Ghost Writer

Be Machi Big Brother:
- teenage years spent obsessed with hip-hop and American culture
- forms L.A. Boyz in 1991 with his brother and cousin
- becomes one of the first Mandarin rap groups ever
- sells hundreds of thousands of albums, tours Asia, appears in LA Times
late 90s:
- launches MACHI Entertainment under Warner Music
- produces for Jay Chou and Jolin Tsai
2000s: turns to tech
- founds TheOne Technology Group and merges it in a $60M deal
- by 2015 launches 17Live, Asia’s top live-stream app
- IPO plans in New York fail after investor disputes
- sells his shares and looks for the next
2017: discovers crypto
- launches Mithril (MITH), a “social mining” project that pays users in tokens
- raises $13M but price collapses 80% within months
- joins Formosa Financial as advisor, raises 44,000 ETH (~$37M)
- 22,000 ETH later disappear from the treasury, never recovered
2020: enters DeFi
- forks Compound and creates Cream Finance
- protocol suffers multiple exploits, $192M+ drained
- launches a wave of forks: Mith Cash, Wifey Finance, Typhoon Cash
- most die within weeks
2021-2023: goes all-in on NFTs
- becomes one of the biggest BAYC whales
- holds more than 200 apes, worth over $9M
- later dumps 1,000+ NFTs in two days, crashing floor prices
- community calls it “the Machi dump”
2022: ZachXBT publishes investigation
- accuses him of scamming 22,000 ETH and running over ten failed projects
- Machi sues for defamation in Texas
- the case ends quietly after edits to the article
2024: launches memecoin Boba Oppa on Solana
- raises over $40M from presale hype
- price falls 74% in a month
- blamed for another “soft rug”
2025: trades aggressively on Hyperliquid
- opens 15–25x longs on ETH, PUMP, and HYPE
- loses over $53M in a few months
#WhaleDeRiskETH #TrendingTopic

SBF said that FTX was never bankrupt and that he never filed for it.He states that the lawyers seized the company and quickly filed for bogus bankruptcy.Court records and experts have shown that there was serious financial mismanagement.
Sam Bankman-Fried, the former CEO of the defunct FTX ($FTT ) exchange, has repeated a controversial claim that the exchange wasn’t actually insolvent when it declared bankruptcy in November 2022. In a post on X, he said, “FTX was never bankrupt. I never filed for it.” 
He suggests that lawyers pushed for the filing to serve their own interests, seizing the company and quickly filing what he calls a “bogus bankruptcy.” Earlier, he said FTX’s US branch was solvent when its wallets were reviewed, and it shouldn’t have been part of the bankruptcy.
Also, Bankman-Fried blamed the Biden administration, saying his prosecution and the entire bankruptcy case were politically driven, a form of political enforcement.
These claims repeat arguments he has been making for a while, both online and in court documents.
Legal Facts
FTX officially filed for bankruptcy in Delaware in November 2022 after a sudden liquidity crisis due to a huge wave of customer withdrawals and lost trust.
Bankman-Fried was later found guilty on seven major fraud charges, with the trial showing that billions of dollars of customer money had been improperly used, leaving an $8 billion hole in customer funds.
He is now serving a 25-year prison sentence, which was handed down in 2024.
Contrary to what the former CEO says, court records and experts who worked on the bankruptcy have shown there was serious financial mismanagement, a lack of controls, and that FTX and its sister company, Alameda, misused customer money.
A former restructuring official involved in the case at the time said that the record-keeping and business controls were in terrible shape, which goes against the claim that the company was financially sound. Also, court filings showed that FTX apparently never had board meetings, and the crypto that customers deposited wasn’t even recorded on its financial books.
Although Bankman-Fried points to certain documents in his posts, his claims haven’t changed the official court rulings or the reality that the bankruptcy filing was legally processed and accepted.
It seems the recent postings and the angle of political motivation blaming Biden are his way of cozying up to Donald Trump in hopes of a pardon, even though Trump stated in January that he has no pardon plans for Sam Bankman-Fried.
#FTX #TrendingTopic

Since the genesis block was mined in January 2009, the identity of Bitcoin’s creator, Satoshi Nakamoto, has remained one of the most enduring mysteries in finance. According to the Bitcoin whitepaper, Nakamoto planned for Bitcoin to exist as a decentralized entity without a leader. However, the vacuum created by the Bitcoin founder’s disappearance since 2011 has opened the door to numerous claims of authorship. 
Several figures have since been rumored to be Bitcoin’s creator, with attention focused on those widely speculated to be within the crypto community. While nearly everyone else denied being involved in Bitcoin’s creation, Craig Wright went as far as engaging in a high-profile litigation that culminated in a March 2024 UK High Court ruling that found “overwhelming evidence” he is not Bitcoin’s creator.
The next section details the various “Bitcoin Creator” allegations and claims since Nakamoto’s disappearance, highlighting each individual’s argument and what the crypto community thinks about them.
Adam Back

Famously known as a British cryptographer and CEO of Blockstream, Adam Back invented Hashcash, a proof-of-work system crucial to Bitcoin mining, in 1997, several years before Bitcoin was created, and even before launching Blockstream. Back did not claim to be the creator of Bitcoin. Instead, it is the public and Bitcoin ecosystem participants who suspect him to be Satoshi Nakamoto.
The suspicion stems from several pieces of circumstantial evidence, including his Hashcash creation years before Bitcoin was founded, being explicitly cited in the 2008 Bitcoin whitepaper by Nakamoto, and his association with the Bitcoin creator—he was the second person Nakamoto reached out to via email before Bitcoin’s official launch.
Back refuted the claims of being Bitcoin’s founder by providing evidence demonstrating he had yet to fully understand Bitcoin’s internal mechanics long after the cryptocurrency’s launch. He shared logs from the Bitcoin-wizards IRC channel from 2013, admitted to being “an idiot” for not buying or mining Bitcoin until 2013, long after its release, and released his email history with Nakamoto, which revealed a professional distance between them.
Dorian Nakamoto
Similar to Adam Back, Dorian Nakamoto has denied being the creator of Bitcoin following a publication by a major media outlet linking him to the cryptocurrency. He opposed the details contained in a controversial investigative report in 2014, categorically denying any involvement with Bitcoin’s creation.
In March 2014, Newsweek ran a cover story by journalist Leah McGrath Goodman titled “The Face Behind Bitcoin.” Goodman cited Nakamoto’s legal birth name, his professional background, his geographical proximity to the first recipient of a Bitcoin transaction, and the political views he held as evidence behind his report.
However, the suspected Bitcoin creator later rebutted the most crucial piece of evidence in the Newsweek report—a quote he allegedly gave while police were present at his home. He said,
“I am no longer involved in that, and I cannot discuss it. It’s been turned over to other people. They are in charge of it now. I no longer have any connection.”
According to him, it was a “major misunderstanding” with a misinterpreted context. He exposed his unfamiliarity with cryptocurrency by referring to it as “Bitcom,” and claimed that his financial and health situation does not agree with someone in control of such a significant amount of funds and resources.
Nick Szabo

Nick Szabo is another prominent American cryptographer who has repeatedly denied being Satoshi Nakamoto. Many third-party researchers and public figures have linked Szabo with  Bitcoin creation because he conceptualized Bit Gold, a decentralized digital currency that is widely considered the most direct precursor to Bitcoin, as early as 1998. 
Incidentally, Bit Gold featured technical elements of today’s Bitcoin cryptocurrency, including Proof-of-Work (PoW), decentralized ledger, and Byzantine Fault Tolerance. However, despite the researchers’ findings, Szabo has maintained a firm denial, insisting that those doxing him as Satoshi Nakamoto got it wrong.
Hal Finney

Hal Finney is another American developer who denied being Satoshi Nakamoto until he died in August 2014. According to Finney, the closest he came to the technology was being a supporter and an admirer of the work done by Satoshi Nakamoto.
Those who suspected Finney to be Bitcoin’s creator cited his status as the first person, other than Nakamoto, to download the Bitcoin software in January 2009. He also received the first-ever Bitcoin transaction of 10 BTC directly from the creator.
Other evidence cited by proponents includes Finney’s creation of Reusable Proof-of-Work (RPoW) in 2004, a critical stepping stone that directly influenced Bitcoin’s decentralized design. Finney also lived a few blocks away from Dorian Nakamoto, leading theorists to suggest he may have used his neighbor’s real name as a pseudonym. Meanwhile, Satoshi Nakamoto’s final communication in April 2011 coincided with the progression of Finney’s ALS (Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis), which eventually left him paralyzed.
Finney categorically denied being Bitcoin’s creator in 2013, describing himself as the “eager apprentice” of Nakamoto’s “master architect.” He further produced extensive email archives of his conversations with Nakamoto, revealing his role as a developer seeking clarification about the novel technology.
Peter Todd

Peter Todd is another of several individuals who have denied being the creator of Bitcoin. Todd described claims associating him with creating the cryptocurrency as “ludicrous” and “grasping at straws”. 
A documentary linking Todd with Bitcoin creation cited evidence from a December 2010 post on the BitcoinTalk forum. According to the documentary’s director, a reply from Todd’s account was a continuation of a thought started by Nakamoto, suggesting that Todd accidentally posted while logged into the wrong account.
The documentary made more allegations, including the use of a John Dillon persona, linguistic and geographical matches, and technical expertise to push the narrative of Todd being the founder of Bitcoin. However, the Canadian software developer rebutted those claims.
According to Todd, the BitcoinTalk forum post was simply a technical correction and not a continuation of Nakamoto’s post. In the meantime, critics believe that at 23, Todd was too young and could not have had the experience to author the Bitcoin whitepaper.
Jeffrey Esptein

Millions of pages of Department of Justice (DOJ) files released between late 2025 and February 2026 confirm that Jeffrey Epstein was an active early investor and networker within the Bitcoin ecosystem. The now-public documents triggered a viral narrative that Epstein could be the main individual behind Bitcoin.
Investigators and fact-checkers have since confirmed the emails were doctored and the document fabricated. They cited formatting errors and the use of an email address not found in authenticated Epstein records as reasons enough to discredit such claims. Meanwhile, authentic DOJ files reveal that Epstein claimed to have direct access to Bitcoin founders despite not claiming to be the founder.
Epstein died in a New York prison cell on 10 August 2019 as he awaited, without the chance of bail, his trial on sex trafficking charges. He was previously convicted of soliciting prostitution from a minor, for which he was registered as a sex offender.
In the meantime, discussions surrounding the Epstein case surged after U.S. President Donald Trump signed the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which Congress overwhelmingly passed, ordering the Justice Department to release all its files from the criminal investigations into Epstein. The event also reignited discussions around his role in Bitcoin’s creation.
Conclusion
Besides the above-listed individuals, there are several other crypto community players and technology experts who users allege to be the creator, or members of the team that created Bitcoin. These individuals include Jack Dorsey, Len Sassaman, and Paul Le Roux, among others.
Despite the allegations and claims, the identity of Bitcoin’s original creator remains a mystery, aligning with the fundamental philosophy contained in the whitepaper, which describes Bitcoin as the people’s money that should not be controlled by a centralized entity.

#BTC #TrendingTopic #SatoshiNakamoto

10 high-quality insights distilled from @CZ 's (Changpeng Zhao) recent interview on the All-In Podcast with Chamath Palihapitiya (episode titled "CZ's Untold Story: The Rise, Fall, and Redemption of Binance's Founder," released around February 10, 2026).
The nearly two-hour conversation covers his personal journey, Binance's founding, legal battles, prison experience, and future outlook. These points highlight his candid reflections and strategic thinking.

1. From China to Canada and a "shockingly normal" early career — CZ described his childhood in China, immigration to Canada at age 12, and early jobs (including at McDonald's). He emphasized how his pre-crypto life was ordinary—working normal jobs and building companies like one in Shanghai—contrasting with the billionaire image people have today.

2. Discovery of Bitcoin as a turning point — CZ went "all-in" on crypto after discovering Bitcoin $BTC , seeing its potential early. He credits timing and personal conviction for Binance's rapid rise, building the exchange in 2017 amid a favorable market window.

3. Founding Binance: Speed and execution over perfection — Binance launched quickly to capture the market opportunity. CZ highlighted how relentless focus on building, rather than over-planning, allowed it to become the world's largest crypto exchange despite intense competition.

4. Relationship with SBF and the FTX collapse — CZ shared insights on his interactions with Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF), describing the dynamics and how FTX's downfall unfolded. He positioned Binance as a more responsible player, in contrast to FTX's risky practices that led to its implosion.

5. Facing the Biden-era DOJ as anti-crypto pressure — CZ discussed what he saw as politically motivated actions from the U.S. Department of Justice under the previous administration, framing his legal challenges as part of broader regulatory hostility toward crypto.

6. Harsh realities inside federal prison — One of the most striking segments: CZ detailed life in a low-security facility (not minimum due to non-citizen status), where prisons are organized by race/ethnicity for conflict reduction. He described informal hierarchies, group reps resolving disputes, and unexpected welcomes from fellow inmates—painting a structured but shocking system.

7. Prison as a learning experience, not just punishment — CZ reflected on prison teaching him about human nature, hierarchies, and resilience. He noted it shifted his priorities toward education and philanthropy post-release, rather than bitterness.

8. Post-Binance life and new ventures — After stepping away from Binance leadership, CZ focuses on building again—emphasizing education (via Giggle Academy), AI integration in crypto, and supporting new projects. He remains optimistic about crypto's long-term role in global finance.

9. Redemption arc and mindset shift — CZ portrayed his journey as one of rise, fall, and redemption: from building an empire to facing consequences, then emerging with clearer focus on positive impact. He stressed discipline, decision-making, and avoiding hype.

10. Vision for crypto's future — CZ reiterated crypto's potential for financial inclusion and innovation, while warning against short-term speculation. He sees AI + blockchain convergence as transformative, and encouraged builders to prioritize real utility over memes or quick gains.

The interview humanizes without absolving. It’s possible to admire CZ’s execution while acknowledging the compliance failures that triggered consequences. Power in emerging markets often outruns governance; the mature phase demands reconciliation with rules. What I found persuasive was his systems thinking—speed as strategy, governance as design, resilience as learned behavior. What remains open is whether crypto’s leaders can institutionalize those lessons before the next cycle.
#CZ #TrendingTopic

Strategy $MSTR executive chairman Michael Saylor has affirmed that the firm will not stop buying Bitcoin despite the prevailing volatility and unrealized losses on the company’s investment. He dismissed arguments that declining prices will force the company to liquidate its holdings.

Michael Saylor Affirms Strategy Will Not Sell
In an interview with CNBC, the Strategy co-founder said they will not sell their BTC holdings, despite speculation that market conditions may force the company to do so. He noted that Strategy considers its Bitcoin purchase as a long-term decision and not a short-term one.
Michael Saylor maintained that the credit risk associated with Strategy is very low, even in extreme circumstances. Instead, he claimed that Bitcoin would need to drop about 90% and remain down for years before refinancing would become challenging. He insisted that, in such a case, the company would still be able to roll forward its debt obligations. This echoes Strategy CEO Phong Le’s recent statement that Bitcoin would have to drop to $8,000 and remain there through 2032 for them to face liquidation risks.
Meanwhile, the Strategy co-founder noted that his company owns decades of dividends in Bitcoin. This huge reserve will give it a great financial buffer. With this, he feels that there is no cause to worry about forced liquidation as being exaggerated by short-term traders.
Michael Saylor also addressed speculation about Strategy’s financial situation. He claimed that the company has two and a half years of cash reserves to make dividend and debt payments. He added that the net leverage ratio of Strategy is one-half of an average investment-grade company.
Strategy Will Keep Buying Bitcoin
The executive chairman also clarified that Strategy’s Bitcoin accumulation plans have not changed. He said the company has raised billions in capital to further accumulate Bitcoin. “We’re not going to be selling. We are going to be buying bitcoin, Michael Saylor said.
He further indicated that Strategy will buy Bitcoin each quarter going forward. On Monday, Strategy declared another weekly Bitcoin buy of 1,142 BTC between February 2 and 8. According to Saylor, volatility is a characteristic of the asset. Also, he remarked that Bitcoin provides two to three times better returns than traditional assets like gold, equities, and real estate over a multi-year timeframe.
The company’s commitment to keep buying more Bitcoin despite the fact that it is facing an unrealized loss of $5.1 billion on its BTC holdings. This follows BTC’s crash below Strategy’s average buy price of $76,056 for its Bitcoin investment.
Saylor Comments On Market Volatility
Michael Saylor also explained that a recent volatility in the shares of Strategy was a result of a market pullback of Bitcoin. The Strategy co-founder said the last four months had been an unprecedented drawdown for MSTR stock, but noted that it recently posted a 25% gain in a day.
He argued that Strategy’s stock is more liquid on a market cap basis than any of the Mag 7 stocks by 2.34 times. He also indicated that open interest in MSTR options is presently the highest when compared with other top U.S. equities.
There is also ongoing downside momentum in the company’s stock due to the crash in BTC. MSTR stock has dropped to $134.93, down 2.38% over the last day, according to TradingView data.

Another point raised during the interview was that Bitcoin has a structural floor price of about $60,000 due to the cost of production for miners. Michael Saylor downplayed this argument. He said that increasing the presence of large banks and institutional credit markets will cause a much more significant impact on the movement of BTC’s price.
Saylor refused to give a 12-month prediction on the price of Bitcoin. Instead, he predicts that Bitcoin would perform two to three times better compared to the S&P 500 in the next four to eight years.

#BTC #TrendingTopic

Highlights
Goldman Sachs disclosed $2.36B Bitcoin, Ethereum, XRP, and Solana exposure in Q4.Bitcoin led at $1.1B, while Ethereum held near-equal weight at $1.0B in the filing.CZ noted a 15% QoQ rise, as Goldman set to join White House stablecoin yield talks.
Goldman Sachs has disclosed more than $2.36 billion in crypto exposure in its Q4 2025 13F filing on February 10, 2026. The Wall Street investment bank reported $1.1 billion in Bitcoin $BTC , $1.0 billion in Ethereum, $153 million in $XRP , and $108 million in Solana $SOL . Notably, the crypto positions represent just 0.33% of its total reported investment portfolio.
Goldman Sachs Details $2.36B Crypto Exposure in Q4 2025 Filing
According to the company filing, Goldman Sachs reported these holdings as part of its Q4 2025 portfolio snapshot, covering positions as of December 31, 2025. The disclosure showed the firm held the largest crypto allocation in Bitcoin, followed closely by Ethereum.
However, the near-equal weighting between Bitcoin and Ethereum led to scrutiny across the crypto industry. Moonrock Capital founder and managing partner Simon Dedic said it was “very interesting” to see Goldman holding almost as much ETH as Bitcoin.
Dedic added that the allocation stood out because conservative portfolio structures often follow market-cap weighting. He described the move as “significantly more bullish on Ethereum than Bitcoin.”
Meanwhile, Binance founder Changpeng Zhao, @CZ , also highlighted the filing’s size and quarterly increase. CZ said Goldman Sachs’ Q4 2025 13F filing showed $2.36 billion in crypto assets, a 15% quarter-over-quarter rise.

Q3 vs Q4 2025 Filing Shows Slight Portfolio Drop
Goldman Sachs’ Q4 filing also provided a clearer comparison with its previous quarter. The bank reported $811.1 billion in total 13F holdings value for Q4 2025, with 6,411 holdings. However, in Q3 2025, Goldman reported $817.4 billion in holdings value with 6,295 holdings. 
That means the total reported holdings value fell slightly, even as the number of holdings increased. The crypto exposure, likely held through ETFs, remained a small slice of its overall portfolio.
#CZ #TrendingTopic

Every few years, the same ritual repeats itself. A new name surfaces. Headlines explode. Social media polarizes. Someone, somewhere, claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto — the elusive creator of Bitcoin. And every single time, the claim collapses under the same immovable weight: cryptography.
The reason is uncomfortable for media narratives and irresistible for Bitcoiners: proving you are Satoshi is not a social, legal or historical exercise. It is a mathematical one. And mathematics does not care about charisma, credentials or court rulings.
Bitcoin solved identity by removing it
Bitcoin was designed with a radical assumption: people are untrustworthy, math is not. In traditional systems, identity is proven through documents, reputation, institutions or authority. In Bitcoin, identity is proven through private keys — nothing more, nothing less.
This is why interviews, leaked emails, old forum posts or even code similarities are irrelevant as final proof. They are contextual evidence, not cryptographic certainty. In a system built to eliminate trust, “believe me” is not an argument — it’s a red flag.
If Satoshi Nakamoto exists as a provable entity, that proof already has a format. It is painfully simple and brutally unforgiving:
sign a message with a private key from a Satoshi-era address.
Why early keys are the only standard that matters
Bitcoin’s earliest blocks, particularly those mined in 2009, are widely attributed to Satoshi. Control of any of those private keys would be definitive proof — instantly verifiable by anyone, anywhere, without intermediaries.
This is the elegance of Bitcoin’s design:
Evidence can be debatedOpinions can be manipulatedCourts can be wrongCryptographic signatures cannot lie
That is why claims like Craig Wright’s ultimately failed. Courts can evaluate credibility, but they cannot override math. A valid signature would have ended the debate in seconds. The absence of one ended it permanently.
Moving coins: the nuclear option
An even stronger proof exists — moving coins from an untouched Satoshi-era wallet. One transaction would silence all doubt.
But here’s the paradox: the strongest proof is also the most dangerous.
Moving those coins would trigger:
Global attention and personal security risksLegal and tax scrutiny across jurisdictionsMarket shock from fears of large sell-offs
From a rational perspective, the real Satoshi has every incentive to stay silent. In Bitcoin, inaction can be the most powerful signal.
Why partial proof is worse than no proof
Some claimants offer “private demonstrations” or selectively revealed materials. This fundamentally misunderstands Bitcoin’s ethos. Proof that is not public, reproducible and independently verifiable is not proof at all.
Bitcoin does not recognize backstage authenticity. If the evidence cannot be verified by a random stranger with open-source tools, it does not exist.
My guess: Satoshi’s disappearance was the final design decision
Here’s the uncomfortable insight many miss: Bitcoin works better because Satoshi is gone.
There is no founder to appeal to.
No authority to pressure.
No leader to cancel, corrupt or coerce.
In most projects, founders are points of failure. In Bitcoin, the absence of one is a feature, not a flaw. The network does not need its creator — and that may be its greatest achievement.
Satoshi didn’t just invent Bitcoin.
They proved that systems can outlive their makers.
And until a message is signed with those early keys, the mystery remains exactly where it belongs: untouched, uncompromised — and irrelevant to Bitcoin’s survival.
💬 What do you think? Would Bitcoin be stronger or weaker if Satoshi revealed themselves today?
$BTC #BTC #TrendingTopic

Bitcoin’s sharp selloff last week appears to have triggered one of the largest buy-the-dip episodes of this market cycle. Bitcoin plunged to as low as $60,000, its lowest price under President Donald Trump and the steepest decline since the FTX collapse in 2022. It has recovered to trade around the $70,000 level as of press time.
At the same moment that forced sellers were getting pushed out of positions, large buyers were stepping in, at least in pockets of the market. The on-chain inflow suggests that coins were not only purchased but also transferred into wallets associated with holders who tend to keep Bitcoin off exchanges.
That is the behavior traders often look for when assessing whether a decline is being absorbed by longer-term capital.
Still, the evidence is mixed across channels. While the on-chain picture points toward accumulation, the ETF wrapper continues to show redemptions.
That split has become the story of this drawdown: large spot-buying signals on one side, continued outflows from regulated investment products on the other.
A record inflow after a liquidation shock
CryptoQuant-tracked accumulator addresses received 66,940 Bitcoin on Feb. 6, a move multiple market watchers described as the largest single-day inflow of the current cycle.
At prices near $70,000, that shift represents roughly $4.7 billion in Bitcoin moving into accumulation-style wallets.Bitcoin Accumulator Addresses (Source: CryptoQuant)

Accumulator addresses are typically defined by on-chain analysts as wallets that receive Bitcoin and do not show patterns consistent with routine spending. When those addresses receive a large volume in a short period, traders often read it as a sign that supply is being absorbed by entities with longer holding periods.
The Feb. 6 inflow is now being used by some traders as shorthand for “whales bought the dip.” In plain terms, the argument is that large holders used the price drop to absorb supply and then moved coins into wallets that appear to be long-term storage.
The caution is that flows alone do not indicate who is behind them or why the coins moved. Large transfers into accumulation-style wallets can reflect custody reshuffles, internal wallet management, or entity segmentation, rather than fresh buying conviction.
Thus, a fund moving coins from one custodian wallet to another can appear as “accumulation” on-chain, even if no new buyer enters the market.
That is why analysts tend to treat one-day spikes as a starting point rather than a conclusion. The more useful test is whether elevated inflows persist beyond a single day and co-occur with other signs that the liquid supply is tightening.
If the spike fades immediately, it can still be meaningful, but it may tell a more limited story about post-liquidation repositioning.
Even with those caveats, the size and timing of the Feb. 6 move ensured it would be noticed. It arrived when traders were already primed to look for a bottoming signal following the rapid decline below $60,000.
Strategy kept buying through the drawdown
One of the most visible whales adding exposure to the volatility was Strategy ($MSTR ), the public company best known for running a BTC-heavy treasury strategy.
Strategy bought 1,142 Bitcoin for about $90 million between Feb. 2 and Feb. 8 at an average price of roughly $78,815 per coin, lifting total holdings to 714,644 Bitcoin, according to disclosures from Executive Chairman Michael Saylor.
The purchase itself is small relative to Strategy’s overall position of 714,644 BTC acquired for $54.35 billion, but it carries weight because it demonstrates the company’s playbook in real time.

Strategy has built its identity around turning capital-market access into spot Bitcoin demand. When the market is rising, that approach can amplify bullish narratives. When prices are falling, it becomes a stress test of discipline, financing conditions, and investor patience.
There is also a basic point about timing. By buying Bitcoin at close to $79,000 per coin, Strategy avoided lowering the average cost basis of its existing holdings.
That choice may matter internally, but it also highlights the gap between what the company paid and where the market traded afterward.
Meanwhile, the move also stands out against broader pressure on crypto-linked balance sheets during this cycle.
A Reuters report noted Strategy recently reported widened losses tied to bitcoin’s drawdown and the sector’s struggle since last October’s crash.
In that context, the firm's continued buying can be interpreted in two ways: either as a demonstration of conviction or as a signal that the company views the drawdown as an opportunity to further strengthen its position, regardless of near-term volatility.
However, markets need not resolve that debate immediately. What matters in the short term is that Strategy’s buying adds a visible, recurring source of demand, one that traders can track with disclosures and public statements.
Binance SAFU added a second, operational bid
Another notable buyer was Binance’s SAFU fund, a user protection reserve that Binance has been rebalancing into Bitcoin.
The crypto exchange reported that the SAFU fund address acquired an additional 4,225 Bitcoin on Feb. 9, equivalent to $300 million in stablecoins. The SAFU BTC address now holds 10,455 Bitcoin.
SAFU buying is different from a directional whale trade. It is linked to risk management and reserve composition and can behave more like price-insensitive demand over a defined window. In periods of forced selling, such a steady bid can matter, particularly if other large demand channels are fading.
Binance first announced on Jan. 30 that it would shift $1 billion of its user protection fund into Bitcoin, framing it as an expression of its conviction in Bitcoin’s long-term prospects as the leading cryptocurrency.
The firm said it would rebalance the fund back up to $1 billion if market volatility drove its value below $800 million.
That framework is important because it describes a process rather than a one-off transaction. If the reserve is managed with a target value and volatility pushes it away from that target, rebalancing can create buying or selling pressure independent of day-to-day sentiment.
The counterweight: outflows slowed globally, but Bitcoin ETFs still bled
On the flows side, the latest CoinShares weekly report suggested a potential shift in pace, even if the direction remained negative.
CoinShares said digital asset investment products saw outflows slow sharply to $187 million last week despite heavy price pressure.
CoinShares argued that changes in the rate of outflows have historically been more informative than the headline number for identifying potential inflection points.
The firm also reported that assets under management fell to $129.8 billion, the lowest since March 2025, while ETP trading volumes reached a record $63.1 billion for the week.
That combination, lower assets and record volume, points to a market where investors are still actively trading exposure even as net money leaves the product set.
Within that, CoinShares described Bitcoin as the primary source of negative sentiment, with $264 million in outflows over the week, even as certain altcoins, led by XRP, saw inflows.
Bitcoin's negative sentiment is unsurprising given that US spot BTC ETFs recorded a net outflow of over $331 million last week.

That detail matters because it frames the tug-of-war concretely. Some large spot buyers appear to be absorbing supply, but the ETF wrapper remains under pressure.
In practical terms, it means that two things can be true simultaneously. Coins can move into wallets associated with long-term holding behavior, whereas regulated products that serve institutions and traditional investors continue to experience redemptions.
The market then becomes a contest over which side dominates, accumulation in spot channels or selling through financial products.
What to watch next
The market’s next move may hinge less on any single whale-buying print and more on whether the current regime shifts from “capitulation and transfer” into “stabilization and re-risking.”
Three signals stand out.
First, do accumulator inflows remain elevated beyond Feb. 6? One-day spikes can mark post-liquidation repositioning. Persistence can signal a more structural tightening of liquid supply, particularly if coins continue to migrate off exchanges and into longer-term wallets.
Second, do ETF flows continue to decline or begin to stabilize? CoinShares is characterizing the deceleration in outflows as a potential inflection point, but the US spot ETF complex still recorded a weekly net outflow.
That suggests that traditional investor demand has not yet reversed to sustained buying, even if the selling impulse may be slowing.
Third, do non-price-sensitive buyers maintain pace? Strategy’s repeat buying and SAFU’s reserve accumulation can help establish a baseline bid during periods of volatility.
Yet the durability of that support depends on continued access to capital markets (for Strategy) and the duration of reserve rebalancing (for SAFU).
For now, Bitcoin remains tethered to broader risk sentiment.
Reuters linked the latest crypto leg down to volatility in other markets and a broad selloff in tech shares, conditions that can keep Bitcoin trading like a high-beta liquidity asset even as long-term holders quietly add exposure.
#BinanceBitcoinSAFUFund #WhenWillBTCRebound