Bitcoin ETFs post $430 million net outflow, led by FBTC’s $200 million

Two funds account for $305 million

FBTC had the largest single-day net outflow in the reported table, at $200 million. IBIT followed with $105 million. PANews published the same fund-level figures, also attributing them to SoSoValue. Its report refers explicitly to November 5 in US Eastern Time. PANews gives the fund-level amounts and their reporting date.

The percentages are our arithmetic on the reported, rounded amounts. For FBTC, $200 million divided by $430 million gives approximately 46.5%. IBIT's calculation is $105 million divided by $430 million, approximately 24.4%. Adding the two funds gives $200 million plus $105 million, or $305 million; dividing that sum by $430 million gives about 70.9%.

The remainder is also a calculation: $430 million minus $305 million equals $125 million. That is the combined net outflow attributable to the rest of the covered group. It does not establish that every other fund had an outflow. The two reports do not provide a complete fund-by-fund breakdown, so assigning that remainder to a particular ticker would go beyond the opened evidence.

This is the useful distinction when comparing headlines. A report naming FBTC's $200 million describes one fund. The $430 million headline describes the group. Neither number should be added to the other: FBTC's amount is already included in the group total.

Keep November 5 separate from the November 6 publication

Odaily's dispatch appeared at 13:01 SGT on November 6. The activity it describes belongs to November 5, US Eastern Time. PANews carried the matching data at 13:02 SGT on November 6. Both dates belong in a trading note: one identifies the measured session, and the other identifies when the reader received the report.

If you keep an order journal, label this entry “November 5 US ETF flow, reported November 6 SGT.” Record the timestamp of your own Bitcoin quote separately. That makes it possible to revisit the decision without quietly turning a historical flow total into a live market reading.

The reports give a daily aggregate. They do not set out the sequence of flows during the session. A trader cannot use these amounts to identify the minute when a particular investor acted, the Bitcoin price associated with that action, or the point at which the reported flow became known to other market participants.

That timing gap limits the causal claim. These sources support a statement about the direction and size of the reported ETF balance. They do not support “this outflow caused the latest Bitcoin move.” Establishing such a relationship would require a separately checked price series, a clear time window and evidence connecting the events.

$96.647 billion of assets and $56.111 billion of cumulative flows

The same reports put total net asset value for the covered spot Bitcoin ETFs at $96.647 billion as of their publication. They also give historical cumulative net inflows of $56.111 billion. FBTC's cumulative net inflows were reported at $10.223 billion, and IBIT's at $65.504 billion. These are different measures from the daily outflows. Odaily lists the asset-value and cumulative-flow figures alongside the daily data.

The $430 million number answers a question about a single session's net flow. The $96.647 billion number describes the reported net asset value at the stated observation. The $56.111 billion number describes the historical cumulative net inflow. Preserve those labels when copying the figures into a spreadsheet or comparing them with another report.

For scale, $430 million divided by $96,647 million is approximately 0.445%. This compares the reported daily net outflow with the reported asset-value snapshot. It is not the day's ETF return, Bitcoin's price change or the percentage of all holders who sold. Those questions require different inputs.

The positive cumulative figures also do not erase the negative daily result. The reports describe a negative session alongside positive historical cumulative inflows. Both can be recorded as given without deciding that either the recent session or the historical total proves what happens next.

There is another common spreadsheet trap here. IBIT's $65.504 billion cumulative inflow exceeds the group's $56.111 billion cumulative figure. The figures are net balances, so one constituent can exceed the group total when the other constituents' combined balance offsets it. The two values should not be “corrected” by replacing one with the other. A complete allocation of that historical difference would require the other funds' historical rows, which these reports do not supply.

IBIT's product objective is a separate fact

The official iShares product page says IBIT seeks to reflect the performance of Bitcoin's price. This establishes the issuer's stated objective for the named product. It does not confirm the November 5 flow total or supply a reason for the reported $105 million outflow. The iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF page describes the product objective.

That gives a reader two different questions to ask. The issuer page explains the exposure the product seeks to offer. The daily flow report describes the reported net movement for a completed session. When reviewing a holding, keep the objective, the daily flow and the account's own execution record in separate fields rather than treating one as an answer to all three questions.

Odaily and PANews both attribute the flow figures to SoSoValue. They are two reports of the same underlying dataset, rather than independently calculated flow tables. Neither names the investors or establishes their motives. The 70.9% calculation describes concentration among the named funds; it does not reveal a strategy shared by their holders.

Review the position you actually hold

Start with the product name in your account. Write down whether your position is an ETF holding, spot Bitcoin or a Bitcoin derivative. The ETF-flow report supplies no account-specific entry price, quantity, order status or closing quote. Those fields need to come from your own account and the exact product you hold.

Then review pending orders. Check the instrument, direction, quantity, limit or trigger price and whether the order is still open. If the ETF headline prompted you to prepare another order, compare it with the orders already waiting. This is an account review prompted by the report, rather than a buy or sell instruction inferred from the flow number.

For a derivative position, inspect the funding information and the account's displayed position details before changing exposure. The Bitcoin funding board is a separate place to examine the market measure you are checking. Read the timestamp and the relevant product before recording a comparison.

If you want to compare the story with forced position closures, open the liquidation board and choose the period you intend to examine. Keep that observation in its own column. The ETF-flow reports do not contain a liquidation total, and an ETF outflow cannot be relabelled as a liquidation.

An ETF holder can make a narrower review: verify the exact ticker in the account, the position quantity and any pending trade. FBTC's larger reported daily outflow does not tell you your own execution price or explain why another holder acted. Your account's order record answers the execution question.

The next useful comparison is another completed session

For the next ETF report, compare the same reporting universe and retain the date convention. Record the combined daily balance, FBTC and IBIT separately, then calculate the residual using the same formula. This makes a later shift in concentration visible without changing the definition halfway through the comparison.

Do not manufacture a trend from the November 5 row. A sequence needs additional dated observations. If the next report revises this session's figures, keep the original note and record which value changed; do not merge two versions into a single unexplained total.

For today's trade review, retain the verified flow observation and the account check as separate records: November 5 US spot Bitcoin ETFs, $430 million net outflow; your product, order status and current quote at the time you inspect them. The next decision then rests on the position and evidence available at that moment.

Quick answers

Did every other fund have an outflow?

The reported amounts imply a combined $125 million net outflow for the remaining group. Without the full fund-by-fund rows, that does not establish the direction for every constituent.

Do two matching reports mean two independent datasets?

Odaily and PANews both cite SoSoValue. Their matching figures should retain that attribution rather than be described as separately calculated totals.

Does the report identify who sold?

Neither opened report names the investors behind the flows. The amounts identify the funds and the daily net balance, leaving the motive unresolved.