The Ten in the Morning Vanishing Act: What the Missing Bitcoin Slam Really Tells Us.

You watched the pattern, didn’t you. The bell rings in New York, and Bitcoin seems to flinch on cue. Then one lawsuit becomes public, and the flinch fades. Our mind wants a single hand on the lever, but markets rarely grant us that comfort. What looks like a villain is often a mechanism you have not been shown.

A strange ritual formed in late twenty twenty five: after the New York market opened, Bitcoin would slide with near clockwork regularity, and many voices decided Jane Street must be the cause. The story is tempting because it is simple. But the plumbing of spot Bitcoin exchange traded funds and the role of authorized participants explains more than accusation does, and the data refuses to behave like a clean confession.

Since late twenty twenty five, Bitcoin around sixty eight thousand one hundred ninety two dollars and ninety three cents would often dip after the New York cash open, and the pattern became a kind of daily omen. You can feel why that would capture attention. Regularity creates meaning, even when the cause is mundane.

So the crowd reached for a name. Jane Street, a major trading firm and an authorized participant in spot Bitcoin exchange traded funds, became the character in the story. The claim hardened into a narrative: sell Bitcoin at ten in the morning Eastern Time, push price down, then buy exchange traded fund shares cheaply.

And once a narrative has a clock time attached to it, it starts to feel like evidence. People pointed to holdings in BlackRock’s Bitcoin fund, often described as massive, and some cited filings showing roughly seven hundred ninety million dollars in those shares as of the fourth quarter of twenty twenty five. The mind says: large position plus repeated move equals intent.

But pause with us here. If a market move is truly engineered, it leaves a signature that survives our desire to see it.

Micro hook: what if the “ten in the morning slam” was not a fingerprint at all, but a shadow cast by something larger?

When observers looked closer, the clean story began to blur. One set of tracked returns around that ten to ten thirty window showed small cumulative gains, while the first fifteen minutes showed mild losses. That is the problem with noisy slices of time: you can carve almost any moral out of them if you keep cutting.

More revealing, those windows moved much like the Nasdaq. That matters because it reframes the event. A synchronized wobble across risk assets is not a private scheme. It is the market repricing shared uncertainty, the same fear expressed through multiple instruments at once.

Still, the timing coincidence grew louder when a lawsuit against Jane Street became public, tied to allegations of insider trading connected to Terra’s collapse in twenty twenty two. And yes, around that same period, the familiar ten in the morning turbulence seemed to vanish, while Bitcoin rose sharply, by more than six percent, toward seventy thousand dollars.

You can see why the human mind connects those dots. We are pattern seeking creatures living inside uncertainty. We would rather believe in a planner than accept the distributed nature of cause.

Then there is reputation. In India, the securities regulator banned Jane Street from local markets and froze five hundred sixty six million dollars in alleged illegal gains, describing a “morning pump, afternoon dump” pattern tied to a local index across eighteen derivatives expiry days from January twenty twenty three to March twenty twenty five. That history makes suspicion feel reasonable. But reasonable suspicion is not the same thing as proof of this specific act in this specific market.

Now let’s move from personalities to structure, because this is where the real explanation lives.

Jane Street is not a lone actor with unlimited control over Bitcoin. In the exchange traded fund ecosystem, it is one authorized participant among others, alongside names like JPMorgan and Citadel Securities. Their job is not to guess direction. Their job is to keep the exchange traded fund share price from drifting too far from the net asset value.

Here is the quiet mechanism. Spot Bitcoin exchange traded funds hold actual Bitcoin in custody, while their shares trade on stock exchanges. Demand surges can push the share price above its net asset value. Demand drops can pull it below. Authorized participants step in to create or redeem shares so the tether holds.

And in Bitcoin exchange traded funds, they can often do this “in kind,” swapping actual Bitcoin with the issuer instead of only using cash. That is legal design, not a hidden backdoor. But legal design can still shape short term price behavior.

Consider a typical day. Bitcoin rises during Asian and European hours. Then United States traders arrive, see momentum, and rush into the exchange traded fund shares. The exchange traded fund price can lift above its net asset value for a moment. Authorized participants respond by increasing share supply to meet buyers and reduce the premium.

That can involve shorting shares before they are created. Normally, shorting requires borrowing, and borrowing has a cost. But authorized participants can receive exemptions that make this process cheaper and faster. Speed matters at the open, because the open is where imbalance is loudest.

Micro hook: do you notice the twist. The very system built to keep prices aligned can create the appearance of a coordinated shove.

Then comes the hedging. An authorized participant creating shares gains long exposure to Bitcoin. To manage that risk, they may hedge with futures or options rather than immediately buying spot Bitcoin on an exchange. They may source Bitcoin later through private over the counter channels, at their own pace. To an outside observer, it can look like selling pressure arrives first, while the visible buying arrives late or not at all.

One commentator framed it sharply: if the authorized participant shorts the exchange traded fund, hedges with futures, and sources Bitcoin privately, the public spot market may not see the buy pressure that you expected to balance the initial selling. The beginning looks like market making. The end looks like market making. The middle feels like something missing.

But here is where we must stay disciplined. Another view, from a crypto economist tracking the data, rejects the claim that this sequence suppresses price in any meaningful way. Whether the spot is purchased by the authorized participant or by another trader running a basis strategy, the net demand for spot Bitcoin can end up the same. The path differs, but the destination in aggregate may not.

So what are we really seeing?

We are seeing how modern markets translate human urgency into mechanical flows. At the open, people act with the least information and the highest emotion. Authorized participants respond to that emotion with liquidity tools. Those tools can shift pressure between spot, futures, and exchange traded fund shares in ways that feel unnatural if you only watch one chart.

And when a lawsuit hits the public mind, behavior changes. Not because a magic switch was flipped, but because attention itself is a variable. Traders front run stories. Liquidity providers widen or tighten. Risk managers adjust. The crowd’s belief becomes part of the market’s conditions.

No public comment has settled it. No on chain trail or exchange record has surfaced that proves a coordinated daily campaign by Jane Street to push Bitcoin down. What remains is more interesting than a villain: a lesson in how easily we confuse timing with intent.

So we sit with a quieter deduction. When money is unsound, when credit is elastic, when people are trained to look for authorities behind every outcome, conspiracy becomes a substitute for economic understanding. Bitcoin threatens that habit because it forces us to see structure instead of rulers.

If you felt your mind reaching for a single culprit, keep that feeling close. It is not a flaw. It is a signal. And if you want to leave a trace of what you noticed in this mechanism, do it in your own words, so we can compare what you saw with what the market actually did.

Because the question is not whether ten in the morning was a slam.

The question is what else in your world looks like a hand on the lever, when it is really a system reflecting you back to yourself.

We are BlockSonic. We don’t predict the market. We read its memory.

lightning: sereneox23@walletofsatoshi.com
https://image.nostr.build/c5d94cd291862f1a26efe886c0662be9b069ea5544465b09db78d96a89c5cc51.jpg