Bitcoin’s latest price recovery has revived optimism across the crypto market—but alongside the renewed bullish mood, an old controversy has returned with surprising force.
This time, the spotlight isn’t on miners, regulators, or macroeconomics. Instead, online debate has zeroed in on one of Wall Street’s most secretive quantitative firms: Jane Street.
As traders celebrate Bitcoin’s bounce after weeks of erratic price action, allegations circulating across social media claim the firm may have played an outsized role in past intraday sell-offs. Yet despite the viral traction of the theory, hard evidence remains elusive, leaving analysts divided between suspicion and skepticism.
Search interest in “Jane Street Bitcoin” recently hit record levels, according to data from Google Trends—a signal that curiosity has spilled far beyond Crypto Twitter.
At the center of the discussion lies a claim that Bitcoin has repeatedly experienced sharp price drops around 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time, a pattern some commentators believe reflects deliberate liquidity-driven trading rather than organic market movement.
Financial blog Zero Hedge has referenced the alleged pattern since 2024, fueling speculation that sophisticated high-frequency strategies may be influencing short-term volatility.
Posts circulating online describe a supposed playbook:
Sell aggressively at the U.S. market open
Push prices into thin liquidity zones
Rebuy at lower levels
Repeat the cycle
Despite the narrative’s popularity, no exchange, regulator, or independent dataset has confirmed coordinated activity.
Lawsuit Timing Adds Fuel to Speculation
Fresh attention toward Jane Street intensified after legal action linked to the collapse of Terraform Labs resurfaced in public discussion.
Some commentators claim the lawsuit’s emergence coincided with a pause in the alleged 10 a.m. sell-offs—an observation they interpret as more than coincidence. Others argue that drawing causal conclusions from timing alone is risky at best.
The theory gained additional traction when observers examined institutional filings showing Jane Street held a sizable position in the iShares Bitcoin ETF and increased exposure to MicroStrategy, long known for its aggressive Bitcoin accumulation strategy.
To critics, those disclosures raised questions about whether visible long positions could be offset by derivatives that remain undisclosed under current reporting rules.
How ETF Plumbing Became Part of the Debate
Much of the speculation hinges on Jane Street’s role as an “authorized participant” (AP) in several spot Bitcoin ETFs—a function that allows firms to create or redeem ETF shares in exchange for actual Bitcoin.
This mechanism, central to ETF liquidity, has been interpreted by some as granting large trading firms unique access to arbitrage opportunities between ETF shares and the underlying asset.
But industry professionals say that interpretation misunderstands how the system works.
Jeff Park, CIO at Bitwise, has argued that focusing on a single AP ignores the standardized structure governing all ETF participants, where arbitrage is expected to keep prices aligned—not manipulate them.
Analysts Push Back: “Volatility Isn’t Villainy”
Several data-driven researchers say the claims overlook simpler explanations rooted in market structure.
Julio Moreno, head of research at CryptoQuant, noted that strategies cited as suspicious—such as buying spot Bitcoin while shorting futures—are common delta-neutral trades used across traditional finance.
“These are standard hedging mechanics,” he suggested, adding that Bitcoin demand growth has actually been weakening since late 2025, a far more straightforward explanation for price softness.
Meanwhile, Benjamin Cowen, CEO of Into The Cryptoverse, framed the controversy as part of a recurring cycle in digital asset markets.
Each cycle, he argued, tends to generate its own narrative attempting to rationalize price movements that may simply reflect liquidity shifts, macro positioning, or investor psychology.
Even “Evidence” Has Proven Slippery
At one point, rumors spread that Jane Street had wiped its social-media presence following legal scrutiny—an allegation that quickly unraveled.
Economist Alex Krüger publicly clarified that the firm had never maintained an active posting history to delete in the first place.
The episode highlighted how quickly speculation can morph into perceived fact within fast-moving crypto discourse.
Why the Theory Resonates With Retail Traders
The persistence of the 10 a.m. narrative may say less about Jane Street and more about market psychology.
Retail investors have watched Bitcoin struggle to respond to seemingly bullish developments—ETF approvals, institutional adoption, and continued corporate buying—while prices remained volatile. In that environment, a clear, identifiable cause can feel more convincing than complex macro forces.
The recent rebound, coinciding with the absence of the supposed sell-off window, created a storyline that was easy to share—even if difficult to prove.
The Bottom Line: Allegation, Not Confirmation
Bitcoin’s recovery has unquestionably improved sentiment. What it has not done is produce verifiable evidence that any single trading firm is orchestrating market behavior.
For now, the “10 a.m. sell-off” remains an unproven theory—one shaped by correlations, incomplete data, and the opaque nature of modern market-making.
As crypto matures and institutional participation deepens, the debate underscores a broader reality:
In a market built on transparency of code but opacity of capital flows, perception can move just as fast as price.