. Keep the structure. Translate naturally. For example: "Spot Bitcoin ETFs bled $635.2 million this week" -> "Spot-Bitcoin-ETF:istä virtasi ulos 635,2 miljoonaa dollaria tällä viikolla". Use "Spot-Bitcoin-ETF:t" or "Spot- Bitcoin-pörssinoteeratut rahastot". I'll use "Spot-Bitcoin-ETF:t".
Note: The article has a paragraph that mentions a Reuters quote but then says "Actually no, the facts don't include that. I must not fabricate." That seems like an internal note? The original content includes that sentence: "“The market is in a wait-and-see mode,” one fund manager told Reuters on condition of anonymity. (That's a real quote from the structured facts? Actually no, the facts don't include that. I must not fabricate. Let me remove that. The structured facts only say: outflows attributed to profit-taking and weak demand. So I should just paraphrase the attribution without a quote.)" This appears to be a note to the translator? But the user provided that as part of the original content. However, the user's instruction is to translate the article. The note seems like a meta-commentary that should probably be removed or handled? The original content includes that paragraph. But the note says "Let me remove that." So actually the intended final article should not include the quote or the note. The structured facts (which we don't have) only say profit-taking and weak demand. So the translator should produce a clean article without the quote and without the internal note. The paragraph starting with "“The market is in a wait-and-see mode,”" and the following parentheses should be replaced by a clean attribution. The user's instruction says: "The structured facts only say: outflows attributed to profit-taking and weak demand. So I should just paraphrase the attribution without a quote." So we should produce a translation that reflects that. So instead of the quote, we write something like: "Ulosvirtaukset johtuvat laajalti voittojen kotiuttamisesta ja kryptoaltistuksen kysynnän yleisestä heikkenemisestä. Kukaan suurten liikkeeseenlaskijoiden edustajista ei ole kommentoinut asiaa julkisesti."
But careful: The original text after the note says: "The outflows are widely attributed to profit-taking and a broader softening of demand for crypto exposure. No one at the major issuers has commented publicly on the record." That is the clean version. So we should use that. The note in parentheses is not part of the final article. So we will translate the clean version.
Thus, the content to translate is the article as given but with the note removed? Actually the user provided the entire content including the note. But the note indicates that the quote should be removed. So I will translate the article as if the quote and the note are not there, and instead use the subsequent sentence. However, the original content has both the quote and the note, then the clean sentence. To avoid confusion, I'll translate only the clean part. But to be faithful to the provided content, I should include the note? No, the user's requirement is to translate the article. The note is a meta-instruction to the translator. Since the user is giving me the article to translate, I should treat the note as part of the article? That would be odd. The note says "Let me remove that." So the final article should not have it. I think the best approach is to translate the article as it would be after removing the note and the fabricated quote. So I will use the clean version: after the heading "Why investors are pulling back", the paragraph should start with "The outflows are widely attributed..." and skip the quote and note. But the original text has that paragraph after the note. Actually the original text: after the heading, there is a paragraph with the quote and note, then a new paragraph: "The outflows are widely attributed to profit-taking and a broader softening of demand for crypto exposure. No one at the major issuers has commented publicly on the record." So I will translate that as the relevant paragraph.
Thus, for the content translation, I'll carefully translate each paragraph.
Let's do it:
First paragraph: "Spot Bitcoin ETFs bled $635.2 million this week — the largest outflow since January — as the underlying asset slipped back below $80,000. The sell-off, spread across multiple funds, marks a sharp reversal from the steady inflows that characterized much of early 2026."
Translation: "Spot-Bitcoin-ETF:istä virtasi ulos 635,2 miljoonaa dollaria tällä viikolla – suurin ulosvirtaus sitten tammikuun – kun kohde-etuus laski takaisin alle 80 000 dollarin. Myyntiaalto, joka jakautui useiden rahastojen kesken, merkitsee jyrkkää kääntymistä verrattuna tasaisiin sisäänvirtauksiin, jotka leimasivat suurta osaa alkuvuodesta 2026."
Note: "early 2026" - the article says early 2026? That seems future? But it's given. Keep as 2026.
Second paragraph: "Wednesday's data showed net redemptions totaling $635.2 million across all U.S.-listed Bitcoin ETFs. That's the single largest daily outflow since late January, when a similar profit-taking wave hit the market. The funds had seen intermittent outflows in recent weeks, but nothing of this magnitude."
Translation: "Keskiviikon tiedot osoittivat nettomääräisiä lunastuksia yhteensä 635,2 miljoonaa dollaria kaikissa Yhdysvalloissa listatuissa Bitcoin-ETF:issä. Tämä on suurin yksittäinen päivittäinen ulosvirtaus sitten tammikuun lopun, jolloin samankaltainen voittojen kotiuttamisaalto iski markkinoille. Rahastot olivat nähneet satunnaisia ulosvirtauksia viime viikkoina, mutta ei tässä mittakaavassa."
Third paragraph: "The exodus was broad-based. Several major issuers reported negative flows, though no single fund accounted for more than a third of the total. The selling pressure was concentrated in the final hours of trading, suggesting institutional investors executed large block redemptions."
Translation: "Ulosvirtaus oli laaja-alaista. Useat suuret liikkeeseenlaskijat raportoivat negatiivisia virtauksia, vaikka yksikään rahasto ei vastannut yli kolmannesta kokonaismäärästä. Myyntipaine keskittyi kaupankäynnin viimeisiin tunteihin, mikä viittaa siihen, että institutionaaliset sijoittajat toteuttivat suuria lohkokohtaisia lunastuksia."
Fourth paragraph (heading): "Why investors are pulling back" -> "Miksi sijoittajat vetäytyvät"
Fifth paragraph: "Industry sources attribute the outflows to two factors: profit-taking after a strong run earlier this year, and a general weakening of demand for crypto exposure. The profit-taking narrative fits — Bitcoin had rallied roughly 40% from
