Cryptocurrency

Largest outflow events

Notable net redemptions from US spot Bitcoin ETFs, $ billions.

← Back to US Spot Bitcoin ETF Flows

About this data

A record $1.14bn left in a single day on 25 February 2025, part of a stretch that saw about $2.61bn withdrawn. Spot ETFs were meant to bring stickier institutional capital to bitcoin; the redemption profile suggests the holders behave a good deal more like traders than like allocators.

Largest outflow events

Largest outflow events

Notable net redemptions from US spot Bitcoin ETFs, $ billions.

View data & sources →

Data table

Largest outflow events — outflow_events data table (US Spot Bitcoin ETF Flows)
event usd_b series source_ref value_basis
Single day, 25 Feb 2025 1.14 outflow_events coinglass-etf Record single-day outflow of $1.14bn on 25 Feb 2025
Late Feb 2025 stretch 2.61 outflow_events coinglass-etf Spot BTC ETFs shed ~$2.61bn during a single volatile stretch, late Feb 2025

Methodology & sources

Last updated: Aug 14, 2026

Methodology

Flows are NET (creations less redemptions) for US-listed spot Bitcoin ETFs since the category launched on 11 January 2024. Net flow is not the same as AUM: AUM also moves with the bitcoin price, so a fund can grow in dollar terms while losing units. THE KEY READ: IBIT’s ~$62bn cumulative inflow EXCEEDS the whole category’s $51.3bn. That is not an error in the data. It means the other US spot Bitcoin ETFs are collectively net NEGATIVE by roughly $11bn on a cumulative basis. The category headline conceals a broad withdrawal underneath a single dominant fund. CAVEAT: IBIT’s share of category AUM is reported as a RANGE (49–62%) across sources and dates. A midpoint would be a fabrication, so the range is stated here and not charted. The cumulative checkpoints are published milestones, not a continuous daily series, so the line connects dated observations rather than tracking every trading day. Re-verified 2026-08-10.

Sources

Comparisons are informative, not definitive. See each source for definitions and limits.

How relevant was this information?