How Wall Street established Bitcoin's gravity constant: 25 billion dollars of migration in two years

When Bitcoin entered the doors of traditional finance in January 2024 through the instant approval of spot ETFs, few recognized the full scale of the transformation. On the first day, trading reached $4.6 billion, which seemed like a spectacular act of triumph. But over the next 24 months, profound structural changes occurred — not only in who trades Bitcoin but also in how capital flows now determine its price from day to day.

Infrastructure Launch: From Access to Dominance

Two years ago, access to Bitcoin required knowledge. You needed an account on a dedicated exchange, understanding the risks of storage, navigating technical details. For the broad stream of corporate capital — advisors, pension funds, portfolio management platforms — Bitcoin remained outside the standard menu.

That changed immediately. When the SEC approved the listing of Bitcoin-based products on January 10, 2024, and the first ETFs began trading the next day, the asset gained something Wall Street cares about: portability. The ETF wrapper turned a complex operation into a single click for an investment advisor or an algorithm managing portfolio allocation.

It’s not just about convenience. It’s that Bitcoin now exists within a system that already distributes traditional capital on a massive scale. This infrastructure — platforms, brokerages, retirement accounts, portfolio models — generates flows that can be tracked, compared, and reacted to instantly.

Anatomy of $56 Billion

Data from Farside Investors paints a clear picture of the two-year period: The American spot Bitcoin ETF complex accumulated $56.63 billion in net inflows by January 9, 2026.

This number deserves a breakdown. IBIT (BlackRock) achieved cumulative net inflows of $62.65 billion. GBTC (Grayscale) recorded outflows of -$25.41 billion. This asymmetry shows a lot: much of this was not “new demand” in the sense of entirely new funds entering the market. It was rotation. Investors who had been held in old structures for years due to friction (high fees, limited redemption options, premiums to net asset value) moved to newer, cheaper, more liquid vehicles.

The average daily net flow for the entire ETF complex is $113.3 million. It doesn’t make headlines, but it does something worse for traditional market theories: it creates a steady, measurable channel through which marginal demand is now visible every day.

Changing the Marginal Actor

Who is buying Bitcoin? For many years, the answer was fragmentary: early adopters, miners, hedge funds, retail investors, sometimes venture funds. Each went through some form of operational complexity that naturally filtered participants.

The ETF era changes the entire dynamic. The new marginal buyer is:

• An advisor implementing a portfolio model, told by their boss “add Bitcoin exposure”
• A pension fund manager doing daily allocations
• An institutional investor for whom Bitcoin has now become a marked choice on a known platform

For these actors, Bitcoin is no different from stocks or bonds. It’s an allocation, not an adventure in the blockchain.

This is key because marginal flows determine marginal prices. When a new marginal buyer can direct broad risk appetite to spot demand with just a few keystrokes and without operational hurdles, the very nature of liquidity changes. Wall Street — understood here literally as the institutional system whose movements can be mapped in real time — has become a visible participant in every Bitcoin trading day.

Constant Gravity: How Concentration Determines Flows

On the first day, volume hit $4.6 billion. Liquidity in decay tends to eat itself: smaller spreads attract larger allocations, larger allocations attract lower trading fees, lower fees attract more flows.

Over time, however, liquidity does not spread evenly. It gravitates. IBIT has become a constant of gravity for new allocations, partly thanks to BlackRock’s brand, partly due to its status as the default choice on platforms. Extremes are instructive: the maximum Farside for the entire complex is +$1.37 billion daily, the minimum is -$1.11 billion daily. Sessions at these scales transfer flows from “context” to “price-determining factor.”

A market concentrated around a few huge vehicles will naturally watch them with unease. This concentration is not accidental — it is a structural consequence. When a fund proves to be a better structure (lower fees, more liquid), flows concentrate around it within weeks rather than months.

Friction Has Moved, Not Disappeared

Bitcoin before ETFs: you had to find an exchange, go through verification, handle private keys or trust a third party, deal with tax structures.

Bitcoin after ETFs: you click a button on a platform you already know, and wait.

Has friction disappeared? No. It has moved. Now, friction is:

• Fund fee (usually 0.2-0.25% for main products, drastically below older structures)
• Placement on a platform (Does your advisor see this on the screen?)
• Timing of allocation (Does this fit into the annual portfolio review cycle?)
• Choice between competing products (Why IBIT instead of another?)

GBTC illustrates this migration of friction in real time. For years, it was the only way for traditional investors to play Bitcoin without self-custody. It involved discounts, premiums, limited redemptions, and a fee that seemed justified in the context at the time. When competitors with better terms appeared, investors were ready to move. Outflows were painful for GBTC but reflected a completely natural market process: improved structures driving reallocation.

The Secondary Effect: ETFs Became a Textbook

Two years later, the crypto market learned a simple lesson: if Bitcoin can be packaged, distributed, and traded at scale, then any other crypto asset should be possible the same way. The SEC had to approve spot ETFs, but the real repeat was in the next questions:

• How to organize distribution?
• What fee ensures competitiveness without sacrificing margins?
• How to get placement on major platforms?
• How to generate flows in the first month?

The ETF era reset expectations within the entire ecosystem. It set a benchmark for first-day volume, showed how quickly capital can accumulate in a mainstream vehicle, and demonstrated that the market can concentrate around one or two dominant products within a few years.

Equally important: it built a communication bridge between traditional finance and crypto. Investors tracking daily ETF creations and redemptions now have an analytical layer that can be easily extended. Flows have become a common language. What was once an internal matter of the crypto ecosystem has become a signal Wall Street understands instantly.

What to Watch Over the Next 24 Months

The first phase — launch — is over. The second phase — consolidation — has already begun. Three things deserve special attention:

1. Flows as an indicator of regime The average is $113 million daily, but extreme sessions (±$1 billion) show how quickly the mood of the marginal buyer can change. When flows accelerate, the market reacts not only to the amount of money but to implications for future allocation pace. When they slow, questions of sustainability become central.

2. Distribution deepens over time The longer an ETF is traded without operational dramas, the more “normal” it becomes for platforms, advisors, algorithms. “Normal” is a turning point where an asset shifts from transaction to allocation. When Bitcoin becomes solely part of a standard rebalancing schedule, flows will become even more predictable and noise-free.

3. Concentration creates benefits and risks Dominant funds can narrow spreads, improve execution, and attract more business. But if all flows are concentrated, entire narratives can be directed in the same direction at the same time. History shows that concentration and rapid mood shifts can combine into unexpected outcomes.

Wall Street has established a new constant of gravity for Bitcoin. After two years, we see not only flows but a structural change in who influences prices on the margin. This visibility of institutions has now become a market element — no less important than supply or global valuation. Bitcoin is no longer just an asset; it has become an allocation managed by the same system that manages most of the world’s investment wealth.