Cryptocurrency traders and some online commentators have accused quantitative trading firm Jane Street of repeatedly driving down Bitcoin’s price with programmatic sell orders around 10 a.m. ET, when U.S. markets open. The allegations gained traction after Terraform Labs’ court-appointed administrator sued Jane Street, alleging insider trading tied to transactions that exacerbated the May 2022 collapse of Terra’s algorithmic stablecoin.
Critics point to Jane Street’s large reported holding of BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF (IBIT) and suggest the firm could be masking a net short in Bitcoin through off‑exchange hedges. Crypto influencer Justin Bechler has argued that a 13F filing showing substantial IBIT exposure reveals little about offsetting instruments — such as put options, short futures or collar strategies — and that these hidden positions could allow programmatic spot selling near the U.S. open to depress prices and buy the ETF at a perceived discount.
Supporters of that view highlight on‑chain and intraday charts that appear to show recurring 10 a.m. sell pressure. On‑chain analyst Nonzee posted hourly charts suggesting repeated downward moves at that time, while market commentator Whale Factor claimed a pattern of 2%–3% drops minutes after the U.S. open that could reflect systematic sweeps to accumulate ETFs cheaply, singling out Jane Street’s multi‑billion‑dollar IBIT stake as a potential driver.
Other market analysts caution against reading too much into the pattern. Julio Moreno, head of research at CryptoQuant, said that buying spot and selling futures is a common delta‑neutral strategy used to capture spreads rather than to make directional bets, so apparent selling could be part of routine hedging. Jane Street’s latest 13F also lists investments in Bitcoin miners such as Bitfarms, Cipher Mining and Hut 8, showing diversified exposure beyond ETFs.
Macro commentator Alex Krüger reviewed blockchain data and found cumulative returns in the 10:00–10:30 a.m. window since Jan. 1 are roughly 0.9%, arguing that a systematic daily “10 a.m. dump” is not supported by the broader data and that intraday moves often reflect wider risk‑asset repricing tied to U.S. equity performance, including the Nasdaq.
Market participants also note that Bitcoin trading is deep and fragmented across venues and time zones, which makes it unlikely a single firm could impose a sustained bear market. Nick Puckrin, co‑founder and lead market analyst at Coin Bureau, suggested that assigning blame to one actor oversimplifies market dynamics; he said Bitcoin’s recent weakness is better attributed to geopolitical uncertainty, global liquidity conditions and competing investment themes such as artificial intelligence, which vie for investor capital.
The debate combines on‑chain sleuthing, regulatory filings and differing interpretations of market microstructure. While accusations of coordinated intraday manipulation have gained attention, multiple analysts emphasize the limits of available public data and the common use of hedging strategies that can appear directional. Readers should weigh both sets of evidence and follow developments as the legal case and additional data emerge.
Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent reporting. This article follows its Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate, timely information; readers are encouraged to verify details independently.