Reason to trust
How Our News is Made
Strict editorial policy that focuses on accuracy, relevance, and impartiality
Ad discliamer
Morbi pretium leo et nisl aliquam mollis. Quisque arcu lorem, ultricies quis pellentesque nec, ullamcorper eu odio.
The idea that Jane Street is single-handedly the reason why Bitcoin is not trading at $150,000 is the wrong frame, according to ProCap CIO and Bitwise advisor Jeff Park. In a X thread February 25, Park argued that the real issue is not one firm, but a structural feature of the US spot Bitcoin ETF system that gives all authorized participants unusual flexibility in how they hedge and settle trades.
Is Jane Street Suppressing Bitcoin?
Park’s core point is that the market has turned a question about Jane Street into a question about the ETF plumbing itself. On IBIT alone, he noted, the authorized participant roster includes Jane Street Capital, JPMorgan, Macquarie, Virtu Americas, Goldman Sachs, Citadel Securities, Citigroup, UBS and ABN AMRO. In his telling, that matters because APs are not ordinary short sellers.
“The question deserves a precise answer—and the most important thing to understand upfront is that it is not really a question about Jane Street,” Park wrote. “It is a question about a structural feature of the Bitcoin ETF architecture that applies equally to every Authorized Participant in the ecosystem.” He added that the role of those institutions is “genuinely misunderstood, even amongst seasoned industry veterans.”
The mechanism Park focused on is the AP exemption under Regulation SHO. In standard short selling, traders generally need to locate shares before shorting and face borrowing costs that create pressure to close the trade. APs, Park argued, sit in a different category because their creation and redemption rights effectively let them manufacture ETF shares without those same frictions.
“The practical consequence is significant: any AP can manufacture shares at will—no borrow cost, no capital conventionally tied up against the short, and no hard deadline to close the position beyond what is commercially reasonable,” he wrote. “This is the grey window: a regulatory carve-out designed for orderly ETF market-making that is, structurally speaking, indistinguishable from a regulatory arbitrage with unmatched duration.”
That framing is important because Park is not claiming APs can simply press Bitcoin lower forever. His argument is narrower and more structural. If an AP is short IBIT and chooses to hedge with CME Bitcoin futures rather than buying spot BTC, then the normal arbitrage pathway that would force spot purchases becomes weaker. In that setup, the hedge can remain economically tight enough for market-making purposes while bypassing immediate spot demand.
“The critical implication: if the hedge is futures rather than spot, the spot was never bought,” Park wrote. “The gap cannot close via the natural arb mechanism because the natural arb buyer chose not to buy spot.” He also cautioned that the separation is not frictionless, since basis traders work to keep futures and spot aligned, but said the basis risk becomes more meaningful in periods of stress.
The recent shift to in-kind creations and redemptions, in Park’s view, removes another constraint that previously pushed activity into the spot market. Under the earlier cash-only model, APs had to deliver cash, which the fund’s custodian then used to buy Bitcoin. That created what Park called a “structural governor” because spot buying was a mechanical byproduct of creations. In-kind transfers change that. APs can now source Bitcoin directly, at times and from counterparties of their choosing, including OTC desks and negotiated transactions that may minimize visible market impact.
Even so, Park stopped short of endorsing outright market suppression claims. “The short answer is that no AP explicitly suppresses Bitcoin price,” he wrote. “What the AP structure can suppress is the integrity of the price discovery mechanism itself. Those are not the same thing—but the second is arguably more consequential than the first.”
Other Experts Agree
Senior ETF Analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence Eric Balchunas commented: “The bogeyman is gone.. That’s the vibe rn on CT and in the price action today. I get it too, that big daily dump [at 10am] seemed to kill every rally and everyone’s spirit. Is eliminating it enough for a sustained rebound? I guess we’ll find out.”
That distinction drew pushback. Monad founder Keone Hon said the theory does not hold up because a short futures hedge implies someone else is short futures and, on average, must hedge elsewhere, preserving the market-wide delta balance. Dave Weisberger also argued the claim does not hold “over any substantial time frame,” noting that futures converge to spot at expiry.
Park did not dispute the accounting identity. What he disputed was whether that identity settles the practical question of how long trades can persist inside the system’s regulatory carve-outs. “To be clear, I don’t subscribe to the conspiracy theory that APs suppress price,” he wrote. “The conspiracy theory that I subscribe to, if there is one to be had, is that with infinite duration at zero cost of carry, funny things can happen.”
Leading on-chain analyst James “Checkmate” Check agreed: “Jane Street didn’t suppress the Bitcoin price folks. HODLers all did. It’s just not that hard, stop summoning your inner salty goldbug but blaming manipulators. People. Sold. A. Fucktonne. Of. Spot. Bitcoin.”
At press time, Bitcoin traded at $67,883.
