Spot Bitcoin ETFs are on track for a fourth consecutive month of net outflows as BTC approaches another negative monthly close in February, underscoring a demand lull for regulated, spot-linked exposure. Data through mid-February show ETF holdings ebbing from a peak in late 2025, with total assets sitting around $84.3 billion on the day, down from an October 2025 high near $170 billion. The trajectory also reveals a slowdown in cumulative inflows, which have slipped to roughly $54 billion from a $63 billion all-time high. Since July 2025, net inflows have totaled only about $5 billion, highlighting a marked shift in capital allocation to crypto-focused funds. Meanwhile, Bitcoin’s price has slid more sharply than its ETF balances, suggesting the market is absorbing selling pressure without a commensurate bounce in ETF demand.

Key takeaways

• US spot Bitcoin ETFs have declined from about $170 billion in October 2025 to roughly $84.3 billion, signaling waning investor appetite for regulated BTC exposure.
• Cumulative net inflows have plunged to around $54 billion from a $63 billion peak, with only about $5 billion of inflows since July 2025, indicating a sustained slowdown in new capital input.
• Over seven sessions from Feb. 12 to Feb. 19, ETF outflows totaled 11,042 BTC, with Feb. 12 recording a single-day drop of 6,120 BTC (about $416 million at the time).
• Balance reductions among leading participants are sizable: BlackRock’s IBIT holdings fell to 759,000 BTC from 806,000 BTC, a roughly 6% decline, while Fidelity’s FBTC dropped to 186,000 BTC from 213,000 BTC, or about 12.6%.
• Gold ETFs have displaced some attention as risk-on markets ebb and flow, with flows rotating between BTC and gold over the past two years while macro yields remain a focal point for risk appetite.

Tickers mentioned: $BTC, $IBIT, $FBTC

Sentiment: Bearish

Price impact: Negative. Bitcoin’s price has dropped more sharply than ETF holdings, suggesting selling pressure is not yet being countered by renewed ETF demand.

Market context: The ETF flows unfold against a backdrop of a cooling macro environment. The Federal Reserve ended quantitative tightening in December 2025, halting the balance-sheet runoff, yet policy remains restrictive relative to growth expectations. The 2-year Treasury yield persists above 2-year rate expectations, while the 10-year yield trades around 4.1% with the 10-year real yield near 1.7%–1.8%, maintaining tight financial conditions that constrain non-yielding assets like Bitcoin. In this environment, real yields provide an inflation-adjusted return elsewhere, raising the opportunity cost of holding BTC for some investors.

Why it matters

The persistence of outflows in spot Bitcoin ETFs matters because these products are often viewed as liquidity proxies for the broader crypto market. A sustained decline in ETF AUM can indicate a mismatch between price signals and the willingness of institutions to deploy capital through regulated vehicles. The current pattern—outflows outpacing price declines—suggests that, at least for now, soft demand from ETF products is not rekindling upside momentum for Bitcoin. In practice, this means the spot ETF framework may continue to act as a source of supply in the near term, potentially suppressing price recoveries even when spot demand revives in other market segments.

Macro forces are clearly in play. The retreat in ETF inflows coincides with a regime in which real yields remain elevated and monetary policy stays comparatively tight. As Benjamin Cowen notes, the first quarter of 2026 could be characterized as a “late-cycle restrictive digestion” phase for both equities and crypto, where investors demand higher clarity on inflation, growth, and policy trajectories before reaccelerating risk assets. The interplay between rate expectations and risk sentiment is particularly relevant for BTC, which historically has shown sensitivity to changes in real yields and liquidity conditions. The absence of a clear easing signal for yields or balance-sheet expansion has contributed to a cautious stance among ETF buyers and larger holders alike. Cowen’s macro assessment, drawing on research and market cycles, emphasizes that durable ETF inflows historically arrive when real yields decline or policy relaxation appears imminent, conditions that have not yet materialized.

From a broader asset-allocation perspective, the Bitcoin-versus-gold dynamic remains a recurring theme. Over the past two years, the flows into Bitcoin and gold ETFs have alternated as investors sought a balance between liquidity, volatility, and duration of drawdowns. Gold’s inflows surged during risk-off periods, while Bitcoin’s exposure lagged, reflecting a preference for assets perceived as less volatile or offering longer-standing track records in uncertain times. This rotation underscores that macro risk appetite, rather than BTC-specific catalysts alone, often drives ETF flows. Investors watching for catalysts in 2026 should consider how shifts in macro policy, inflation expectations, and risk sentiment could tilt the balance back toward crypto ETFs or push further capital toward more traditional hedges like gold.

In the near term, the lack of a sustained shift in ETF inflows may keep BTC price action more dependent on macro headlines and on-chain signals rather than fund-flow-driven recuperation. The market will likely pay close attention to any signs of three consecutive positive ETF sessions, which many observers consider a potential signal of renewed accumulation, as well as any shifts in the policy stance that could reopen the tap on liquidity. The ongoing story is not solely about the price of Bitcoin but about how institutional appetite for regulated exposure evolves as the macro landscape matures through 2026.

What to watch next

• Monitor for three consecutive days of net ETF inflows or a sustained turnaround in holdings, which could signal renewed institutional demand for spot BTC exposure.
• Watch for any policy shifts from the Federal Reserve or commentary from officials that could alter the path of real yields and liquidity conditions.
• Track changes in the BTC price relative to ETF AUM and rolling net flows to gauge whether price action starts to outpace or lag the flows again.
• Observe movements in competitor assets, such as gold ETFs, for signs of continued rotation or a rebalancing that favors one category over the other during risk-on or risk-off phases.
• Assess updates from major ETF issuers and custodians, particularly around new product launches or changes in holdings, for indications of evolving investor demand.

Sources & verification

• Seven-session BTC ETF net outflows and the Feb. 12 single-day drop (6,120 BTC) analysis by Axel Adler Jr on X: https://x.com/AxelAdlerJr/status/2024397434818859427?s=20
• Bitcoin ETF assets and CheckOnChain data showing IBIT and FBTC holdings changes: https://charts.checkonchain.com/btconchain/etfs/etf_balance_0/etf_balance_0_light.html
• FBTC holdings data corroborating the decline from 213,000 BTC to 186,000 BTC: https://charts.checkonchain.com/btconchain/etfs/etf_balance_0/etf_balance_0_light.html
• Bold.report flow comparisons between Bitcoin and Gold inflows: https://bold.report/compare/flows/
• Macro risk memo from Benjamin Cowen outlining the late-cycle digestion framework for 2026: https://www.benjamincowen.com/reports/macro-risk-memo-feb-2026
• Cointelegraph coverage and Bitcoin price context linked for price reference: https://cointelegraph.com/bitcoin-price

Bitcoin ETF outflows persist as macro conditions weigh on BTC demand

Bitcoin ETF dynamics reveal that even with a lower price baseline than late-2025 peaks, the appetite for regulated spot exposure remains constrained. The first substantial wave of outflows began to dominate the narrative as October’s peak enthusiasm receded. Data show that, through the February period, major ETF products continued to be light on new capital, with several days registering net decreases in asset under management. The scale of these outflows—11,042 BTC across a seven-day window—emphasizes a market where traders and institutions are assessing whether BTC can re-enter a more favorable risk-reward equation or whether the current regime will persist longer than anticipated.

BlackRock and Fidelity—two of the largest ETF providers with significant spot BTC offerings—have not been immune to the shift in demand. IBIT’s holdings declined to about 759,000 BTC while FBTC slipped to around 186,000 BTC, illustrating that even heavyweight participants are managing exposure in line with broader market sentiment. The observed pattern—BTC price falling more than ETF balances—suggests that price discovery is being driven more by market liquidity and order flow than by the absorption of new ETF inflows. In other words, the ETF structure may be acting as a pressure valve, releasing BTC onto the market even as buyers remain cautious rather than aggressively expanding exposure.

The phenomenon is taking place alongside a broader cross-asset flow environment. Gold ETFs, which have historically competed with Bitcoin during risk-off phases, have been increasingly in the spotlight as investors sought instruments with different risk profiles and volatility characteristics. The rotation between BTC and gold flows, documented in recent flow-tracking studies, implies a nuanced investor stance: seek yield or capital preservation in more familiar assets during periods of macro uncertainty, then pivot as conditions shift. This dynamic underscores a key theme for 2026—macro-driven capital allocation can overshadow single-asset narratives, even in a space as attention-grabbing as cryptocurrency.

Insurance for risk? For now, the answer appears to be a cautious stance. The macro backdrop—where the Fed halted QT but policy remains tight—means investors must balance inflationary expectations, growth trajectories, and the opportunity costs of holding non-yielding assets. The narrative that “durable ETF inflows are likely to materialize only after real yields retreat or policy easing emerges” remains a guiding hypothesis for market participants. In practice, that means the market is likely to continue to weigh BTC exposure against the relative attractiveness of other assets, with ETF inflows sensitive to shifts in rate expectations and liquidity conditions rather than outright price gains alone.

The coming months will be telling. If BTC begins to see three or more consecutive positive ETF sessions or if macro indicators tilt toward easier policy, ETF demand could reassert itself. Conversely, if the real-yield environment remains supportive of safer assets or if risk sentiment deteriorates, BTC may face continued headwinds regardless of technical indicators or on-chain signals. The evolving interplay between ETF flows, macro policy, and price action will remain central to how investors structure crypto exposure in 2026.