The post How options on the BlackRock bitcoin ETF may have worsened crypto meltdown appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. BlackRock’s spot bitcoin BTC$68,627.87 The post How options on the BlackRock bitcoin ETF may have worsened crypto meltdown appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. BlackRock’s spot bitcoin BTC$68,627.87

How options on the BlackRock bitcoin ETF may have worsened crypto meltdown

BlackRock’s spot bitcoin BTC$68,627.87 exchange-traded fund has been a massive hit since launch, pulling in billions from investors seeking exposure to the cryptocurrency without the hassle of crypto wallets or exchanges. Traders and analysts religiously track inflows into the fund to gauge how institutions are positioning in the market.

Now they might have to do the same with options tied to the ETF, as activity exploded during Thursday’s crash. According to one observer, the record activity stemmed from a hedge fund blowup, while others disagreed, citing routine market chaos as a catalyst.

What really stood out

On Friday, as the ETF tanked 13% to its lowest level since October 2024, options volume exploded to a record 2.33 million contracts, with puts narrowly outpacing calls.

The fact that puts saw more volume than calls on Thursday indicates a higher demand for downside protection, a typical occurrence during price sell-offs.

Options are derivative contracts that provide built-in insurance against swings in the price of the underlying asset, in this case, IBIT. You pay a small fee (premium) for the right, but not the obligation, to buy or sell IBIT at a set price by a deadline or expiry.

A call option lets you lock in IBIT at a set price today for a small premium. If it rallies above that level later, you buy cheap and sell for profit; if not, you only lose the premium. A put option locks in the sale of IBIT at that price. If it slides below, you sell high and pocket the difference; otherwise, you lose just the premium. Calls offer leveraged upside bets, while puts protect against downside drops.

Another standout figure was the record $900 million in premiums paid by IBIT options buyers that day—the highest single-day total ever. To put it in context, that’s equivalent to the market cap of several crypto tokens ranking beyond the top 70.

Speculative theory: record activity tied to hedge fund blowup

A post by market analyst Parker, which has gone viral on X, argues that the $900 million premium payments resulted from the blowup of a large hedge fund (one or a few) with nearly 100% of money invested in IBIT. Funds often focus on just one asset, avoiding spreading out risk exposure elsewhere.

Parker’s post alleges that this fund initially bought cheap “out of the money” call options on IBIT following the October crash, anticipating a quick recovery and bigger rally.

These OTM calls are like cheap lottery tickets at levels well above the ongoing price of the underlying asset. If the asset rallies past these levels, these calls make significant money; if it doesn’t, buyers of these calls lose the initial premium paid.

However, the fund bought these calls using borrowed money. As IBIT continued to drop, they doubled down on their bet.

On Thursday, as IBIT crashed, these calls tanked in value and brokers hit the fund with margin calls demanding cash/collateral. The fund, having bled money elsewhere, was unable to provide the same and ended up dumping large amounts of IBIT shares in the market, resulting in a record $10 billion spot volume.

The fund also desperately replaced expiring calls or closed loss-making calls, resulting in a record $900 million in total premium payments. Essentially, Parker associates the record activity with one or a few massive players scrambling, not routine trading.

Shreyas Chari, director of trading and head of derivatives at Monarq Asset Management put it best: “Systematic selling across the majors yesterday probably tied to margin calls especially in the ETF with the highest crypto exposure IBIT.”

“Rumors swirled of a short options entity that had to sell the underlying far more aggressively after 70k and then 65k broke, probably tied to liquidation levels. This exacerbated the move down to 60k,” he explained in a Telegram chat.

Options expert disagrees

Tony Stewart, founder of Pelion Capital and an options expert, believes IBIT options added to the market chaos, but doesn’t go so far as to blame a single fund blowup for the whole crash and record activity.

He argued on X, citing Amberdata, that $150 million of the $900 million in premiums came from buying back put options. In short, traders who had previously sold (shorted) puts faced significant losses as IBIT crashed and those puts surged in value, so they repurchased them to cut their risk.

Those were “certainly painful” closes, he said on X, adding that the remaining portion of the $900 in premiums comprised mostly smaller trades, which is pretty standard for the hectic trading day.

In essence, to Stewart, the record activity is just the messy noise of a broadly panicked market, not a smoking gun pointing to a single way. “This [hedge fund blowup theory] is inconclusive from the Options standpoint. It also doesn’t seem enough tbh in size,” he concluded.

Still, he acknowledged the possibility that some activity could have been hidden in over-the-counter (privately negotiated) deals.

Conclusion

While Parker connected the dots to point to a hedge fund blowup, Stewart challenged the same with hard data.

In any case, this episode highlights that IBIT options are now large enough to wield influence, and traders might want to keep track of them just as they do ETF inflows.

Source: https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2026/02/07/blackrock-bitcoin-etf-options-errupt-in-crash-hedge-fund-blowup-or-just-market-madness

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

HitPaw API is Integrated by Comfy for Professional Image and Video Enhancement to Global Creators

HitPaw API is Integrated by Comfy for Professional Image and Video Enhancement to Global Creators

SAN FRANCISCO, Feb. 7, 2026 /PRNewswire/ — HitPaw, a leader in AI-powered visual enhancement solutions, announced Comfy, a global content creation platform, is
Share
AI Journal2026/02/08 09:15
Journalist gives brutal review of Melania movie: 'Not a single person in the theater'

Journalist gives brutal review of Melania movie: 'Not a single person in the theater'

A Journalist gave a brutal review of the new Melania documentary, which has been criticized by those who say it won't make back the huge fees spent to make it,
Share
Rawstory2026/02/08 09:08
Facts Vs. Hype: Analyst Examines XRP Supply Shock Theory

Facts Vs. Hype: Analyst Examines XRP Supply Shock Theory

Prominent analyst Cheeky Crypto (203,000 followers on YouTube) set out to verify a fast-spreading claim that XRP’s circulating supply could “vanish overnight,” and his conclusion is more nuanced than the headline suggests: nothing in the ledger disappears, but the amount of XRP that is truly liquid could be far smaller than most dashboards imply—small enough, in his view, to set the stage for an abrupt liquidity squeeze if demand spikes. XRP Supply Shock? The video opens with the host acknowledging his own skepticism—“I woke up to a rumor that XRP supply could vanish overnight. Sounds crazy, right?”—before committing to test the thesis rather than dismiss it. He frames the exercise as an attempt to reconcile a long-standing critique (“XRP’s supply is too large for high prices”) with a rival view taking hold among prominent community voices: that much of the supply counted as “circulating” is effectively unavailable to trade. His first step is a straightforward data check. Pulling public figures, he finds CoinMarketCap showing roughly 59.6 billion XRP as circulating, while XRPScan reports about 64.7 billion. The divergence prompts what becomes the video’s key methodological point: different sources count “circulating” differently. Related Reading: Analyst Sounds Major XRP Warning: Last Chance To Get In As Accumulation Balloons As he explains it, the higher on-ledger number likely includes balances that aggregators exclude or treat as restricted, most notably Ripple’s programmatic escrow. He highlights that Ripple still “holds a chunk of XRP in escrow, about 35.3 billion XRP locked up across multiple wallets, with a nominal schedule of up to 1 billion released per month and unused portions commonly re-escrowed. Those coins exist and are accounted for on-ledger, but “they aren’t actually sitting on exchanges” and are not immediately available to buyers. In his words, “for all intents and purposes, that escrow stash is effectively off of the market.” From there, the analysis moves from headline “circulating supply” to the subtler concept of effective float. Beyond escrow, he argues that large strategic holders—banks, fintechs, or other whales—may sit on material balances without supplying order books. When you strip out escrow and these non-selling stashes, he says, “the effective circulating supply… is actually way smaller than the 59 or even 64 billion figure.” He cites community estimates in the “20 or 30 billion” range for what might be truly liquid at any given moment, while emphasizing that nobody has a precise number. That effective-float framing underpins the crux of his thesis: a potential supply shock if demand accelerates faster than fresh sell-side supply appears. “Price is a dance between supply and demand,” he says; if institutional or sovereign-scale users suddenly need XRP and “the market finds that there isn’t enough XRP readily available,” order books could thin out and prices could “shoot on up, sometimes violently.” His phrase “circulating supply could collapse overnight” is presented not as a claim that tokens are destroyed or removed from the ledger, but as a market-structure scenario in which available inventory to sell dries up quickly because holders won’t part with it. How Could The XRP Supply Shock Happen? On the demand side, he anchors the hypothetical to tokenization. He points to the “very early stages of something huge in finance”—on-chain tokenization of debt, stablecoins, CBDCs and even gold—and argues the XRP Ledger aims to be “the settlement layer” for those assets.He references Ripple CTO David Schwartz’s earlier comments about an XRPL pivot toward tokenized assets and notes that an institutional research shop (Bitwise) has framed XRP as a way to play the tokenization theme. In his construction, if “trillions of dollars in value” begin settling across XRPL rails, working inventories of XRP for bridging, liquidity and settlement could rise sharply, tightening effective float. Related Reading: XRP Bearish Signal: Whales Offload $486 Million In Asset To illustrate, he offers two analogies. First, the “concert tickets” model: you think there are 100,000 tickets (100B supply), but 50,000 are held by the promoter (escrow) and 30,000 by corporate buyers (whales), leaving only 20,000 for the public; if a million people want in, prices explode. Second, a comparison to Bitcoin’s halving: while XRP has no programmatic halving, he proposes that a sudden adoption wave could function like a de facto halving of available supply—“XRP’s version of a halving could actually be the adoption event.” He also updates the narrative context that long dogged XRP. Once derided for “too much supply,” he argues the script has “totally flipped.” He cites the current cycle’s optics—“XRP is sitting above $3 with a market cap north of around $180 billion”—as evidence that raw supply counts did not cap price as tightly as critics claimed, and as a backdrop for why a scarcity narrative is gaining traction. Still, he declines to publish targets or timelines, repeatedly stressing uncertainty and risk. “I’m not a financial adviser… cryptocurrencies are highly volatile,” he reminds viewers, adding that tokenization could take off “on some other platform,” unfold more slowly than enthusiasts expect, or fail to get to “sudden shock” scale. The verdict he offers is deliberately bound. The theory that “XRP supply could vanish overnight” is imprecise on its face; the ledger will not erase coins. But after examining dashboard methodologies, escrow mechanics and the behavior of large holders, he concludes that the effective float could be meaningfully smaller than headline supply figures, and that a fast-developing tokenization use case could, under the right conditions, stress that float. “Overnight is a dramatic way to put it,” he concedes. “The change could actually be very sudden when it comes.” At press time, XRP traded at $3.0198. Featured image created with DALL.E, chart from TradingView.com
Share
NewsBTC2025/09/18 11:00