Enhance your Bitcoin investment approach with these 7 essential demand factors.

Bitcoin traders are perceiving fund flows as macro bets, with one Fed data alteration posing a concealed risk

Key insights

• Institutional interest in Bitcoin can be tracked through issuer AUM snapshots, such as those from BlackRock’s IBIT, which reported net assets of $69,427,196,929 as of Jan. 28, 2026 on its product pages.
• Weekly cryptocurrency fund flows have started to behave like macro positioning, with CoinShares noting a transition from $454 million in weekly outflows (Jan. 12) to $2.17 billion in weekly inflows (Jan. 19), along with a $378 million Friday reversal linked to geopolitical tensions and tariffs.
• Monitoring liquidity is reliant on data accuracy and release frequency, as the Federal Reserve’s H.6 release schedule is established (release date Jan. 27, 2026) and FRED’s weekly M2 series has been discontinued.
• The market structure has evolved into a demand influencer through hedgeability and benchmarkability, with CME reporting nearly $3 trillion notional activity in crypto derivatives in 2025, while CF Benchmarks’ BRR acts as CME’s settlement index and an NAV/iNAV input for investment products.
• Scenario bands can be utilized to stress-test assumptions instead of relying on external conviction, including ARK’s 2030 bear/base/bull targets and conditional scenarios reported by Larry Fink and Citi in MarketWatch.

Intended audience

• Long-term BTC holders seeking a verifiable “Bitcoin investment thesis” based on updateable inputs instead of price trends.
• Swing and macro-focused traders who view crypto as a rates-and-liquidity expression and desire a consistent monitoring routine.
• Institutional allocators and advisors who require benchmark, hedging, and flow infrastructure aligned with a quarterly process.

This quarter’s focus

• ETF rails: IBIT “net assets” snapshots with the as-of date, alongside weekly CoinShares flow regimes. Additionally, observe spot Bitcoin ETF flows and the first-anniversary context of spot ETFs’ AUM.
• Macro cadence: the upcoming H.6 release and your selected liquidity proxy, steering clear of discontinued weekly series. For a relevant framework, refer to: M2 and liquidity backdrop.
• Risk transfer plumbing: CME participation metrics and whether benchmark inputs remain consistent for product NAV processes. For CME context, see: CME vs. Binance futures dominance and CME BTC futures contracts context.
• Safe-haven competition: examination of whether stress periods mirror the ECB’s described situations where the USD and Treasurys do not function as the primary hedge (ECB).

Related Reading

Spot Bitcoin ETFs break into top 20 in 2024, capturing 4.3% of total inflows

In under a year since their launch, IBIT and FBTC have secured positions among the largest ETFs based on yearly flows.

Jan 2, 2025 · Gino Matos

Understanding Bitcoin (and the purpose of an “investment thesis”)

A Bitcoin investment thesis consists of a collection of demand drivers linked to metrics that can be periodically verified, along with conditions that could shift positioning.

In 2026, the practical update cycle is becoming more evident. BTC demand is increasingly visible as it channels through spot Bitcoin ETFs, regulated derivatives platforms, and benchmark indices utilized in product infrastructure.

BTC thesis encapsulated in one paragraph: A robust BTC allocation argument hinges on whether institutional access points continue to retain assets and draw net inflows over extended periods.

It is also contingent on whether macro liquidity and discount-rate expectations remain in alignment with risk-bearing assets during the actual trading cadence of investors. Additionally, it relies on whether market structure continues to facilitate benchmarked pricing and hedging at scale.

The thesis is weakened if flows consistently reverse alongside macro repricing. It is further compromised if liquidity measurement falters due to discontinued data or if regulated participation and benchmark usage deteriorate.

For those considering BTC within a broader portfolio context, this framework can be paired with monitoring items regarding dollar safety narratives and substitution behavior. A relevant reference point is the ECB’s examination of safe-haven behavior, alongside previous discussions on dollar safety and Treasury positioning.

The seven demand drivers for long-term BTC (and the metrics that substantiate each one)

The focus is on measurement. Each driver listed below includes a “proof” input and a frequency, allowing the thesis to be updated without needing a complete rewrite.

Driver	Importance (trackable)	Primary metric(s)	Update frequency	What would alter my perspective
1) Institutional rails (ETFs, allocators)	Access influences who determines the marginal bid and the speed of flow changes	IBIT net assets “as of” snapshots; CoinShares weekly flows	Daily snapshots, weekly flow analysis	Multi-week net outflows with a macro repricing narrative
2) Macro liquidity and discount rates	BTC’s sensitivity to liquidity is actionable only if the proxy updates consistently	Fed H.6 release frequency; avoid discontinued weekly M2, utilize monthly M2SL when necessary	Per H.6 release / monthly proxy evaluations	Dashboard inputs fail or no longer align with release schedules
3) Market structure resilience (derivatives depth)	Hedging capability supports larger position sizes	CME notional, ADV, ADOI, LOIH	Quarterly/annual assessments	Participation proxies decline in venue reporting
4) Benchmark infrastructure	Benchmarks link spot markets to settlement and product NAV processes	BRR’s role in CME settlement and NAV/iNAV determinations	Ongoing (structural)	Changes in benchmark use in product and venue documentation
5) Cross-market safe-haven competition	Stress correlations can reprice “hedge” assets and redirect marginal flows	ECB framing on unusual USD/Treasury hedging behavior; monitoring stress regimes	Event-driven, quarterly review	Extended stress periods where “default hedge” assumptions fail
6) Network security and resilience (context)	Monitoring security budget and resilience alongside institutional adoption	Hash rate series	Weekly/monthly	Persistent decline in security proxy
7) Standardized position sizing narratives	Heuristics influence demand when adopted by institutions and advisors	Allocation “rules” and policy restrictions in portfolio discussions	Quarterly	Policy or platform constraints restrict position sizing options

The ETF driver is already quantifiable. BlackRock’s product pages indicated IBIT net assets at $69,198,322,977 as of Jan. 27, 2026.

Reports from CoinShares in January 2026 illustrate how rapidly the flow regime can change. During the week highlighted in its Jan. 12 update, CoinShares recorded $454 million in outflows, which included $405 million from Bitcoin.

CoinShares attributed the shift to “diminished prospects” of a March Federal Reserve rate cut. Just one week later, CoinShares reported $2.17 billion in weekly inflows, which encompassed $1.55 billion into Bitcoin.

Additionally, CoinShares noted a $378 million Friday reversal following “diplomatic escalations regarding Greenland” and tariff news. A process centered around weekly flow interpretation aligns more accurately with this reality than a one-off “institutions arrived” narrative.

Macro measurement faces similar limitations. The Federal Reserve released the H.6 “Money Stock Measures” page with a release date of Jan. 27, 2026.

FRED has separately noted the discontinuation of its weekly M2 series and directs users to the seasonally adjusted monthly series (M2SL). A liquidity dashboard relying on a discontinued series may fail without clear indicators.

For the context of network security (driver #6), the thesis should consider hash rate as a monitoring input rather than a singular cause. The referenced source is YCharts’ hash rate series, with additional insights available in hash rate milestone discussions.

Your BTC watchlist: metrics dashboard, calendar, and thesis scorecard

A monitoring routine is most effective if it remains viable over time and adapts to data changes. The aim is to create a dashboard that continues to function when series stop updating or when release schedules alter.

Metrics dashboard (minimum viable)

Category	Metric	Source	Frequency	Interpretation
ETF rails	IBIT net assets (as-of date)	Issuer pages: iShares IBIT page	Weekly review (daily if necessary)	Look for persistence over multiple weeks, not just single-day fluctuations
Fund flow regime	Weekly flows, BTC share, reversal observations	CoinShares weekly flows	Weekly	Classify as risk-on/risk-off and note the cited catalysts
Macro cadence	H.6 release timetable	Federal Reserve H.6	According to release schedule	Utilize known release dates to prevent “stale macro”
Liquidity proxy hygiene	Steer clear of weekly M2 (discontinued), use monthly M2SL when necessary	FRED M2 notice	Monthly	Ensure the series continues to update and aligns with your process
Institutional risk transfer	CME crypto notional, ADV, ADOI, LOIH	CME crypto highlights	Quarterly/annual	Use participation metrics as a gauge for institutional involvement
Benchmark plumbing	BRR’s involvement in settlement and NAV/iNAV inputs	CF Benchmarks BRR documentation	Quarterly review	Confirm that benchmark dependency remains intact
Network security (context)	Bitcoin network hash rate series	YCharts hash rate	Weekly/monthly	Consider as a monitoring input; avoid attributing causality to a single variable
Safe-haven competition	Correlation regime monitoring list	ECB safe-haven feature	Event-driven	Observe episodes where USD and yields behave in a non-default manner

Calendar anchors

• Weekly: CoinShares’ digital asset fund flows, utilized as a positioning indicator instead of a price prediction.
• Monthly: liquidity proxy evaluations that avoid the discontinued weekly M2 series.
• Per release schedule: Federal Reserve H.6 updates (set reminders for the date indicated on the H.6 page).
• Quarterly/annual: CME crypto market structure summaries for notional, ADV, ADOI, and LOIH context.

Thesis scorecard (example criteria)

• Institutional rails: “+ / 0 / -” based on whether multi-week flows correspond with stable or improving ETF AUM snapshots, always with as-of dates.
• Macro: “+ / 0 / -” based on whether your liquidity proxy updates accurately according to the release calendar you follow.
• Structure: “+ / 0 / -” based on CME participation metrics and stable benchmark reliance.
• Safe-haven competition: “+ / 0 / -” based on whether stress regimes mirror patterns described by the ECB as atypical for the USD and Treasurys.

Chart highlights

1. IBIT net assets over time (daily as-of points): Plot the two verified anchors (Jan. 27 and Jan. 28, 2026) and extend with future daily points sourced from issuer pages to visualize flow persistence.
2. CoinShares weekly flows with annotations: Bar chart of weekly net flows, including callouts for the Jan. 12 outflow week and the Jan. 19 inflow week along with the Friday reversal note.
3. Macro cadence timeline: A straightforward timeline marking each H.6 release date and highlighting the weekly M2 discontinuation, ensuring liquidity checks remain tied to stable updates.
4. Market plumbing diagram: A flow chart connecting BRR, CME settlement, and product NAV/iNAV inputs to illustrate the importance of benchmark continuity to allocators.

Bear/Base/Bull scenario bands: utilizing forecasts without relinquishing conviction

Scenario ranges are effective when they are linked to conditions. They falter when treated as a singular forecast.

• Long-term reference bands (2030): ARK has published assumption-based bear/base/bull targets of approximately $300,000, $710,000, and $1.5 million per BTC, framed around total addressable market and penetration assumptions rather than as a singular forecast. For further internal insights, see institutional prediction snapshots.
• Allocation-conditional scenario: MarketWatch reported that Larry Fink discussed a $500,000–$700,000 BTC scenario contingent on institutions allocating around 2%–5%. For internal context regarding the same theme, see Larry Fink’s conditional framing.
• Shorter-term reference bands (2026): MarketWatch reported, citing Citi analysts, a framework suggesting a $143,000 base, over $189,000 bull, and about $78,500 bear.

Related Reading

BlackRock CEO Larry Fink predicts Bitcoin will climb to $700k, says he's a ‘big believer'

Larry Fink mentioned that sovereign wealth funds are considering allocating 2% to 5% in Bitcoin.

Jan 22, 2025 · Gino Matos

An effective way to leverage these ranges is to correlate each to the seven drivers. A bullish scenario typically necessitates sustained institutional inflows through ETF rails and ongoing flow regimes.

It also requires liquidity conditions that do not tighten against BTC positioning, alongside a market structure that maintains stable hedging and benchmark inputs. A bearish scenario aligns with consistent outflow weeks associated with rate-cut repricing.

A bearish scenario can also coincide with stress regimes where safe-haven competition redirects portfolio hedges back toward sovereign markets, a behavior discussed by the ECB in its safe-haven analysis.

Readers integrating position sizing heuristics into these scenarios can refer back to prior coverage of portfolio allocation rules and platform constraints as a behavioral layer on the measurable inputs.

Frequent thesis errors, along with warning signs and invalidation triggers

Common errors (process shortcomings)

• Quoting ETF AUM without the “as of” date, despite issuer pages providing date-stamped values.
• Considering one weekly flow report as sustainable, even though CoinShares has documented rapid shifts linked to macro repricing and geopolitical events.
• Creating a liquidity dashboard based on a discontinued weekly M2 series and neglecting the necessity to utilize stable, updating series like the monthly seasonally adjusted series (M2SL) referenced by FRED.
• Employing scenario language as a forecast, even when the cited materials are conditional or driven by assumptions.

Warning signs & invalidation (set triggers beforehand)

• CoinShares-style multi-week net outflows coupled with a persistent narrative of fewer imminent cuts, echoing the Jan. 12 framing.
• Recurring “reversal day” patterns where risk events dominate weekly flows, akin to CoinShares’ $378 million Friday reversal noted in its Jan. 19 report.
• A disrupted macro series in your dashboard, which FRED’s discontinued weekly M2 notice is intended to prevent.
• A decline in regulated market participation proxies after CME reported nearly $3 trillion notional crypto derivatives activity in 2025 and a record 1,039 large open interest holders as of Oct. 21, 2025.
• A sustained correlation regime where stress does not yield default USD and Treasury hedging behavior, consistent with the ECB’s safe-haven discussion and its note that euro area investors held approximately €