for ChatGPT

Looking Back After Three Years: Revisiting My 2023 Predictions on ChatGPT In March 2023, shortly after ChatGPT's debut and before GPT-4's release, I made over twenty predictions about AI's future based on limited information and intuition. Now, in May 2026, I revisited those forecasts using an AI-driven analysis with 41 Opus 4.8 agents to cross-reference them with the latest data. The assessment used symbols: ✅ Correct, 🟢 Mostly Correct, 🟡 Partially Correct, ❌ Incorrect. Overall, the directional judgments held up well, with only one major factual error regarding GPT-4's rumored parameter size (incorrectly cited as 100T). However, nuances and degrees of accuracy revealed more. **What Was Largely Correct:** Predictions about mechanisms and directions proved accurate. The rise of RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) as the standard architecture for combating AI hallucination was confirmed, as was the transformative potential of LUI (Language User Interface) in creating a new industry layer atop GUIs. The emergence of "robot networks" (agent-to-agent communication protocols) and China's rapid catch-up in developing capable large models (closing the performance gap with top models to ~2.7%) were also on point. The analysis affirmed that LLMs lack consciousness and that the Turing Test merely measures perceived intelligence. **What Was Off Target:** Errors often involved specific numbers, over-optimistic timelines, or misjudged distributions. The prediction that value would primarily accrue to the application layer was half-right but missed NVIDIA's dominance as the profitable infrastructure layer. Forecasts about AI circumventing copyright issues and fostering a "global common ground" by averaging human viewpoints were incorrect; instead, major copyright settlements occurred and AI personalization is increasing. Estimates for model training costs ("$5-10 billion cap") were significantly off, underestimating frontier costs and overestimating replication costs. The notion that LLMs could never do complex math without tools was disproven by later models winning IMO gold. **Key Patterns from the Review:** 1. **Direction over precision:** Judgments about mechanisms and trends were more reliable than specific numbers or definitive statements. 2. **Timing bias:** There was a tendency to overestimate short-term speed but underestimate long-term magnitude and transformation. 3. **The distribution blind spot:** Aggregate-level correctness often masked uneven impacts (e.g., on young professionals' employment). 4. **The value of qualifiers:** Predictions framed with caution (e.g., "reportedly," "for now," "prototype in 2-3 years") aged better. 5. **Some debates continue:** Issues like the nature of "emergent abilities" or machine consciousness remain unresolved. This three-year review highlights that while seeing the big picture is crucial, humility regarding specifics, timelines, and disparate impacts is essential for future forecasting.

链捕手Há 3h

Three Years Later: Looking Back on My 2023 Predictions for ChatGPT

链捕手Há 3h

AI Bubble Warning: AI Investments Are Negative Returns for Most Tech Giants

The article issues a stark warning about a potential AI investment bubble. It notes that while the AI boom shares similarities with the TMT bubble of the late 1990s, its scale is vastly larger, currently driving 93% of U.S. GDP growth. Major hyperscale cloud providers like Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, and Oracle are planning to invest trillions in AI data centers over the coming years. However, calculations based on analyst projections for 2025-2030 reveal a concerning math problem: expected capital expenditure growth far outpaces projected revenue growth. Even under an extremely optimistic scenario of zero costs, the implied return on investment for most of these tech giants (except Amazon) is deeply negative. This suggests that the current trajectory could lead to one of history's largest shareholder value destruction events. The piece outlines two potential escapes: AI generating vastly more revenue than currently anticipated—a near-impossible task—or a significant cutback in the planned investment splurge. The latter scenario could trigger a domino effect, severely impacting the entire tech supply chain (from Nvidia to TSMC), potentially pushing the U.S. economy into recession, and causing a major stock market downturn. The author suggests upcoming high-profile IPOs by companies like OpenAI and Anthropic might represent a transfer of risk from early investors to public market participants. While the peak of the hype cycle might sustain investment through 2026, the fundamental financial dilemma remains unresolved, setting the stage for a potential market correction in 2027 or 2028, similar to the years following Alan Greenspan's "irrational exuberance" warning.

marsbitHá 4h

AI Bubble Warning: AI Investments Are Negative Returns for Most Tech Giants

marsbitHá 4h

From Tokens to Machine Labor: AI is Shifting from Tool to "Worker"

The article "From Token to Machine Labor: AI is Evolving from Tool to 'Worker'" argues that the business model for AI is shifting beyond simply selling computational resources (tokens, GPU hours) or model access. Instead, a new "machine labor market" is emerging, where the core economic transaction is the purchase of economically useful work directly performed by software. The central thesis is that AI pricing will evolve through four stages: 1) raw tokens, 2) standardized LLM capabilities (e.g., text generation), 3) industry-specific labor markets (e.g., legal review, radiology), and finally 4) a programmable results market where tasks like resolving a support ticket are bid on and priced based on outcome. In this future, buyers will care less about *which* model or GPU completes a task and more about whether the work meets specified standards for accuracy, latency, and cost. This transition reframes the impact of AI on human labor. Rather than simple replacement, it suggests a re-coordination where machines handle standardized, verifiable work, freeing humans for roles involving oversight, context management, responsibility, and final judgment. In some cases, this "last 1%" of human input becomes more valuable as it enables the other 99% to be automated. Furthermore, as AI reduces the cost of work, demand may expand, creating larger markets (e.g., 24/7 customer service) rather than just cheaper versions of existing ones. The article concludes that while infrastructure (GPUs, models, tokens) remains crucial upstream, the market is converging on a simpler, tradeable unit: machine labor that can be defined, measured, priced, and procured based on contractible specifications.

marsbitHá 4h

From Tokens to Machine Labor: AI is Shifting from Tool to "Worker"

marsbitHá 4h

Xiaomi MiMo's 99% Price Cut is Not Marketing! Luo Fuli Posts on X to Refute Critics

The price of Xiaomi's MiMo-V2.5 series API has been permanently reduced by up to 99%, specifically for the "Input (Cache Hit)" cost, which covers users re-reading historical context in long conversations. MiMo's head, Luo Fuli, published a detailed technical blog to clarify that this drastic price cut stems from genuine engineering breakthroughs, not a marketing stunt or a simple price war. The core of the achievement lies in six key engineering optimizations. First, the model architecture adopts a Hybrid Sliding Window Attention (SWA), reducing the memory footprint (KVCache) to 1/7th of a traditional model. Second, a dual-pool memory management system actually utilizes these savings, allowing a single GPU to handle over 5 times more concurrent users. Third, an upgraded prefix caching mechanism achieves a cache hit rate of 93-95% for repeated reads, meaning most such requests bypass GPU computation entirely. Fourth, a self-developed distributed cache (GCache) utilizes idle SSD space on existing GPU servers, eliminating additional storage costs. Fifth, an intelligent scheduling system (LLM-Router) efficiently routes requests to maximize cache reuse and performance. Sixth, Multi-Token Prediction (MTP) accelerates the model's text generation ("output") side. Together, these systemic optimizations dramatically lower the real computational cost per request, enabling the 99% price reduction for cached inputs while reportedly maintaining positive gross margins. Luo Fuli's disclosure aims to shift the narrative from "price war" to a demonstration of substantive AI engineering progress.

marsbitHá 6h

Xiaomi MiMo's 99% Price Cut is Not Marketing! Luo Fuli Posts on X to Refute Critics

marsbitHá 6h

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片

Categorias popularesright-arrow

Etiquetas Popularesright-arrow