Crypto natives are hoping that upcoming 13 filings will answer October 10 questions

For crypto stakeholders, February 14 (Valentine’s Day) this year won’t be about celebrating love. Instead, it’ll be about the 13F filings that are expected to be due on the same date, and people will be looking for answers as to how the October 10 crash happened. 

Technically, while 13F filings are due 45 days after the end of the calendar year, that date this year falls on a Saturday. Then, there’s another federal holiday (Presidents’ Day) on Monday, February 16. Hence, the SEC deadline automatically rolls over to the next business day, which is February 17.

The 13F filings and why they are trending 

As the world inches closer to Valentine’s Day, anticipation of the Form 13F filings has continued to rise, with users on X speculating that it could reveal the cause of the October 10 crash. 

Form 13F filings are mandatory SEC disclosures, and they concern institutional investment managers with over $100 million in US equity AUM. They disclose long positions in stocks/ETFs quarterly, and are usually filed within 45 days of a quarter ending. 

The filings for Q4 2025 are expected to drop on February 14, 2026, Valentine’s Day, and according to speculation on X, many expect the filings could reveal if a major institutional player had massive exposure to BTC via spot ETFs or related equities and was liquidated heavily around October 10 or in the aftermath. 

The filings could reveal a smoking gun in the form of an unexplained disappearance of large holdings, sharp reductions in ETF positions, or even anomalies in filings from HK-based or other filers with outsized crypto allocations. 

With this, people could more accurately infer who got wrecked in the crash, especially if there were any TradFi players involved. While the filings are highly anticipated, it is not confirmed that they will be able to provide a definitive explanation for the crash.

However, TradFi positions are opaque enough to fuel the theory that the Valentine’s Day filings might narrow down the present suspects or show structural shifts. 

Speculation on who or what caused the crash 

On October 10, the crypto industry endured what many are now calling its largest single-day liquidation event. It saw over $19 billion in leveraged positions forcibly closed within roughly 24 hours, and BTC dropped sharply while many altcoins plunged even harder. 

The cascade effect was extreme, and even now, months later, the industry is still talking about it. Initially, the crash was linked to macro/geopolitical factors. However, it has become apparent that the crypto sector suffered the most. 

It did not help matters that industry leaders like OKX’s CEO pointed accusatory fingers at Binance, blaming their handling of risky asset positions. 

Wintermute’s CEO, Evgeny Gaevoy, has expressed skepticism that the crash from October 10 had anything to do with an exchange or market maker blowing up. 

“Maybe somebody blew up but there are simply no spillover effects for us to care,” Gaevoy wrote on X. “When 3AC blew up post terra everyone knew fairly soon because it spread via DMs. Sure it was shock and disbelief at first but it lasted maybe 2-3 days all in all.” 

Gaevoy also talked about how the situation was similar to FTX. According to them, it took longer for people to know, but it apparently also became very obvious when it was revealed they were in talks with Binance. 

“You don’t talk about bailouts/investments unless there is something very wrong,” Gaevoy wrote. 

Franklin Bi, a general partner at Pantera Capital, speculated that the crash can be linked to “someone large outside of crypto, likely based in Asia, with very few crypto-native counterparties.” 

He claimed this is “why no one has sniffed them out on CT.” In response to that train of thought, Gaevoy wrote, “Who would give 90 day conditions on somebody blowing up is what is unclear to me here.” 

A user named TheOtherParker on X echoed Franklin Bi’s sentiment about it being somebody large outside crypto that is also likely based in Asia, who was wrecked. 

“As @FranklinBi pointed out, the fund(s) being non-crypto would explain why no one sniffed them out. They would likely have few/no crypto counterparties, meaning complete isolation from CT,” TheOtherParker wrote. 

“Unfortunately, if a fund had their IBIT position liquidated today, they wouldn’t have to disclose the position change until 45 days after the quarter end, so we’d be looking at mid May for the smoking gun from 13F filings most likely,” they added. 

Some of the most plausible sounding analogies point to “a large non-crypto entity likely based in HK.” 

However, the caveat remains that all of these are mostly speculation. The filings due on February 14 and dropping on the 17th will provide answers… If there are any.

If you're reading this, you’re already ahead. Stay there with our newsletter.