Bitcoin Reclaims $48,000 as Spot ETF Inflows Accelerate

Bitcoin crossed $48,000 again during weekend trading on February 10, 2024, extending a rally that had gathered force alongside rising demand for the new U.S. spot bitcoin exchange-traded funds.

Binance market data placed BTC/USDT above the threshold at approximately 21:49 UTC, when the pair traded at 48,001.89 USDT. That quotation describes one trading pair on one venue: USDT is a dollar-referenced stablecoin, not a bank dollar, and Bitcoin has no consolidated global price or official closing auction. Other venues could therefore show slightly different prices and crossing times.

The move mattered less because $48,000 was an unprecedented level—it was not—than because Bitcoin had recovered most of the decline that followed the January 11 debut of U.S. spot ETFs. Bitcoin had briefly traded above $49,000 during that launch session before retreating below $39,000 later in January. By February 10, the market was again testing the upper end of its post-approval range.

Five sessions of accelerating fund demand

The clearest institutional backdrop came from the five U.S. trading sessions ending February 9. Farside Investors estimated combined net inflows of $68.1 million on February 5, $33.6 million on February 6, $146.0 million on February 7, $405.0 million on February 8 and $541.5 million on February 9. Coinburn calculates a five-session total of $1.1942 billion by summing those daily estimates.

For February 9 alone, the table attributed $250.7 million to BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust and $188.4 million to Fidelity’s Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund. ARK 21Shares Bitcoin ETF added an estimated $136.5 million. Those inflows more than offset an estimated $51.8 million outflow from Grayscale Bitcoin Trust and $17.4 million from Invesco Galaxy Bitcoin ETF.

These are fund-flow estimates, not blockchain transfers occurring at a single observable moment. ETF shares are created and redeemed through the securities-market process, while authorized participants, market makers, custodians and issuers may execute or report related activity on different schedules. Farside’s table aggregates public fund information and can be revised; it is not an official consolidated flow record from the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Why the composition mattered

The February 9 figures suggested a change from January’s initial market structure. Early trading had been dominated by heavy redemptions from GBTC after its conversion from a closed-end trust into an ETF. On February 9, estimated demand for the newer products was large enough to absorb the reported GBTC outflow and still leave the group with a substantial positive balance.

That did not prove ETF purchases caused Bitcoin’s price to rise. Bitcoin trades continuously worldwide, including when U.S. stock exchanges are closed, and its price also responds to derivatives positioning, liquidity, macroeconomic expectations and crypto-native demand. The timing nevertheless made ETF flows a relevant institutional explanation: the latest completed U.S. session delivered the largest estimated net inflow since the funds began trading, excluding their January 11 launch session, and Bitcoin remained firm into the weekend.

What was established on February 10

The verified event-day record supports three narrow conclusions. Bitcoin traded above 48,000 USDT on Binance on February 10; the U.S. spot ETF group had just completed five consecutive sessions of estimated net inflows; and the two largest positive contributions on February 9 came from IBIT and FBTC.

The record did not establish who bought Bitcoin during the weekend, whether fund demand would persist, or whether $48,000 would become durable support. Nor did the January SEC approval endorse Bitcoin itself. The Commission’s order permitted exchange listings under specified rules while emphasizing that approval of the products was not approval of the underlying asset. On February 10, the defensible conclusion was simply that ETF-era demand had become large enough to reshape Bitcoin’s immediate market context.