Spot Bitcoin ETFs Post $1.28 Billion in Weekly Outflows

By Marcus Bennett

Spot Bitcoin (BTC) ETFs recorded $1.28 billion in net outflows during the week of Nov. 2-6, according to reported weekly fund-flow data. BlackRock’s IBIT posted $1.21 billion of net outflows. Fidelity’s FBTC moved against the trend, taking in $93.1 million.

The headline number describes the group, not every product. A net outflow means withdrawals exceeded new investments across the funds during the measured period, and it does not mean every issuer lost money at all. One issuer attracted money while another saw much heavier exits, so the group result masks sharply different fund-level positions.

The fund-level split

BlackRock’s IBIT posted $1.21 billion in net outflows during Nov. 2-6 and ranked as the largest weekly outflow among the funds. Even after the week, its cumulative net inflows stood at $65.1 billion. The figures distinguish a sharp weekly reversal from a complete unwind of the fund’s accumulated inflow position.

Fidelity’s FBTC led the group on the other side, adding $93.1 million during the week. Its cumulative net inflows reached $10.27 billion. FBTC therefore provided a partial offset to the larger outflows recorded elsewhere, rather than reversing the group’s net outflow for the period.

Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (GBTC) also posted $61 million in weekly outflows. Its cumulative net outflows reached $28.11 billion. GBTC’s weekly decline added to a longer-running pattern of net outflows, though the data do not quantify any cause for that pattern.

The ETF group held $95.9 billion in net assets. Its net-asset ratio stood at 6.28% of Bitcoin’s total market value. The ratio compares the market value of the ETFs with Bitcoin’s total market value, showing the product group’s relative weight within the asset.

Despite the weekly withdrawals, aggregate cumulative net inflows remained positive at $55.7 billion. That makes the period a reduction in accumulated ETF demand, not an erasure of the group’s investment base.

That distinction also keeps the weekly flow figure from becoming a proxy for every fund’s financial position. A large outflow can coexist with positive cumulative inflows, as IBIT did, while a fund can carry substantial cumulative outflows, as GBTC did. The reporting period captures movement over Nov. 2-6; the cumulative figures show the larger balance.

What does this change for ETF investors?

The practical change is visible in the flow mix. Investors withdrew more in aggregate than they put into the products during Nov. 2-6, and the burden of those withdrawals sat mainly with IBIT. FBTC remained an exception, while GBTC also shed money.

For someone assessing exposure, the weekly outflow shows near-term redemption pressure in the ETF wrapper, but it does not establish a lasting reversal in demand across every product. The funds still represented $95.9 billion in net assets and retained $55.7 billion in cumulative net inflows.

The available figures do not establish why investors withdrew. They include no breakdown of investor composition, trading volume or fees, so they cannot support a claim about who sold or whether fund economics changed. The numbers also do not indicate that every product faced the same pressure. That difference matters for anyone tracking where capital entered or left the ETF market.

The next weekly reporting deadline will show whether Nov. 2-6 represented a one-week adjustment or the start of sustained net outflows.