Connect with us

Crypto World

What Are Inverse Fair Value Gaps (IFVGs) in Trading?

Published

on

What Are Inverse Fair Value Gaps (IFVGs) in Trading?

Price doesn’t just move up or down — it also shows when control in the market changes. An Inverse Fair Value Gap (IFVG) appears when a previous imbalance no longer holds, signalling that buyers and sellers have switched roles, not simply paused. These zones highlight areas where the market has accepted a new price, rather than needing to return to an old one.

For traders who study momentum, market structure, and follow-through, IFVGs add useful context to price behaviour without relying on indicators. This article explains how IFVGs form, how they differ from standard Fair Value Gaps (FVGs), and how they are used in market analysis.

Advertisement

Takeaways

  • An Inverse Fair Value Gap is a price zone that forms when a previously valid Fair Value Gap is breached, signalling a shift in price movement.
  • IFVGs reflect a change in control, where former buying or selling pressure no longer holds, turning a prior imbalance into a potential reaction zone.
  • An Inverted Fair Value Gap is commonly tracked after a clear break through the original Fair Value Gap, often with a close or strong wick beyond the level.
  • These zones are typically analysed alongside market structure, momentum, and higher-timeframe bias to frame directional context.
  • IFVGs may support market analysis by highlighting where follow-through has replaced mean reversion.

Fair Value Gaps (FVGs) – A Brief Overview

A Fair Value Gap (FVG) occurs when the market moves so rapidly in one direction that it leaves an imbalance in price action. This imbalance shows up on a chart as a gap between three consecutive candles: the wick of the first candle and the wick of the third candle fail to overlap, leaving a “gap” created by the second candle. It highlights an area where buying or selling pressure was so dominant that the market didn’t trade efficiently.

Advertisement

Traders view these gaps as areas of potential interest because markets often revisit these levels to “fill” the imbalance. For example, in a bullish FVG, the gap reflects aggressive buying that outpaced selling, potentially creating a future support zone. On the other hand, bearish FVGs indicate overwhelming selling pressure, which might act as resistance later.

FVGs are closely tied to the concept of fair value. The gap suggests the market may have deviated from a balanced state, making it an area traders watch for signs of price rebalancing. Recognising and understanding these gaps can provide insights into where the price might gravitate in the future, which may help traders assess key zones of interest for analysis.

Understanding Inverse Fair Value Gaps (IFVGs)

An Inverse Fair Value Gap (IFVG), or Inversion Fair Value Gap, is a price zone that forms when an existing Fair Value Gap is broken and no longer holds its original role. At first, a Fair Value Gap is an area where price is likely to react or rebalance. But when price clearly breaks through that gap, it shows the market no longer respects it.

Within the Inner Circle Trader (ICT) framework, this role reversal flips a former resistance-type FVG into potential support, or a former support-type FVG into potential resistance. In simple terms, an IFVG marks where the market has proven that the prior imbalance is no longer respected.

There are two types of IFVG:

Advertisement
  • A bullish Inverse Fair Value Gap forms when a bearish Fair Value Gap (FVG) fails. The FVG appears during strong selling pressure and often acts as a resistance zone. If price later pushes through this gap—either by just a wick or closing beyond it—it shows that sellers in that area are no longer in control. Once this happens, the bearish FVG is invalidated and becomes a bullish IFVG, meaning the same zone can now act as potential support.
  • A bearish Inverse Fair Value Gap forms when a bullish Fair Value Gap fails. A bullish FVG forms during strong buying pressure and typically acts as support. If the price breaks below it, this signals that buyers have lost control. The bullish FVG is then invalidated and turns into a bearish IFVG, where the zone may act as potential resistance.

In both cases, an IFVG marks a clear shift in market control, rather than a temporary pause in price movement.

Traders use inverted Fair Value Gaps to identify zones where market sentiment has shifted significantly. For example, when the price revisits a bullish IFVG, it may serve as a zone of interest for traders looking for an entry for a buy trade. However, if the price moves past the bottom of the IFVG zone, it’s no longer valid and is typically disregarded.

What makes these reverse FVGs particularly useful is their ability to highlight moments of structural change in the market. They can act as indicators of strength, revealing areas where price has transitioned from weakness to strength (or vice versa). By integrating IFVG analysis into their broader trading framework, traders can gain deeper insights into the evolving dynamics of supply and demand.

Advertisement

Traders interested in applying IFVG identification techniques in real-time conditions may consider using FXOpen’s TickTrader trading platform that supports advanced charting and analysis tools.

How Traders Use IFVGs

By integrating IFVGs into their strategy, traders can refine their decision-making process and uncover potential setups aligned with their broader market outlook. Here’s how IFVGs are commonly used:

Identifying Key Zones of Interest

Traders begin by spotting FVGs on price charts—areas where rapid movements create imbalances. An inversion FVG forms when such a gap is invalidated; for instance, a bearish FVG becomes bullish if the price breaks above it. These zones are then marked as potential areas of interest, indicating where the market may experience significant activity.

Contextualising Market Sentiment

The formation of an IFVG signals a shift in market sentiment. When a bearish FVG is invalidated and turns into a bullish IFVG, it suggests that selling pressure has diminished and buying interest is gaining momentum. Traders interpret this as a potential reversal point, providing context for the current market dynamics.

Advertisement

Analysing Price Reactions

Once an IFVG is identified, traders monitor how the price interacts with this zone. If the price revisits a bullish IFVG and shows signs of support—such as slowing down its decline or forming bullish candlestick patterns—it may indicate a strengthening upward movement. Conversely, if the price breaches the IFVG without hesitation, the anticipated reversal might not materialise.

How May Inverse Fair Value Gaps Be Traded?

IFVGs provide traders with a structured way to identify and analyse price levels where sentiment has shifted. The process typically looks like this:

1. Establishing Market Bias

Traders typically start by analysing the broader market direction. This often involves looking at higher timeframes, such as the daily or 4-hour charts, to identify trends or reversals. Tools like Breaks of Structure (BOS) or Changes of Character (CHoCH) within the ICT framework may help clarify whether the market is leaning bullish or bearish.

Indicators, such as moving averages or momentum oscillators, can also provide additional context for confirming directional bias. A strong bias ensures the trader is aligning setups with the dominant market flow.

Advertisement

2. Identifying and Using IFVGs

Once a Fair Value Gap (FVG) is invalidated—indicating a significant shift in sentiment—it transforms into an Inverse Fair Value Gap (IFVG). Traders mark the IFVG zone as a key area of interest. If it aligns with their broader market bias, this zone can serve as a potential entry point. For instance, in a bearish bias, traders may focus on bearish IFVGs that act as potential resistance zones.

3. Placing Orders and Risk Management

Traders often set a limit order at the IFVG boundary, anticipating a retracement and for the area to hold. A stop loss is typically placed just beyond the IFVG or a nearby swing high/low. For exits, targets might include a predefined risk/reward ratio, such as 1:3, or a significant technical level like an order block or support/resistance area. This approach ensures trades remain structured and grounded in analysis.

Advantages and Disadvantages of IFVGs

IFVGs offer traders a unique lens through which to analyse price movements, but like any tool, they come with both strengths and limitations. Understanding these may help traders incorporate IFVGs into their strategies.

Advantages

  • Highlight market sentiment shifts: IFVGs pinpoint areas where sentiment has reversed, which may help traders identify key turning points.
  • Refined entry zones: They provide precise areas for potential analysis, reducing guesswork and offering clear levels to watch.
  • Flexibility across markets: IFVGs can be applied to any market, including forex, commodities, or indices, making them versatile.
  • Complementary to other tools: They pair well with other ICT tools like BOS, CHoCH, and order blocks.

Disadvantages

  • Subject to interpretation: Identifying and confirming IFVGs can vary between traders, leading to inconsistencies.
  • Limited standalone reliability: IFVGs need to be used alongside broader market analysis; relying solely on them increases risk.
  • Higher timeframe dependence: Their reliability can diminish on lower timeframes, where noise often obscures true sentiment shifts.
  • Potential for invalidation: While IFVGs signal potential trades, they aren’t guarantees; price can break through.

The Bottom Line

Inverse Fair Value Gaps offer a systematic way to interpret price imbalances and potential turning points in the market. When used alongside other technical tools, IFVGs may help traders uncover valuable insights. Used in context with structure and momentum, IFVGs support traders when framing directional intent and managing expectations around follow-through versus failure.

Advertisement

Those interested in testing and refining IFVG-based strategies in real trading environments can consider opening an FXOpen account, which provides access to over 700 instruments, multiple advanced trading platforms, and competitive trading conditions.

FAQ

What Is an Inverse Fair Value Gap (IFVG)?

The IFVG meaning refers to a formation that occurs when a Fair Value Gap (FVG) is invalidated. For example, a bearish FVG becomes bullish after the price breaks above it, creating a potential support zone. Similarly, a bullish FVG can transform into a bearish IFVG if the price breaks below it, creating a potential resistance zone. IFVGs highlight shifts in market sentiment, providing traders with areas of interest for analysing possible reversals or continuation zones.

What Is the Difference Between a Fair Value Gap and an Inverse Fair Value Gap?

A Fair Value Gap (FVG) is an imbalance caused by aggressive buying or selling, creating a price gap that may act as support or resistance. An Inverse Fair Value Gap (IFVG) occurs when the original FVG is invalidated—indicating a shift in sentiment—and its role flips. For instance, a bearish FVG invalidated by a price breakout becomes a bullish IFVG.

What Is the Difference Between BPR and Inverse FVG?

A Balanced Price Range (BPR) represents the overlap of two opposing Fair Value Gaps (FVGs), creating a sensitive zone for potential price reactions. In contrast, an Inverse Fair Value Gap (IFVG) is a concept based on a single FVG that has been invalidated, flipping its role. While both could be useful, BPR reflects the equilibrium between buyers and sellers, whereas IFVG highlights sentiment reversal.

Advertisement

This article represents the opinion of the Companies operating under the FXOpen brand only. It is not to be construed as an offer, solicitation, or recommendation with respect to products and services provided by the Companies operating under the FXOpen brand, nor is it to be considered financial advice.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Crypto World

Spot Bitcoin ETF AUM Hits 2025 Low Not Seen Since April

Published

on

Nate Geraci tweets about ETFs

Spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded a fresh outflow on Tuesday, pushing assets under management below the $100 billion threshold for the first time since April 2025. The decline followed $272 million in net redemptions, according to data from SoSoValue. The move comes as Bitcoin slid toward the mid-$70,000s amid a broad crypto market pullback, with the overall market capitalization retreating to about $2.64 trillion from roughly $3.11 trillion in the previous week, per CoinGecko. The setback underscores ongoing volatility in securitized exposure to the leading crypto asset, even as investors rotate into non-Bitcoin assets and altcoins show pockets of life.

The week’s sell-off was not uniform across the market. While BTC ETFs faced renewed outflows, funds tracking altcoins registered small inflows, signaling a divergence in investor appetite between securitized exposure to Bitcoin and exposure to other crypto assets. The broader backdrop remains one of macro- and risk-off pressure, with traders weighing the implications of ETF mechanics, regulatory signals, and shifting liquidity in a market still trying to find a steadier footing after a rapid rally and pullback.

Spot Bitcoin ETF flows since Jan. 26, 2026. Source: SoSoValue

Key takeaways

  • Spot BTC ETF assets under management fell below $100 billion for the first time since April 2025, following $272 million in outflows.
  • The broader crypto market cap dropped to $2.64 trillion from $3.11 trillion over the previous week, reflecting continued volatility.
  • Altcoin ETFs saw modest inflows: Ether (CRYPTO: ETH) $14 million, XRP (CRYPTO: XRP) $19.6 million, and Solana (CRYPTO: SOL) $1.2 million.
  • Bitcoin trades below the ETF creation cost basis of $84,000, a dynamic that can constrain new ETF share creation and influence flows.
  • Analysts emphasize that the ETF sell-off is unlikely to trigger a broad wave of liquidations, with some expecting a future shift toward direct on-chain trading by institutions.

Tickers mentioned: $BTC, $ETH, $XRP, $SOL

Sentiment: Neutral

Price impact: Negative. The combination of outflows from spot BTC ETFs and a BTC price dip contributed to a weaker near-term sentiment and potential pressure on related products.

Advertisement

Market context: The episode reflects ongoing volatility in ETF-related flows against a backdrop of risk-off trading, with investors differentiating between securitized exposure to Bitcoin and direct or non-BTC crypto exposure. The weekly retreat in market capitalization highlights continued sensitivity to macro cues and liquidity conditions in a market still adapting to higher interest-rate environments and evolving regulatory signals.

Why it matters

The current pattern—spot BTC ETF outflows alongside modest altcoin inflows—offers a nuanced read on institutional engagement with crypto assets. While the ETF structure provides regulated access to Bitcoin, the observed outflows suggest that some investors are rebalancing risk, seeking exposure through non-securitized channels, or waiting for clearer macro signals before increasing holdings in securitized products. The contrast with altcoins indicates that market participants still differentiate between asset classes within the crypto universe, allocating capital to Ethereum, XRP, and Solana when risk appetite allows.

Institutional participants, who historically have been more likely to use securitized products, are increasingly discussed in terms of a potential shift toward on-chain trading and direct asset ownership. That shift could reshape liquidity dynamics and pricing for both spot products and the ETFs that track them. The comments from industry insiders underscore a belief that the next phase of crypto institutional adoption may hinge less on holding securitized exposure and more on engaging with the underlying assets themselves, potentially driving deeper liquidity and new trading venues outside traditional funds.

The price action surrounding BTC—trading under the $74,000 mark while ETF creation remains suppressed by a higher cost basis—adds a layer of complexity for managers of passive crypto portfolios. Even as some investors trim exposure, others may view the current levels as a continuation of a broader re-pricing process that factors in regulatory clarity, macro liquidity, and the evolving competitive landscape among crypto investment vehicles.

Advertisement
Nate Geraci tweets about ETFs
Source: Nate Geraci

Thomas Restout, CEO of institutional liquidity provider B2C2, offered a parallel view, noting that institutional ETF investors have shown resilience and patience even as flows wobble. He suggested that a substantial portion of assets could remain within ETFs, but the market is approaching a potential pivot point where some appetite could shift toward direct crypto trading. “The next level of transformation is institutions actually trading the crypto, rather than just using securitized ETFs,” Restout said recently on a Rulematch Spot On podcast. His comments point to a broader re-evaluation of how institutions allocate in crypto markets, with possible implications for liquidity provisioning and price discovery across the ecosystem.

What to watch next

  • Next data release on spot BTC ETF AUM from SoSoValue and any observable shifts in creation or redemption activity.
  • BTC price stabilization or further moves toward the $70k–$75k zone and how that interacts with ETF flow dynamics.
  • Any regulatory updates or policy signals that could impact ETF structures or on-chain trading incentives.
  • Evidence of institutional traders increasing direct exposure to crypto assets beyond securitized products.

Sources & verification

  • SoSoValue data on spot Bitcoin ETF assets under management and outflows.
  • CoinGecko market-cap data showing weekly changes in the global crypto sector.
  • Reported inflows for altcoin ETFs: Ether, XRP, and Solana with metrics provided in the article.
  • Nate Geraci’s X post discussing ETF asset retention within spot BTC ETFs.
  • Thomas Restout’s comments on the Rulematch Spot On podcast regarding institutional adoption and on-chain trading.

Market reaction and key details

The market continues to grapple with the question of how institutions will allocate capital as crypto products evolve. While securitized exposure to Bitcoin remains a convenient entry point for many investors, outflows in the spot BTC ETF space highlight a cautious stance amid price volatility and a broad sell-off across risk assets. The modest inflows into Ether, XRP, and Solana indicate selective confidence in non-Bitcoin assets, suggesting investors are evaluating diversification opportunities within the crypto universe even as the largest asset experiences pressure.

Risk & affiliate notice: Crypto assets are volatile and capital is at risk. This article may contain affiliate links. Read full disclosure

Source link

Continue Reading

Crypto World

ME Token Slumps After Magic Eden Announces Buybacks, Staking Rewards

Published

on

ME Token Slumps After Magic Eden Announces Buybacks, Staking Rewards


The former NFT marketplace said it will allocate revenue to the ME ecosystem, including USDC rewards paid out to stakers.

Source link

Continue Reading

Crypto World

Solana (SOL) Plunges Below $100, Bitcoin (BTC) Recovers From 15-Month Low: Market Watch

Published

on

BTCUSD Feb 4. Source: TradingView


Meanwhile, HASH and HYPE have declined the most over the past 24 hours after charting impressive gains lately.

Bitcoin’s adverse price actions as of late worsened yesterday when the asset tumbled to its lowest positions since early November 2024 at $73,000 before recovering by a few grand.

Most altcoins followed suit with enhanced volatility, but some, such as SOL, HYPE, and CC, have been hit harder than others.

Advertisement

BTC’s Latest Rollercoaster

It was just a week ago when the primary cryptocurrency challenged the $90,000 resistance ahead of the first FOMC meeting for the year. After it became official that the Fed won’t cut the rates again, BTC remained sluggish at first but started to decline in the following hours.

The escalating tension in the Middle East was also blamed for another crash that took place on Thursday when bitcoin plunged to $81,000. It bounced off to $84,000 on Friday but tumbled once again on Saturday, this time to under $75,000. Another recovery attempt followed on Monday, only to be rejected at $79,000.

Tuesday brought the latest crash, this time to a 15-month low of $73,000. It has rebounded since then to just over $76,000, but it’s still 3% down on the day. Moreover, it has lost 14% of its value weekly and a whopping 18% monthly.

Its market capitalization has plummeted to $1.525 trillion on CG, while its dominance over the alts has declined to 57.3%.

Advertisement
BTCUSD Feb 4. Source: TradingView
BTCUSD Feb 4. Source: TradingView

SOL Below $100

Most larger-cap altcoins have felt the consequences of the violent market crash lately. Ethereum went from over $3,000 to $2,100 in the span of a week, before bouncing to $2,280 as of now. BNB is down to $760, while SOL has plummeted to under $100 after a 7% daily decline.

Even the recent high-flyer HYPE has retraced hard daily. The token is down by 11% to $33. CC and ZEC are also deep in the red, while XMR has gained the most from the larger caps.

The cumulative market cap of all crypto assets has seen more than $70 billion erased in a day and is down to $2.65 trillion on CG.

Cryptocurrency Market Overview Feb 4. Source: QuantifyCrypto
Cryptocurrency Market Overview Feb 4. Source: QuantifyCrypto

 

SPECIAL OFFER (Exclusive)

SECRET PARTNERSHIP BONUS for CryptoPotato readers: Use this link to register and unlock $1,500 in exclusive BingX Exchange rewards (limited time offer).

Disclaimer: Information found on CryptoPotato is those of writers quoted. It does not represent the opinions of CryptoPotato on whether to buy, sell, or hold any investments. You are advised to conduct your own research before making any investment decisions. Use provided information at your own risk. See Disclaimer for more information.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Crypto World

Pumpfun Unveils Investment Arm and $3 Million Hackathon

Published

on

Pumpfun Unveils Investment Arm and $3 Million Hackathon


PUMP rallied as much as 10% but erased its gains as crypto markets dipped.

Source link

Continue Reading

Crypto World

Spot Bitcoin ETF AUM Hits Lowest Level Since April 2025

Published

on

Spot Bitcoin ETF AUM Hits Lowest Level Since April 2025

Assets in spot Bitcoin (BTC) ETFs slipped below $100 billion on Tuesday following a fresh $272 million in outflows.

According to data from SoSoValue, the move marked the first time spot Bitcoin ETF assets under management have fallen below that level since April 2025, after peaking at about $168 billion in October

The drop came amid a broader crypto market sell-off, with Bitcoin sliding below $74,000 on Tuesday. The global cryptocurrency market capitalization fell from $3.11 trillion to $2.64 trillion over the past week, according to CoinGecko.

Altcoin funds secure modest inflows

The latest outflows from spot Bitcoin ETFs followed a brief rebound in flows on Monday, when the products attracted $562 million in net inflows.

Advertisement

Still, Bitcoin funds resumed losses on Tuesday, pushing year-to-date outflows to almost $1.3 billion, coming in line with ongoing market volatility.

Spot Bitcoin ETF flows since Jan. 26, 2026. Source: SoSoValue

By contrast, ETFs tracking altcoins such as Ether (ETH), XRP (XRP) and Solana (SOL) recorded modest inflows of $14 million, $19.6 million and $1.2 million, respectively.

Is institutional adoption moving beyond ETFs?

The ongoing sell-off in Bitcoin ETFs comes as BTC trades below the ETF creation cost basis of $84,000, suggesting new ETF shares are being issued at a loss and placing pressure on fund flows.

Market observers say that the slump is unlikely to trigger further mass sell-offs in ETFs.

“My guess is vast majority of assets in spot BTC ETFs stay put regardless,” ETF analyst Nate Geraci wrote on X on Monday.

Advertisement
Source: Nate Geraci

Thomas Restout, CEO of institutional liquidity provider B2C2, echoed the sentiment, noting that institutional ETF investors are generally resilient. Still, he hinted that a shift toward onchain trading may be underway.

Related: VistaShares launches Treasury ETF with options-based Bitcoin exposure

“The benefit of institutions coming in and buying ETFs is they’re far more resilient. They will sit on their views and positions for longer,” Restout said in a Rulematch Spot On podcast on Monday.

“I think the next level of transformation is institutions actually trading crypto, rather than just using securitized ETFs. We’re expecting the next wave of institutions to be the ones trading the underlying assets directly,” he noted.