TL;DR
Spot Bitcoin ETFs in the United States recorded $104.9 million in net outflows in the first trading session of the week, extending a cooling trend in ETF activity. Trading volumes fell sharply to just over $3 billion, a steep decline from the $14.7 billion peak seen on Feb. 5. The slowdown arrived as new fourth-quarter 2025 filings revealed which institutions were adjusting their Bitcoin ETF exposure, offering a clearer picture of shifting sentiment among major market participants.
Fresh disclosures showed Jane Street emerging as the second-largest buyer of BlackRock’s IBIT in Q4, accumulating $276 million. Yet the most striking development came from Laurore. This obscure Hong Kong-based firm purchased $436.2 million of IBIT in a single transaction. The company has no public presence, and its filer, Zhang Hui, shares a common Chinese name, adding to the intrigue surrounding the purchase.
Bitwise advisor Jeff Park suggested Laurore’s move could signal early institutional Chinese capital entering Bitcoin. He noted the lack of public information about the firm and raised the possibility of capital flight motivations. Others questioned why a buyer seeking Bitcoin exposure would choose an ETF instead of direct acquisition, highlighting the uncertainty around Laurore’s strategy and intentions.

Several institutions increased their IBIT holdings during Q4. Weiss Asset Management added roughly 2.8 million shares valued at $107.5 million, while 59 North Capital boosted its position by 2.6 million shares worth $99.8 million. Abu Dhabi’s Mubadala Investment expanded its stake by 45%, rising to 12.7 million shares valued at $630.7 million. These moves contrasted with the broader Bitcoin ETF outflow trend and underscored continued institutional interest in Bitcoin exposure.
Not all firms increased their positions. Brevan Howard cut its IBIT holdings by about 85%, dropping from 37 million shares to 5.5 million. Goldman Sachs also reduced its exposure by roughly 40%, leaving around $1 billion in assets. These reductions highlighted diverging institutional views during a period of declining Bitcoin ETF activity.