Bitcoin ETFs Have Shed 160K BTC Since the October 2025 Peak

What the data shows: 160K BTC out since the 2025 peak

Roughly a year on from the October 2025 top, the story in US spot Bitcoin ETFs is no longer a single bad week — it's a sustained, coin-denominated bleed. CryptoQuant analyst Darkfost notes that cumulative net outflows from the funds have surpassed 160,000 BTC since the October 2025 peak, with 2026 alone accounting for more than 100,000 BTC — the largest annual outflow since the products launched in January 2024.

The pressure carried into October 2026. The most recent stretch has been relentless:

Through early-to-mid October, Bitcoin itself traded in the low-to-mid $80,000s — roughly $82,446 around the Oct 8 session — so the redemptions landed into an already-soft tape rather than a runaway rally. For the daily cadence behind this, see our breakdown of the $485M single-day outflow, the biggest since June.

Why coin-denominated outflows matter more than dollar flows

Headline flow numbers are reported in dollars, which blends two very different things: how much Bitcoin left the wrapper, and what that Bitcoin was worth on the day. In a falling market, a fund's assets can shrink sharply even if almost no shares were redeemed — that's mark-to-market, not distribution.

Measuring the drawdown in BTC terms strips the price effect out. A 160,000-BTC decline since the peak is a statement about *coins actually leaving custody*, not about a lower Bitcoin price. That distinction is why the on-chain read is more bearish than a casual glance at total net assets suggests: the ETF complex isn't just marked down, it has genuinely handed coins back.

This is the same lens that separates a temporary NAV wobble from real selling pressure — a dynamic we cover in NAV premium & discount. When redemptions dominate creations day after day, discounts and persistent outflows tend to confirm each other.

The redemption mechanics: where the coins go

A spot Bitcoin ETF only shrinks when Authorized Participants (APs) redeem shares. In that process the AP returns ETF shares and the custodian releases the underlying Bitcoin — which can then re-enter tradable spot supply. Sustained net redemptions therefore do more than lower a fund's AUM: they put incremental coins back in front of the market.

Two structural features amplify the effect:

• Concentration. IBIT and FBTC hold the lion's share of category assets, so when they redeem, they set the aggregate tape. The Oct 8 session — where Fidelity's FBTC accounted for the bulk of a ~$243M day — is a textbook example.
• Reflexivity. Redemption-driven supply hits a weak price, which can trigger further redemptions, which releases more supply. That feedback loop is exactly how a drawdown stretches from one week into a year-long, 160K-BTC affair.

None of this makes the funds "go to zero" — lifetime net inflows remain large — but it does explain why the coin-denominated picture looks worse than the dollar one.

What it means for investors

For ETF holders, the signal to watch is the gap between dollar AUM and coin count. If a fund's dollar assets fall mostly because Bitcoin fell, the thesis is intact and a price recovery re-rates the fund. If the *coin count* keeps dropping — as the 160K-BTC figure says it has — that's genuine distribution, and it tends to cap rallies because every bounce meets coins that redemptions have pushed back into supply.

Three practical implications tied to ETF mechanics:

• NAV and the open. Heavy, concentrated redemptions pressure a fund's market price toward (or below) NAV and widen pre-market gaps. The overnight crypto move, not the prior equity close, sets where IBIT is likely to open — which is precisely the gap Pre-Tick's pre-market estimation engine is built to quantify.
• Flow before price. Coin-denominated flow data has historically led price. A week where redemptions decelerate — even before price turns — is often the first real tell that distribution is exhausting.
• Watch the leaders, not the aggregate. Because IBIT and FBTC dominate, their individual flow prints matter more than the category total. A category "outflow" driven entirely by one fund's rebalancing is a different animal from broad-based selling.

The neutral read: a 160K-BTC drawdown is the deepest coins-out move of the ETF era, but it is distribution into weak prices, not a structural failure of the wrapper. Position sizing and the coin-vs-dollar gap — not the scary dollar headline — are what deserve attention here.