Is Jane Street Why Bitcoin Isn’t At $150K? Expert Debunks The Myth

The idea that Jane Street is single-handedly the reason why Bitcoin is not trading at $150,000 is the wrong frame, according to ProCap CIO and Bitwise advisor Jeff Park. In a X thread February 25, Park argued that the real issue is not one firm, but a structural feature of the US spot Bitcoin ETF system that gives all authorized participants unusual flexibility in how they hedge and settle trades.

“The question deserves a precise answer—and the most important thing to understand upfront is that it is not really a question about Jane Street,” Park wrote. “It is a question about a structural feature of the Bitcoin ETF architecture that applies equally to every Authorized Participant in the ecosystem.” He added that the role of those institutions is “genuinely misunderstood, even amongst seasoned industry veterans.”

The mechanism Park focused on is the AP exemption under Regulation SHO. In standard short selling, traders generally need to locate shares before shorting and face borrowing costs that create pressure to close the trade. APs, Park argued, sit in a different category because their creation and redemption rights effectively let them manufacture ETF shares without those same frictions.

“The practical consequence is significant: any AP can manufacture shares at will—no borrow cost, no capital conventionally tied up against the short, and no hard deadline to close the position beyond what is commercially reasonable,” he wrote. “This is the grey window: a regulatory carve-out designed for orderly ETF market-making that is, structurally speaking, indistinguishable from a regulatory arbitrage with unmatched duration.”

“The critical implication: if the hedge is futures rather than spot, the spot was never bought,” Park wrote. “The gap cannot close via the natural arb mechanism because the natural arb buyer chose not to buy spot.” He also cautioned that the separation is not frictionless, since basis traders work to keep futures and spot aligned, but said the basis risk becomes more meaningful in periods of stress.

The recent shift to in-kind creations and redemptions, in Park’s view, removes another constraint that previously pushed activity into the spot market. Under the earlier cash-only model, APs had to deliver cash, which the fund’s custodian then used to buy Bitcoin. That created what Park called a “structural governor” because spot buying was a mechanical byproduct of creations. In-kind transfers change that. APs can now source Bitcoin directly, at times and from counterparties of their choosing, including OTC desks and negotiated transactions that may minimize visible market impact.

Even so, Park stopped short of endorsing outright market suppression claims. “The short answer is that no AP explicitly suppresses Bitcoin price,” he wrote. “What the AP structure can suppress is the integrity of the price discovery mechanism itself. Those are not the same thing—but the second is arguably more consequential than the first.”

Park did not dispute the accounting identity. What he disputed was whether that identity settles the practical question of how long trades can persist inside the system’s regulatory carve-outs. “To be clear, I don’t subscribe to the conspiracy theory that APs suppress price,” he wrote. “The conspiracy theory that I subscribe to, if there is one to be had, is that with infinite duration at zero cost of carry, funny things can happen.”

At press time, Bitcoin traded at $67,883.