Money Flows Aren't Important

What actually causes prices to move?

The Bitcoin price action since the US presidential election, and particularly today, November 11, has given me an excuse to revisit an idea I’ve written about before. I explained here that money doesn’t “flow into” assets, and that the terminology makes it difficult for people to understand how prices actually work.

The Bitcoin market this year has been a perfect illustration of the points I tried to make, which offers another angle to explain the concept.

Back in January, the first spot Bitcoin ETFs were launched for trading in the US market. This was heralded as a great thing for the Bitcoin price, and tracking “inflows” into these ETFs became a top priority for Bitcoin market analysts. The expectation of course was that more Bitcoin purchased by these ETFs would result in higher prices for the asset.

And sure enough, over the first two months of trading, from mid-January to mid-March, the combined “inflows” to the ETFs totaled around $11 billion. Over the same time frame, the Bitcoin price rose almost 60%, from around $43,000 to $68,000. As should be expected, right?

But then, over the next seven and a half months, from mid-March to early November, the ETFs saw another $11 billion in “inflows”. The Bitcoin price in mid-March? $68,000. In early November? All the way up to… $68,000. Seven and a half months of treading water.

So how can that be? How can $11 billion dollars flowing into an asset cause a 60% price rise once, and no price change at all the next time?

If you read my previous article linked above, you’ll see that the whole idea of money “flowing into” an asset is incorrect and misleading, and this is a perfect illustration why. If you step back a bit, you’ll see the folly of that mentality. So when the ETFs buy $11 billion dollars worth of Bitcoin, where does it come from? They obviously have to buy it from someone. As always, every transaction has a buyer and a seller. In this case, the sellers are current Bitcoin holders selling through OTC desks on the spot market.

So why focus on the ETF buying rather than the Bitcoin holder selling? Instead of saying there were $11 billion in inflows to the Bitcoin ETFs, why not say there were $11 billion in outflows from spot Bitcoin holders? It’s just as valid either way.

To take it a step further, many analysts were consistently confused all summer as Bitcoin ETFs continued to see “inflows” on days that the Bitcoin price stayed flat or even fell. So let’s imagine two consecutive days of $300 million daily “inflows” into the ETFs. The first day, the Bitcoin price rises 3%. The second day, the Bitcoin price falls 3%. The first day, headlines can read Bitcoin Price Rises 3% as ETFs See $300m in Inflows. The second day, headlines can read Bitcoin Price Falls 3% as Spot Bitcoin Holders See $300m in Outflows.

See the silliness of this whole idea? Money flows aren’t the cause of price movement. They’re a fake metric used as a post hoc justification for price moves by people who want you to believe they understand markets better than you.

Moving on to today, as I write this on the evening of November 11, Bitcoin is up 30% from $68,000 to $88,000 in the week since the November 5 election. It rose from $69,000 to $75,000 on election night alone, after US markets had closed and while there were no ETF “inflows” at all. In fact, the ETFs saw over a hundred million dollars in outflows on November 5, followed by an 8% single day price increase.

So if money flows don’t move price, what does?

Investor sentiment, that’s what.

Talking about money flows at all, as illustrated by the Bitcoin ETFs, requires arbitrarily dividing a single market into different segments to disguise the fact that every transaction has both a buyer and a seller, so every transaction has an equal dollar amount of “flows” in both directions. In actuality, price is set by a convergence between the highest price any potential buyer is willing to pay, and the lowest price any potential seller is willing to accept. And that number can change without a single transaction occurring, and without a single dollar “flowing” anywhere.

If every Bitcoin holder simultaneously decided tonight that the lowest price they’re willing to accept is $200,000 per Bitcoin, and a single potential buyer decided to buy a single dollar worth of Bitcoin at that price, that would be the new Bitcoin price tomorrow morning. No ETF “inflows” or institutional buying pressure or short squeezes or liquidations required, or any of the other excuses market analysts use to confuse normal people and make it seem like they have some deep esoteric insight into the workings of markets and future price action.

Don’t overcomplicate something as simple as price. If holders of an asset demand higher prices and potential buyers are willing to pay it, prices rise. If potential buyers of an asset offer lower prices and holders are willing to sell, prices fall. The constant interplay between all those individual investors sentiments is what forms a market and a price. The transferring of money between buyers and sellers is an effect of price, not a cause.