The data statistics for the morning of February 14, East 8 Time show that the U.S. spot Ethereum ETF recorded a net inflow of approximately $10.20-10.26 million in one day on February 13, Eastern Time, indicating a significant reversal in fund direction after a net outflow of over $100 million the previous day. The internal structure that day was rather subtle: the Grayscale Mini Ethereum Trust attracted approximately $14.50 million in a single day, while BlackRock ETHA saw a net outflow of about $9.30 million, forming a hedging pattern. Moreover, the overall management asset size of the U.S. spot Ethereum ETF was approximately $11.7 billion, with a historical cumulative net inflow of about $11.6 billion, accounting for approximately 4.75% of ETH's total market cap, which has already become an institutional presence that cannot be ignored. Regarding this reversal in fund flow, the market is focusing on two main lines: the divergence of opinions within institutions and slight adjustments in regulatory expectations, attempting to decode clearer mid- to long-term logic from short-term fluctuations.

Net inflow of $10.20 million: A comparison signal after heavy outflow the previous day

● Fund rhythm reversal: According to public data, on February 12, Eastern Time, the U.S. spot Ethereum ETF recorded a net outflow of over $100 million, significantly impacting market sentiment. However, just one day later, the overall funds reversed to record a net inflow of about $10.20-10.26 million, forming a sharp contrast from the "massive daily withdrawal" to "small-scale return," resembling a rapid correction of short-term sentiment rather than a re-pricing at the trend level.

● Internal divergence structure: Beneath this apparent net inflow of over $10 million, there was a high degree of differentiation in fund direction between products. The Grayscale Mini Ethereum Trust received about $14.50 million in net inflow in a single day, reflecting strong capital attraction; in contrast, BlackRock ETHA experienced around $9.30 million in net outflow on the same day. This means that the overall slight net inflow is actually the result of funds transferring between different products rather than a one-directional influx or withdrawal.

● Size coordinates: Under the current total of approximately $11.7 billion AUM and $11.6 billion historical cumulative net inflow, this net inflow of over $10 million is proportionally limited, accounting for less than 1% of the total. Even compared to the previous day’s over $100 million net outflow, this “replenishment” merely slightly fills the funding gap, without reversing the short- to mid-term funding trajectory, and is more akin to a fine-tuning action within a high-volatility interval.

● Marginal rather than turning point: From the perspective of price and sentiment transmission, the reversal of tens of millions of dollars in one day mainly influences intra-day liquidity and short-term volatility, offering some marginal repair to the risk appetite of off-exchange investors. However, without confirmation over multiple consecutive days, such reversals are difficult to interpret as trend turning points and should be viewed more as "technical actions" for rebalancing amid drastic fluctuations.

Grayscale increasing, BlackRock reducing: A facet of institutional style differentiation

● Opposing operational directions: On the same day, the Grayscale Mini Ethereum Trust actively absorbed about $14.50 million in new funds, while BlackRock ETHA saw a net outflow of about $9.30 million. This “one increasing, one reducing” mirrored behavior intuitively shows that leading institutions have inconsistent judgments regarding the current risk-reward ratio of Ethereum. Funds did not form a one-sided panic exit or collective bottom-fishing, but rather reflect a hedging and competition of different management strategies.

● Product and client group differences: From the perspective of industry consensus, Grayscale and BlackRock have significant differences in product positioning, fee structures, and investor composition. The former’s products often have earlier layouts and a more complex historical holder base, with some funds potentially favoring “price elasticity” and strategic flexibility; the latter emphasizes compliance, costs, and portfolio configuration discipline. The divergence in fund flow likely reflects differing institutional investors' tolerance for volatility, allocation cycles, and understanding of Ethereum's long-term position.

● Information boundary constraints: It should be emphasized that current public information is limited to the net inflow and outflow data of each ETF, which cannot reveal which institutions are adjusting their positions or their internal decision-making logic. Therefore, interpreting Grayscale's “increasing” and BlackRock's “reducing” can only remain at a neutral level, avoiding simply labeling it as a "bullish" or "bearish" value judgment, lest it exceed the scope supportable by the data.

● Internal reshuffling and style switching: Under this counterbalancing fund behavior, a more reasonable interpretation is that the current stage does not represent an overall fund return, but more like a reshuffling of positions within the ETF system. Some funds may be migrating based on fees, liquidity, or styles, completing transfers between different products; simultaneously, there exists a possibility of short-term style switching — migrating from high-volatility strategies to defensive allocations, or conversely increasing risk exposures, prompting readers to view this as structural reordering rather than unilateral statements.

Fund reversal and SEC expectations: Policy mapping of market sentiment

● Expectations and fund direction: Some industry analysts indicate that the recent reversal in fund flow may be related to slight adjustments in market expectations regarding the SEC's future regulatory and approval pathways. As regulatory risks gradually shift from “extreme uncertainty” to “priced uncertainty,” some institutions may choose to tentatively increase their positions at the emotional freezing point, aiming to capture the valuation recovery space brought about by improved future compliance conditions, which is also common across different asset classes during regulatory cycles.

● The initial period of launch: The current Ethereum spot ETF has not been on the market for long, and traditional funds are still in a window of conducting due diligence, compliance assessments, and gradual acceptance of new products. In such a phase, a fund reversal in a single day often does not signify a clear direction, but rather indicates an increasing number of institutions beginning to include Ethereum in their configurable asset pools, seeking a balance between "testing allocations" and "wait-and-see positions," resulting in more jumpy and tentative fund performances.

● Quick in and out to hedge regulatory risks: In a context where many uncertainties remain regarding regulation, a common practice among institutional investors is to hedge potential policy risks through quick in and out, high-frequency adjustments: quickly reducing positions at times of heightened negative expectations, and swiftly re-entering the market when marginal improvements are anticipated. This operation is not purely emotion-based trading, but a tool-like choice to manage risk exposure through the time dimension in periods of blurred compliance boundaries, explaining the stark contrasts between the previous day's massive outflow and the next day's slight influx.

● Expectations rather than facts: It is crucial to clarify that specific subsequent actions and timelines at the SEC level have not yet been made public, and the market can only form subjective expectations based on limited signals and historical experiences. The discussion in this article regarding the "correlation between fund flow and regulatory expectations" is a summary of market viewpoints and not a definitive judgment of the true intentions of regulatory bodies, so readers should remain cautious in interpreting such correlations and avoid treating expectations as established facts.

4.75% holding ratio: ETF size and leverage of spot volatility

● Scaled holdings: As of now, the U.S. spot Ethereum ETF has a total management asset size of approximately $11.7 billion and a historical cumulative net inflow of about $11.6 billion, with holdings accounting for about 4.75% of ETH's total market value. This holding ratio signifies that the ETF has transformed from a marginal tool into an important force influencing the supply structure of Ethereum in the spot market, possessing significant impact on price discovery and liquidity distribution.

● Daily tens of millions leverage effect: Within the overall holding of 4.75%, tens of millions in net inflow or outflow in a single day can significantly change the distribution of some liquid chips in the short term, visibly affecting market depth and slippage. However, in absolute scale, such changes are more reflected in increasing daily volatility and amplifying emotional feedback, and cannot reconstruct the mid- to long-term price center or supply-demand pattern based solely on a single day's fund behavior.

● Mid- to long-term increment remains dominant: Comparing the day’s approximately $10.20-10.26 million net inflow with the cumulative $11.6 billion net inflow, its scale is merely a tiny fraction of the historical increment. This disparity indicates that mid- to long-term fund inflow remains the main theme, while daily-level in-and-out more represent short-term responses to market noise and price fluctuations. In evaluating trends, continuous capital expansion holds far more indicator significance than a single day’s turn.

● Emotional volatility and structural stability: In summary, short-term emotional-driven fund movements in ETF do indeed amplify volatility at the intra-day level and accelerate the speed of price responses to favorable or unfavorable news. However, as long as long-term holdings and cumulative net inflows maintain an upward trend, the mid- to long-term supply-demand structure will remain relatively stable. The current reversal appears more as emotional oscillations atop a stable structure rather than fundamentally disrupting the underlying supply-demand logic.

Short-term speculation and long-term allocation: Different narratives of two types of funds

● Short-term and long-term fund profiles: Within the ecosystem of the Ethereum spot ETF, it is roughly possible to distinguish two dominant types of funds: one type is short-term capital that centers around arbitrage and event-driven core objectives, highly sensitive to price and liquidity with high turnover frequencies; the other type is long-term institutional funds aimed at asset allocation and risk diversification, placing greater emphasis on coordination with macro portfolios, liability matching, and valuation logic, thus showing higher tolerance for short-term fluctuations.

● Rhythm of high-frequency adjustments: Comparing the previous day’s net outflow of over $100 million with the next day’s mere $10.20-10.26 million small-scale inflow, one can clearly observe the characteristics of high-frequency adjustments of short-term funds. They typically act during periods of heightened volatility and ample liquidity, aiming to lock in price differences or avoid news risks through significant entries and exits, thereby statistically creating a “zigzag” path of fund flows.

● Patient capital of long-term allocation: In contrast, those driving the cumulative net inflow of $11.6 billion and AUM of $11.7 billion among long-term allocation funds pay more attention to Ethereum’s technological evolution, ecological development, and regulatory progress, rather than the sharp rises and falls of single-day funds and intra-day prices. As long as the long-term narrative remains unrefuted, such funds tend to rebalance during volatility rather than vastly rewriting asset allocation frameworks based on single-day fund indicators.

● Style rebalancing rather than trend termination: Under the combined effects of these two types of funds, the current fund reversal seems more like a rebalance of styles and positions — short-term funds replenishing some positions after extreme emotions, while long-term funds maintain relatively stable base holdings. For trends, such reversals are difficult to view as clear termination or restarting signals, instead prompting investors to comprehend fund behaviors more from structural and rhythmic angles rather than simply summarizing them as "bullish or bearish victories."

Fund reversal does not equal trend reversal: How to interpret this reversal

● Emotional correction rather than a comprehensive reversal: Comprehensive data shows that after the U.S. spot Ethereum ETF experienced a substantial single-day net outflow over $100 million, it recorded approximately $10.20 million net inflow on February 13, reflecting more of a phased correction in fund sentiment following extreme tension. Funds have not fully returned but reflect signs of marginal pessimism easing, providing some buffer for short-term prices and sentiment.

● Strategy disagreement rather than a unified stance: The $14.50 million net inflow from Grayscale Mini Ethereum Trust and $9.30 million net outflow from BlackRock ETHA on the same trading day indicate clear divergences in strategies and product preferences among institutions. This is not a display of “collective bullishness” or “collective bearishness,” but rather a clash of different investment frameworks and risk preferences; interpreting such data should return to each respective strategic logic rather than simplistic attribution.

● Mid- to long-term anchors remain in fundamentals and regulation: Whether it is the cumulative $11.6 billion net inflow or about $11.7 billion AUM and 4.75% market value share, these remind the market that what truly drives mid- to long-term fund flows is still the evolution of Ethereum's fundamentals and the clarification of the regulatory environment. Daily fund data are more related to emotional noise, providing feedback on short-term expectations and prices, and are difficult to constitute the core basis for trend judgments alone.

● Observation dimensions and operational insights: On the operational level, investors should focus more on the trends of fund flows over multiple consecutive days or even weeks, resonances of regulatory signals, and the macro environment, rather than overemphasizing the significance of a single fund reversal. Viewing ETF fund data as an auxiliary indicator for mid- to long-term position management rather than the sole basis for short-term trading may better align with the current reality of Ethereum ETFs entering a phase of institutionalization and diversified strategies.

Join our community to discuss together and become stronger!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh

OKX Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。