The latest Jane Street debate on X is meeting a blunt rebuttal from Ari Paul. The BlockTower founder, who says he used to work as a Wall Street market maker 15 years ago, argues that Bitcoinβs failure to push higher is better explained by spot sell-side than by a long-running suppression campaign.
Paulβs answer was direct. βIn short: no,β he wrote, before adding that market makers do βgame the systemβ in many ways, but that in liquid products such as BTC ETFs, the effect is usually limited to βmeaningful but small costs to consumers,β not a lasting distortion of the underlying asset price. He framed the distinction as one between short-term microstructure games and a broader claim that one firm kept Bitcoin from reaching far higher levels.
Bitcoin Manipulation? Small Moves, Fast Reversions
To make that case, Paul pointed to the kind of behavior traders on desks know well. βFor example, market makers may manipulate the price to run stop limit orders,β he wrote. βBut thatβs typically on an intraday timeframe. So they might run an asset like MSFT or BTC 2% in a weak market to trigger stops, then a few seconds or minutes later, the price is mostly back to where it was before.β In his telling, that is still manipulation, but it is not the same as structurally pinning Bitcoin below some imagined fair value for months.
That argument lands against a more conspiratorial narrative now circulating online, why Bitcoin is not already at $150,000. Paulβs pushback does not deny that large Wall Street firms can shape short-term trading conditions. It rejects the stronger claim that such activity is the central explanation for Bitcoinβs broader price path.
Paulβs core point was much less dramatic. βWhy is BTC down? Because OGs sold tens of thousands of coins, and not enough people wanted to buy them.β That line closely matched the view from renowned on-chain analyst James Check, who argued that βJane Street didnβt suppress the Bitcoin priceβ and that βHODLers all did,β by selling large amounts of spot into the market.
Jane Street didnβt suppress the Bitcoin price folks.
HODLers all did.
Itβs just not that hard, stop summoning your inner salty goldbug but blaming manipulators.
People. Sold. A. Fucktonne. Of. Spot. Bitcoin. https://t.co/CrWgPUzUFP pic.twitter.com/N3VhgYjKhm
β _Checkmate 



(@_Checkmatey_) February 26, 2026
He added: βMy point has always been the same; manipulation is a thing that has always, will always, and is indeed the literal job of large wall street firms. However, you do not need that as the central argument to explain why the price didnβt go higher, nor why it went lower. That can be well and truly explained by looking at spot sell-side.β
Paul did leave room for exceptions. He wrote that there are rare cases where Wall Street manipulates an asset in major ways over a longer period, but said those cases are uncommon because they are risky and harder to profit from than people assume.
βThere are rare exceptions where Wall Street manipulates an asset in major ways longer term, but this is quite rare because itβs very risky and not as easy as it looks to profit. 99% of the time that an asset isnβt moving like you want and people are crying βmanipulationβ, itβs best to embrace the cognitive dissonance, avoid the βeasy way outβ of blaming manipulation,β Paul wrote.
That leaves the current Jane Street argument in a narrower frame. Yes, large firms can influence intraday flows, liquidity, and execution quality. But based on Paulβs account, that is a long way from proving that one market maker is the reason Bitcoin is not trading materially higher.
Notably, the Jane Street theory picked up fresh attention after Terraform Labsβ wind-down administrator sued the firm in Manhattan federal court, alleging insider trading tied to Terraβs 2022 collapse. The complaint says Jane Street used a private chat called βBryceβs Secretβ to obtain non-public information and alleges an 85 million UST trade on Curve that helped trigger a selloff; Jane Street has denied wrongdoing and called the case opportunistic.
At press time, BTC traded at $66,090.

3 weeks ago
5348


















English (US)