Today marks the historic Day 1 of BTC ETF options launch. It did not disappoint, with over $1.86Bn in notional traded! There were some notable takeaways in my opinion, so here is a quick thread on the Top 10 Most Interesting Observations I made 👇
1/ Just as we expected, the market launched with a beautiful “volatility smile” quickly established by 945AM and for the rest of the day. In fact, the smile got even wider throughout the day, finishing with higher wings by EoD.
2/ But the path was not totally straight forward, and the below BVIV Index from @volmexfinance is representative of the IV move for IBIT options throughout the day as well, where there were two local peaks and a creep down by the end. More interestingly, it did NOT match the upward sloping BTC price movement (then down) in a predictable way. 👀
3/ The most heavily traded contract was 01/17/24 C55, which traded 40k+! Most noteworthy to me, however, was it has already surpassed the position limit of 25k. As I shared yesterday the 25k limit is too small relative to the deep liquidity IBIT has demonstrated over the months.
4/ And so while that contract got a lot of attention today, the one that I was personally most intrigued by was actually the 12/20/24 C100, which was the most heavily traded contract with the least amount of delta - at 3%! This is a true lottery ticket, and the implied vol cleared at 105%. Even more interesting was how heavy the volume was at the first hour of the market open. It means a serious investor was loading it up at 10AM, and the price steadily increased with vol getting bid up. This was likely the been the biggest vega opportunity of the day.
5/ Another thing to note is if you look at the Top 10 securities by Calls traded ranked by change in Open Interest, BITI (short BTC ETF) comes up! Its OI went up by 100% (albeit smaller denominator) but I thought it was interesting especially given most of it was calls. Could be a vol arb play.
6/ The Put/call ratio demonstrated an overwhelming interest in upside calls vs downside puts, at something like 0.23. However, what is even more interesting is if you segment it by Expiry Date. Once you do that, you can see that the P/C ratio meaningfully decreases as you go out further in tenor - where The Jan26/27 contracts show a put call ratio of 0.08! That means there is roughly a 10x imbalance for upside.
7/ Most of these are in fact call buying with C100 leading the way, collectively trading over 10k contracts together in those maturity buckets. In fact, another way to view this imbalance is by seeing the bubble charts of those two expiries. Unlike the other chains, you can see by the outsized bubble on the right that deep OTM calls were massively bid.
8/ You can also observe for those expiries, the vol is being bid pretty much throughout the day. In fact, if you look at the last hour of the trading day, as Bitcoin spot comes in, vol stays elevated as the price holds up.
9/ So what does this all mean? It confirms what @fejau already shared intraday. And the rationale for this is actually quite logical as I explained below: "option margining favors bettors of very improbable and long-dated events" ie. OTM leap calls!
10/ And I couldn't post this thread with referencing $MSTR, which has been the killer trade of the past 2 days. Many people thought that the launch of IBIT options would curtail options trading in MSTR, but today would have proven you completely wrong. In fact, MSTRs vol decoupled with Bitcoin meaningfully in the last hour, where it closed even higher than where we started in the day. We'll need a few more observation period to see where we stabilize but one thing so far is clear: MSTR is in its own league.
11/ Lastly, PSA that $BITB options go live tomorrow! It will be another option chain alongside IBIT and others for investors to consider before buying/selling and determining where the best value may lie. I continue to remain convicted that the 'non-institutional' trading will happen on non-IBIT ETFs, and therefore there may be more opportunities for professional retail investors. I wil try to cover what I see on this tomorrow.
12/ also quick shoutout to multicoin and @SpencerApplebau @davijlu on pushing the frontier of what based prime brokerage could look like beyond our wildest dreams. perfect timing with the launch of ETF options challenging these very capital efficiency questions + SOL nearing highs to mark a remarkable 7y journey. Kudos to team
BITB Disclosures & Prospectus: BITB is not an investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and is not afforded its protections. BITB is not suitable for all investors. BITB is subject to significant risk and heightened volatility.bitbetf.com/welcome
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Here’s the untold truth about covered call strategies:
Often misrepresented as “income” plays, they’re actually short-volatility strategies crafted to lower the cost basis of your long position. But it’s not about blindly selling weekly calls. Success depends on timing key dates (e.g., Dec 13, Nasdaq inclusion) and understanding whether you’re in sticky-delta or sticky-spot regimes.
With the right strategy, you could potentially acquire $MSTR shares at no net cost within a year. Follow my posts here and on Substack, and I’ll guide you through the process.
This is one of the most important frameworks to master, best studied by the legendary @EmanuelDerman:
In addition, this intuition needs to be overlaid with other market participants' behavior, which @nntaleb highlights in Dynamic Hedging: when dynamic hedgers are long a strike (and consequently, static hedgers are short it) the strike will be sticky. it will whip otherwise.
If you’re bookmarking one investment guide for the decades to come, make it this one. Five minutes to rewire your mindset—and you’ll never see investing the same again. Revisit after the election; it’ll hit even harder.
Here’s the grand finale: Part III: The Radical Portfolio
1/ The Radical Portfolio’s core thesis is 60% Compliance / 40% Resistance.
To illustrate what this radical mindset means, we assess the foundational assumptions of different kinds of assets in the world that one can own as we seek to draw some heuristics out of their commonalities. Here I lay out how to categorize a few examples in such a schema:
• If you own GLD (Gold ETF), that’s compliance - 60% bucket. If you own physical gold bars, that’s resistance - 40% bucket
• If you hang valuable art on your walls at your home, that’s compliance - 60% bucket. If you own the same art held in tax-free freeports, that’s resistance - 40% bucket
• If you own your primary residence, that’s compliance - 60% bucket. If you anonymously own a shelter offshore, that’s resistance - 40% bucket
What you find here is that at a high level, highly resistant assets are by definition likely to share attributes of being decentralized, scarce, and timeless. This is the radical way we must imagine portfolio theory. We must live our lives within institutions for the most part (60%), but we also need to live our private lives away from such institutions for it is not improbable that they may break during our lifetime, most likely in a fantastic way.
2/ The Radical Portfolio, by asset classification, can also be understood as 60% Long Global Carry / 40% Short Global Carry.
Implementation and asset classification is not necessarily the same thing but there are enough overlaps; if we believe that equities and bonds participate in the same circular global carry trade, then the goal is to find an asset that is anti-carry which is likely non-compliant.
While a traditional carry trade is normally defined as a close-ended FX yield harvest trade, the bigger modern carry trade apparatus I speak of is far more reaching than that. Nonetheless, the core characteristics are the same: it is highly leveraged, short-volatility in nature, and it borrows liquidity from those that are low to reinvest in those that are high. The traditional 60/40 portfolio therefore is within the “60%” compliance allocation, and can also include assets like private equity, and private credit. The anti-carry asset therefore must be the opposite of all this.
In my view, the distinction between the “transformation of time” is the most elusive yet aspirational one. Today, the refinancing market is four times larger than the primary issuance market, a glaring red flag. As the carry trade transforms liquidity, the anti-carry asset must transform time. There are not very many assets that can do this in the world. And while we often default to thinking that the only way to manipulate time is through liquidity (ie. stealing from the young for the old), the first law of thermodynamics has another input: energy. A “40%” allocation within this construct can include investment expressions like AI or culture assets, poker/sports gambling income, biotech IP: these assets transform energy-intensive labor into income without leverage, and high payouts. Relatedly, I believe this will be the great unlock of “tokenization” en masse.
@Polymarket represents one of these radical breakthroughs. It is an ‘energy transformation’ of someone’s labor towards financial productivity that is inherently long volatility. It is therefore ‘short global carry’ and ‘long resistance.’ Many assets fit this category, if you know where to look. Culture tokens, such as Hermes Birkin bags, are in the same category. So is the inevitable monetization of (your) data.
1/ Incredible episode on the inner workings of multi-strategy funds. @TheStalwart, @tracyalloway, and Dan offered plenty of valuable insights (thank you!), but I believe they overlooked some of the most crucial aspects. Here are a few thoughts to add to the conversation:
3/ Dan primarily focuses on the multi-strategy’s virtue of offering uncorrelated returns, where lower correlation allows for higher Sharpe ratios.
And @tracyalloway pushes back, highlighting that drawdowns often appear correlated!
I wholeheartedly agree with Tracy, which is why I’m so bullish on crypto multi-strategy solutions that operate outside the bounds of common holder and factor risks. @BitwiseInvest has aimed to showcase truly innovative approaches in this space.
Why Citadel Dropped Its Plan to Become a Primary Dealer
1/ Citadel unexpectedly shelved its long-standing ambition to become a Primary Dealer (PD), a key status in the world of broker-dealers. This move highlights broader changes in the Treasury’s liquidity model.
2/ Traditionally, being a PD was the ultimate privilege for broker-dealers—direct trading with the Federal Reserve and access to U.S. Treasuries at auction. Citadel chased this status for over a decade, even filing an RFI on the evolution of the Treasury market.
3/ In 2015, despite being approved to trade on Bloomberg’s RFQ system, Citadel was blocked from quoting U.S. Treasuries on Tradeweb’s network due to an arbitrary rule: Only primary dealers could join the bank-owned platform. Citadel had to "kiss the ring."
Clear eyes from @CryptoHayes and the imagined "Central Bank Currency Swap" to transmit stronger JPY without US asset dispositions. Read details here:
For those uninitiated into the fantastic world of central banks and read his post for the first time, you may think that this is all "too magic to be true." So I thought I would share some historical examples of how swap lines have been used to save markets in the past: 🧵cryptohayes.medium.com/spirited-away-…
Bretton Woods era (1940s-1970s)
In the 1960s, The Fed established reciprocal currency swaps with BoE, Budesbank, Bank of France, Italy, etc. to defend their respective fx pegs. It estimated that it reached as high as $8bn in swaps (which might be around $70bn today). The accumulation of dollars abroad put pressure on US gold reserves.
Then in the 70s, the Smithsonian Agreement was struck to allow Fed, Bundesbank, BoJ to intervene in FX markets and use swap lines to unsuccessfully maintain parities after the suspension of the gold convertibility, ultimately leading to its collapse and free float thereafter.
Sterling Crisis (1960s)
When capital controls were removed in the 1960s, the BoE came under attack several times. In 1966-7, BoE received swap lines and loans from the Fed, Bank of International Settlements and other central banks to defend the pound, though that eventually failed as we all know.
Fun fact then that BoE started to manipulate its reserve figures to impress their standing. See graph below - the solid line represents convertible reserves as published by the BoE, and the stacked column shows the actual daily dollar reserves. The spikes show they were using short-term repos to report on days of, and then it would literally disappear!!!
My colleague @Matt_Hougan writes an excellent weekly memo, where he recently advocated for the consideration of $ETH as a technology investment akin to high growth tech plays like $NVDA and $FB.
This was the very last sentence of the memo. What does that actually look like? 👇
The 90/10 mix of Nasdaq and Ethereum with monthly rebalance indeed generates a higher simplified Sharpe ratio across various time series. Just like $BTC adds value to a 60/40 portfolio, $ETH adds value to a modern technology portfolio. The 1-year total return chart shows you how.
But is 90/10 the right mix, or are there alternative allocations? For long-term minded investors, it might pay to allocate more to ETH! With a 70/30 Index over 3.5 year, you can almost triple your NDX-only return, with only a ~50% increase of volatility.