On April 25, 2026, something happened that most crypto news feeds covered with a single headline — and that nonetheless has deeper consequences than most daily news.

Options on BlackRock's Bitcoin ETF IBIT overtook Deribit in open interest. USD 27.61 billion on the Nasdaq-listed ETF options venue versus USD 26.9 billion on Deribit. With that, the largest regulated onshore options venue in the U.S. has, in two years, leapfrogged a platform that has been the undisputed home of Bitcoin options since 2016.

This is a structural shift that goes well beyond raw volume. For anyone using Bitcoin options data to read the market — and that includes our own Max Pain strategy — the question of what we're actually looking at when we look at "the options market" has changed.

Two markets, similar size, different behavior

Volmex, the data provider behind the figures, also compared the positioning of both markets. The values below are from the original CoinDesk report based on Volmex data:

At first glance the two markets look almost identical. On closer inspection they tell two different stories.

IBIT calls sit systematically further out of the money — about four percentage points further than on Deribit. Volmex attributes this to IBIT's dominant buyer profile: U.S. retail running upside speculation, and systematic covered-call overwriting programs from institutional holders. Both concentrate open interest at higher strikes.

Maturities differ. IBIT options are weighted roughly two months further out on average — major expiries clustering around October 2026 — while Deribit centers on August. That's the typical signature of long-only ETF holders on one side and tactically-trading crypto pros on the other.

Implied volatility on IBIT runs higher than on Deribit. Volmex traces this to the structural asymmetry: ETF holders can't easily short Bitcoin and compensate with elevated put demand for hedging. On Deribit, shorting is part of the standard toolkit.

What all this adds up to: the size of both markets is now comparable — the structure of their open interest distribution is not.

What this has to do with Max Pain

Max Pain is a descriptive metric. It answers the question: "At which strike price would the buyers of all open options collectively lose the most money at expiry?" The calculation rests entirely on the open interest distribution — which calls and puts are open at which strikes.

Here's the methodological problem: if you compute Max Pain on Deribit data alone — as all common tools do, including our current strategy and Coinglass — you now see only half the picture.

When IBIT calls cluster four percentage points further out of the money than Deribit calls, the actual "minimum-pain point" for the full population of options writers shifts compared to a Deribit-only view. A Max Pain computed exclusively from Deribit ignores roughly half of the regulated U.S. market — and produces a value whose connection to the actual settlement price weakens as the two markets diverge.

That doesn't mean Max Pain on Deribit is suddenly "wrong." It means Max Pain on Deribit now answers a narrower question: "Where is the minimum-pain point for crypto-native traders on the largest offshore venue?" That remains a valid question. But it's no longer identical with "Where is the minimum-pain point for the BTC options market overall?"

Three consequences for our platform

We discussed this internally over the past few days and identified three things we'll change in our tooling:

1. Existing Max Pain strategy stays — with clarification. The 30D SMA > Max Pain strategy we currently offer is based on Deribit data. We'll explicitly note in the strategy description and on the dashboard that these Max Pain values reflect Deribit only, not a consolidated view of the total market. Until now this was implicit — until now Deribit was effectively the market. That's no longer the case.

2. The planned Max Pain History feature gets a multi-source architecture. We had a historical Max Pain dashboard in the pipeline anyway. The spec leaned toward "Deribit only" for Phase 1, with the option to extend later. That priority is flipping. Aggregated Max Pain across IBIT, Deribit, and ideally CME options is now in scope for the MVP discussion. Deribit-only Max Pain stays available as a separate view — precisely because the difference between the two is itself an interesting metric.

3. A new indicator becomes thinkable: the onshore-offshore spread. If IBIT and Deribit positioning point systematically in different directions, the gap between them is its own data point. "IBIT calls four points further OTM than Deribit calls" carries meaning beyond any single venue. It shows who's currently driving the market more — retail upside speculation or pro hedging. Whether this becomes a dedicated indicator on our platform depends on data availability and meaningful aggregation. But the idea is on the list.

A directional reading — and why we stay cautious

Bitwise's Jeff Park has drawn a directional thesis from the same data: in his view, the IBIT flip implies an upcoming volatility rally — led by IBIT options. His argument runs through dealer gamma mechanics: when IBIT buyers buy calls while crypto OGs on Deribit sell calls, the hedging constraints on market makers reverse. Park's conclusion: "We're going to see a big Bitcoin move up... led by IBIT options."

We share Park's observation of the structural asymmetry. On the directional conclusion we remain more cautious — comparing open interest in dollar terms isn't the same as comparing gamma exposure, and Park himself flipped from the opposite position to this thesis within a few weeks. We've broken down Park's argument in a dedicated follow-up post — including what conditions would be needed for the thesis to actually play out.

If you want the full picture: read this post for the methodological foundation (what Max Pain still tells us in the changed market), the follow-up post for the directional discussion (what could follow from it).

What we're not saying

To be clear about what this post is not claiming:

• Max Pain isn't suddenly "broken." The math works as it always did.
• The IBIT flip doesn't make Bitcoin less volatile or more predictable.
• We're not recommending anyone make trading decisions based on Max Pain alone — Deribit-only or aggregated. Max Pain is a descriptive metric, not a magnet.

What changed is the representativeness of a single data source. And that's exactly the kind of structural shift you notice quietly while watching the market closely — and that gets recognized as a turning point only in hindsight.

Bottom line

April 25, 2026 won't be marked on any chart as a "special day." No high, no low, no crash. But for the architecture of the Bitcoin options market, it was the day the regulated U.S. world caught up with the offshore world for the first time. In size, yes. In behavior, explicitly no.

Anyone working with Max Pain from now on — as an indicator, as strategy input, as market observation — should be aware of which half of the market they're measuring. And anyone building tooling on this data has a better spec today than they had a week ago.

We're working on it.

---

FAQ

Will the existing Max Pain strategy on the platform be removed or changed? No. The strategy remains usable as-is. We'll clarify in the description that the underlying Max Pain values come from Deribit data, so users can better evaluate the signal's scope. An aggregated multi-source variant will arrive at earliest with the planned Max Pain History feature.

Why is this even a problem? Aren't all options markets fundamentally the same? Economically yes, structurally no. IBIT options are predominantly used by U.S. retail and institutional long-only holders, Deribit by crypto-native pros. The strikes where open interest accumulates differ systematically — and that distribution is the input to the Max Pain calculation.

When will the announced Max Pain History feature ship? We don't have a binding release date. The spec exists, the data question (multi-source aggregation vs. Deribit-only quick-start) is currently being worked through. As soon as we have a reliable plan, there'll be an update — either here on the blog or via platform news.