Bitcoin Approaches $70k at US Market Opening as Oil and Natural Gas Prices Rise

Bitcoin rises over 6% on the U.S. open as CME premium spikes, and liquidations don’t explain it

Bitcoin surged more than 6% to approach $70,000 during the U.S. market opening on Monday, despite a broader macro environment that seems risk-averse.

Oil prices soared due to escalating risks in the Middle East, stock markets opened significantly lower, and the dollar remained strong.

This combination typically exerts pressure on high-beta assets.

However, BTC continued to rise, and the usual crypto response, “shorts got squeezed,” does not align with the data.
Coinglass liquidation statistics from the past 24 hours indicated approximately $423 million in total liquidations, nearly evenly divided. Around $221 million was from long positions, while about $203 million came from shorts.

This does not indicate a one-sided forced-buying scenario. Instead, it implies that the market was oscillating between both sides, rather than surging due to a crowded short position being liquidated.

A more plausible explanation is related to liquidity: U.S. trading hours brought back institutional venues, correcting weekend dislocations.

The surge in oil prices set the risk environment. U.S. crude increased by about 7.6% to around $72, while Brent rose approximately 8.6% to about $79, as reported market coverage highlighted tanker disruptions and supply risks.

Stocks fell at the opening but later reduced their losses.

European markets declined, although defense and energy sectors performed better, with natural gas prices soaring nearly 50%.

Yet, BTC’s price exhibited a different trend.

The question for traders is, “Why did BTC attract marginal buying in a risk-off, inflation-shock environment?”

The answer lies less in sentiment and more in how the ETF era channels flows through the U.S. market structure.

This becomes particularly relevant when CME and the ETF hedge complex reopen after a weekend where spot trading largely operated independently.

Metric	Print	Why it matters
BTC move (U.S. open)	~+6%	Significant enough to require a causal explanation beyond mere “noise”
24h liquidations (total)	~$423M	Modest for 2026 conditions; not indicative of a “forced-buying” day
Longs vs shorts liquidated	~$221M vs ~$203M	Not a directional squeeze; both sides were liquidated
CME premium vs spot (intraday)	~+1.3% (peaked above +1%)	A U.S.-hours “pay-up” signal that can pull spot through basis trades

Why liquidations weren’t the driver, and what that rules in instead

Begin with what the liquidation data can and cannot indicate.

A day characterized by forced buying typically reveals a clear imbalance: shorts liquidated significantly more than longs, and the total notional is substantial enough to potentially influence the market.

In this case, the split was close, with approximately $221 million in long liquidations compared to $203 million in shorts, totaling around $423 million.

This profile aligns with a market fluctuating, rather than one being mechanically driven higher by buy-to-cover activity.

So, what actually influences price when forced flow is subdued?

Two factors: (1) spot-led demand that emerges at predictable times and venues, and (2) relative-value and hedging flows that function even amid mixed sentiment.

On Monday, these mechanisms followed a clear timetable.

As U.S. trading hours commenced, the market reintroduced deeper regulated liquidity: CME futures, U.S. spot participation, and, crucially in 2026, the spot ETF create/redeem mechanism along with the market makers that hedge it.

The ETF framework alters the identity of the marginal buyer.

Retail can influence perpetuals during weekends, but substantial spot demand often manifests through the ETF channel during U.S. hours, subsequently hedged across various venues.

This can generate a rally that appears “mysterious” if one only considers liquidations.

U.S. spot bitcoin ETFs recorded approximately $1.1 billion in net inflows over three consecutive days last week after five weeks of net outflows.

This flow regime can surpass typical marginal depth, demonstrating how swiftly the demand backdrop can shift when the ETF bid is active.

Until later this evening, we will not know if ETF inflows were positive again today. However, we do have a baseline: in this market structure, a liquidation cascade is not necessary to move BTC 6% if U.S.-hours spot demand and hedging flows align.

The CME premium spike is the cleaner “U.S.-hours plumbing” signal

The most actionable indicator of the day was the CME-versus-spot relationship depicted in the chart below.

Bitcoin price spike amid CME premium surge at market open

Over the weekend, when CME was closed, spot had to manage headline risk in thinner liquidity.

This is when dislocations occur: basis swings, premium flips, and pricing becomes erratic.

Upon CME’s reopening on Monday, the premium not only normalized.

It widened significantly, with the panel indicating the premium rising to approximately +1.3% after the opening (with earlier indications around +0.34% during the normalization phase).

A steep positive CME premium indicates institutional positioning.

It typically signifies institutions paying more for regulated exposure or desks utilizing CME to express hedges swiftly.

It can also reflect mechanics of the ETF era.

If spot ETF demand accelerates, market makers often hedge delta through liquid futures.

When that futures bid arrives more quickly than arbitrage desks can manage the trade, the premium can widen initially, and spot can increase as the “cash leg” of arbitrage ramps up.

Mechanically, this appears as: buy spot, sell CME.

Even if the end result is basis compression, the process can elevate spot prices.

Balance-sheet constraints and risk limits are also significant.

Arbitrage capacity is not limitless, and Monday reopening trades can occur when desks are replenishing inventory after a weekend gap.

The outcome is a scenario where the premium expands and spot rises, without necessitating a liquidation impulse.

This is also why “CME gap” narratives continue to emerge. However, the dynamic is not about gaps being magical.

Related Reading

Do CME gaps always have to fill? Bitcoin’s $60k flush says no

In stable conditions, gaps seem like a gravitational force. But when the market panics and erases trillions in market capitalization, they are merely outdated coordinates.

Feb 8, 2026 · Andjela Radmilac

Traders react to reopened liquidity and clearly defined reference levels as magnets when the market transitions from weekend conditions to full weekday depth.

CME gap levels can become focal points for positioning as the behavioral aspect becomes relevant when the theory is oversold on social media.

In simple terms: if the CME premium is signaling “pay up,” there is no need to fabricate a squeeze.

You can articulate a market repricing weekend risk on its most substantial institutional venue, subsequently pulling spot along through hedges and basis trades.

Macro looked “risk-off,” but it was an inflation shock, and that can coexist with BTC bids

The macro context still explains why BTC’s movement appeared as a divergence.

Oil served as the transmission line. Coverage linked the rise in crude prices to escalation and shipping and supply risks, particularly focusing on the Strait of Hormuz, connecting the movement to disruption concerns.

The Guardian also emphasized the market’s attention on escalation risks and the potential for higher oil prices if disruptions continue, cautioning that the “$100 oil” discussion may resurface. Such a shock does not represent a classic “hide in duration” day.

Increased energy prices can postpone rate cuts and maintain tighter financial conditions even as growth risks rise, creating a distinct type of risk-off environment. Stocks initially reflected the cost shock but later stabilized somewhat.

So, why didn’t BTC simply decline alongside equities?

Because BTC can function as part of a hedge complex when two conditions are met simultaneously: (1) the shock is related to policy and inflation, not purely deflationary, and (2) there is already structural spot demand capable of absorbing supply during U.S. trading hours.

In that scenario, BTC is less about being “weak dollar beta” and more about being a “flow-led instrument that can attract hedge bids when the plumbing is operational.”

This distinction is forward-looking.

If the oil premium persists, macro pressure can limit altcoin beta and compress risk appetite.

BTC can still outperform the rest of the crypto market if the ETF/U.S.-hours bid remains strong, driven by its deeper, more established channel for spot demand and hedging activities linked to regulated market flows.

What to watch next: three dials that decide whether this becomes trend

Monday’s movement establishes a testable framework for the remainder of the week.

If you seek a causal stack that respects the liquidation data while still explaining the rally, monitor three observable dials that can confirm (or diminish) the impulse.

Dial	What to measure	Why it matters for BTC
Oil risk premium	Does Brent maintain its position near the post-spike level or decline?	Ongoing oil strength keeps inflation risk relevant and tightens conditions
ETF flow persistence	Will we observe another multi-day inflow trend similar to late February?	Sustained spot demand can counteract macro headwinds during U.S. hours
USD + rates reaction	Does the inflation shock sustain the dollar’s strength and delay rate cuts?	A stronger dollar typically limits follow-through unless spot demand is robust

Then correlate those dials to scenarios.

If de-escalation headlines diminish the oil spike over several days, BTC’s Monday surge risks transitioning into a range trade unless ETF flows re-accelerate.

If the conflict remains contained but the oil premium persists for weeks, BTC can remain resilient yet volatile.

In that scenario, the broader crypto market often underperforms as tighter conditions penalize leverage and liquidity.

If disruption risks escalate (the “tail”), the initial impulse may still be downward as markets de-risk.

However, a subsequent impulse may arise if policy expectations shift and hedgers seek non-sovereign exposure with substantial U.S. session liquidity.

Scenario	Macro cue	BTC implication	Market tell
De-escalation (days)	Oil declines; equities stabilize	Rally may fade into a range unless spot demand is evident	CME premium compresses quickly; spot stalls
Contained conflict (weeks)	Oil maintains risk premium; conditions remain tight	Choppy but resilient if ETFs continue to absorb supply; alts lag	Premium stays elevated but stable; spot grinds
Tail disruption (higher risk)	Shipping/energy constraints intensify; $100 oil discussion resurfaces	Two-phase: initial de-risking, then hedge bids if policy path shifts	Premium spikes repeatedly; spot volatility increases

The near-term assessment is clear: Monday’s BTC movement appears flow-led, not liquidation-led.

If the CME premium remains above 1% into the close and through the next U.S. session, it indicates that institutions are still willing to pay for exposure.

It also suggests that arbitrage capacity is gradually absorbing the basis.

If the premium retracts quickly while spot stalls, it indicates a reopening dislocation: a strong impulse, but a weaker trend signal.

In any case, the narrative is no longer “shorts got rekt.”

It’s “U.S.-hours plumbing has resumed, and the market has repriced weekend risk where the deepest liquidity resides.”

The post Why Bitcoin surged toward $70k at US market open while oil and natural gas rocket upward appeared first on CryptoSlate.