Author: CoinFound
I. Introduction: The Terra Case Revisited — The Market Needs a Villain
In February 2026, the collapse of Terra—a story long consigned to history—was dragged back into the spotlight. This time, the narrators no longer emphasized the failure of the algorithmic stability mechanism; instead, they reconstructed the causal chain in a more compelling way: during the critical minutes leading up to the collapse, someone possessed significant non-public information and executed a precise front-run, turning a systemic disaster into ledger profits.
This narrative has three inherent advantages:
It's simple enough: from systemic risk to "someone front-ran you."
It is specific enough: from a mechanism flaw to "a certain institution."
It is sufficiently emotional: victims easily complete "attribution" and "projection."
The object being projected is precisely a figure who is both visible and elusive in the crypto world: a top market maker + ETF authorized participant (AP).
When market sentiment is already seeking a named explanation, a symbol-level name like "Jane Street" is almost destined to be thrust into the spotlight.
II. The Catalyst: How the Old Allegations Fit Together with the “10am Dump”
On the market level, crypto traders have a vivid memory of the "10am Dump":
Around 10 a.m. Eastern Time, BTC often experiences a rapid 1%–3% drop, triggering a cascade of leveraged long liquidations, followed by a rebound or stabilization.
This kind of “highly regular volatility” is naturally interpreted as “manipulated.” When the old Terra complaint provided a narrative template of “minute-level front-running,” social media naturally merged the two into a single story:
In the past: Someone acted ahead of the "critical window" before Terra's collapse
Now: At 10 AM daily, a precise sell-off occurs during BTC's "critical window"
Conclusion: The same type of institution, the same strategy, the same black box
Thus, the "10am Dump" evolved from a trading sensation into a collective reckoning on ETF mechanics, AP permissions, and TradFi market makers.
III. Why Jane Street Was Specifically Named: Identity, Channel, and the Filter of Past Record
Jane Street has been thrust into the spotlight not just because it “might,” but because it “fits the narrative.”
1) Identity: The visibility of top TradFi market makers in Crypto
Jane Street's typical positioning is as a quantitative liquidity provider:
Small profits from spread and execution efficiency
Break down exposure into manageable fragments using multi-market hedging
Survive across cycles with inventory management and risk budgeting
The actions of such institutions are极易被误读 in a high-leverage crypto environment:
A routine risk management action (reducing position/hedging/inventory adjustment), under the amplification of the liquidation waterfall, appears as "precise harvesting."
2) Channel: The ETF/AP mechanism is naturally an "off-chain black box"
The creation/redemption mechanism of ETFs is a well-established arbitrage tool in traditional finance.
But AP carries a "original sin" in the context of Crypto:
Execution does not occur on-chain.
Order flow is not auditable
Details are protected by confidentiality agreements and internal institutional risk controls.
Disclosures (such as 13F) are delayed and incomplete
When the market sees only "10 o'clock plunge + liquidations" but misses the "hedging pathways + subscription/redemption rhythm + OTC settlement," conspiracy theories become the easiest explanatory model.
3) Filter: Cross-market controversies will be quickly migrated to crypto
Once an institution is labeled as "manipulative" or "controversial" in other markets—regardless of the factual details—it becomes the prime suspect for any anomalies observed in the cryptocurrency market.
This is not a chain of evidence, but a pattern of social dissemination: prior skepticism automatically seeks posterior confirmation.
Four: The Key Disagreement — You Think You’re Arguing About “Manipulation,” But You’re Actually Arguing About “Explainability”
In the "10am Dump" controversy, what both sides are truly arguing about is not whether institutions are stronger, but:
Retail perspective: I’ve observed systematic liquidations, and I can’t explain them.
Institutional perspective: I’m doing hedging and rebalancing—you only see the price outcome.
Institutional perspective: Disclosure rules permit "semi-transparency," making any explanation unfalsifiable.
In other words:
The essence of this dispute is a transparency gap: Crypto requires on-chain verifiability, while the ETF/AP system operates off-chain.
When transparency gaps persist over the long term, conspiracy theories become a "substitute explanation infrastructure."
Five: Break down the "10am Dump": phenomenon, spread, and possible mechanisms
To discuss the "10am Dump," at least break it down into three layers:
A) Phenomenon layer: Greater volatility is more likely around 10 o'clock.
Many traders have felt this, but feeling is not statistical proof.
Even if a high frequency of "10-point fluctuations" occurs during a certain phase, it may still be a temporary outcome of market structure.
B) Distribution Layer: Social media confuses "correlation" with "causation"
Social media loves three things:
Single villain
Clear motivation
Replay the script ("Daily 10 AM dump")
Thus, “screenshot + time alignment + emotional storytelling” will quickly outperform “backtesting + confidence intervals + counterfactual testing.”
C) Mechanism Layer: A Simpler, More Likely Explanation Path
Even acknowledging that the 10-point window is more volatile, there are several more "everyday" mechanistic explanations:
Liquidity reconfiguration after U.S. stock market opens
After U.S. equities open, risk budgets across assets, volatility surfaces, ETF flows, and spot-futures basis may all be repriced.
It is not unusual for BTC to move in sync within this window as part of a basket of risk assets.Leveraged structure amplifies + insufficient order book depth
When derivatives leverage is too high and the order book is thin, a moderate sell pressure can trigger a cascade of liquidations, forming a waterfall.
This explains why it looks like someone pressed a button, without needing to assume that someone must have manipulated it.Dynamic hedging of market maker's delta-neutral inventory
A common misconception in the market is that seeing institutions "holding a lot" doesn't mean they are "bullish."
Many positions are inventory held to hedge derivative risks. Hedging activities occurring in concentrated time windows do not equate to directional selling pressure.
Six: The "Evidence Illusion" of 13F: You're Only Seeing Half of the Ledger
A common puzzle in the "manipulation theory" is citing institutional 13F filings to prove "it holds a massive position, so it can manipulate."
But 13F only discloses a portion of U.S. stock long positions and does not disclose:
The direction of options and futures
Swaps and OTC Hedging
Inter-exchange order routing
AP Subscription and Redemption with Inventory Allocation Details
So the 13F is more like a “front-facing only” photo:
You can see what it’s holding in front of the stage, but you can’t see how it hedges, balances, or neutralizes its exposures behind the scenes.
This is not an attempt to whitewash institutions, but rather to point out that 13F filings alone cannot complete the evidentiary circle for an "manipulation" claim.
Seven: The spread logic of the Terra lawsuit: legal proceedings are slow, public opinion trials are fast
The original Terra case exploded again in 2026 not because it suddenly provided more compelling facts, but because it offered a story structure better suited for dissemination:
Reopening old cases naturally carries drama.
The "key minute window" naturally aligns with K-line screenshots.
"Secret communication" is naturally suited for remixing.
The "Wall Street giants" are naturally suited to be the villains of the crypto world.
While court evidence is still unfolding and details remain obscured, social media has already reached its conclusions.
Once a conclusion is reached first, all subsequent data will be used to confirm bias.
Eight: The Real Structural Issue: ETFs Bring TradFi Rules into Crypto
Raise your perspective a bit, and you'll see that the "10am Dump" controversy is merely superficial. The deeper shift is:
1) The pricing of BTC is being reshaped by the "traditional financial schedule"
In the past, BTC was more like a 24-hour crypto-native asset.
But as ETF flows, AP hedging, and traditional institutional risk management rhythms enter the picture, BTC's volatility will increasingly occur at key moments in traditional finance.
2) The transparency standards of crypto encounter the execution black box of TradFi
The culture of crypto is "on-chain transparency."
But the ETF culture is “efficiency first, execution confidential.”
It's not about who is right or wrong, but a friction between two systems:
When "verifiable" meets "executable," the market will prioritize explanations that resemble conspiracies.
3) The disclosure system determines that "disputes will persist long-term"
As long as the rules permit:
Delayed disclosure
Incomplete disclosure
Off-chain execution is not auditable
Then the market will never be able to distinguish:Price impact from normal hedging
Manipulative behavior involving deliberate price manipulation for profit
Conspiracy theories will periodically resurface until stronger audits and more transparent infrastructure emerge.
Nine: CoinFound's Perspective: Instead of guessing who’s selling, first place all structural variables on the same timeline.
CoinFound focuses on quantifiable, verifiable structural variables, shifting the debate away from "personalized attribution" and back to "mechanisms and data":
The window (time structure) during which price fluctuations occur
Leverage and Liquidation Intensity (Market Microstructure)
ETF cash flows and demand-side absorption (capital structure)
Mint/Burn, Subscription/Redemption, and the Difference Between On-chain and Off-chain Traffic (Infrastructure Structure)
Changes in the concentration of main position holdings (concentration structure)
You may not immediately prove "who the seller is," but you can more clearly distinguish:
Stabilization driven by increased demand-side activity
Still "short-term behavioral changes triggered by a single event"
Still a chain reaction caused by structural fragility
This is the first step in turning "conspiracy theory controversies" into "researchable questions."
Ten: Conclusion: This controversy will not disappear; it will become the norm in the new cycle.
Is there a reproducible structural pattern to the “10am Dump”? Possibly.
It is currently difficult to attribute "manipulation" to a specific institution based on publicly available information.
But this does not mean the discussion is meaningless—in fact, it reveals a more important fact:
BTC in the ETF era is entering a "semi-transparent market."
On-chain transparency still exists, but key execution and risk management are increasingly occurring off-chain.
When the market is in a combination of "high leverage + multi-market execution + delayed disclosure," any regular fluctuation will be quickly attributed to human behavior.
It's not that traders are "more foolish," but rather that the system lacks "explainability."
The real solution is not to create another villain, but to enhance market auditability, explainability, and visibility of structural variables.