Did $12M in FUTU–TIGR Puts Become $100M? What the Tape Shows
A court complaint alleged traders spent about $12 million on FUTU and TIGR puts before regulatory news and made more than $100 million. TradingFlow found an $870K pre-news FUTU put print at 500x Vol/O
TradingFlow cross-post — read the original article with annotated evidence at https://www.tradingflow.com/blogs/futu-tigr-put-trades-regulatory-news/
A widely shared X post from Li Laoshi Is Not Your Teacher (https://x.com/whyyoutouzhele/status/2077513537711476844) revisited the “100-person insider-trading case” surrounding Futu Holdings (FUTU) and UP Fintech (TIGR). The post discussed the first named defendants and alleged links between trading funds and prominent Hong Kong political and business figures.
Those are serious claims. They also combine several evidence layers that should not be collapsed into one story: a social-media report, allegations in a civil complaint, official company filings, anonymous option prints, and a future legal finding.
So we tested the part TradingFlow can actually observe: did the options tape show unusually large FUTU or TIGR put activity before the May 22 regulatory news, and does open interest confirm that the trades were opening positions?
Note: Finding: the tape does corroborate unusually large pre-news put activity. The strongest captured example is an $870K FUTU put print on May 20, two days before the disclosures, with size 1,000 against OI of 2 and Vol/OI of 500x. But it printed at the mid-market, and the captured session did not return a usable next-session OI history. It is therefore opening-like, not opening-confirmed. The tape does not prove account identity, inside information, total profit, or legal liability.
[Image: Evidence chain separating the social claim, official documents, TradingFlow tape, next-session OI test, and bounded conclusion]
The evidence chain prevents a real option print from being mistaken for proof of who traded it or why.
What the official record actually says
The chronology matters more than the viral framing.
Date — Public record — What it establishes
May 7–21, 2026 — A later federal complaint (https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rhMp0u3Q5JcY/v0) alleged concentrated purchases of short-dated FUTU and TIGR puts through several brokers — A litigant's detailed allegations—not a final judicial finding
May 20 — TradingFlow captured a large FUTU Jun. 18 $124 put print — A verifiable anonymous market print before the news
May 22 — Futu's SEC filing (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1754581/000110465926065484/tm2615466d1_6k.htm) disclosed a proposed penalty of about RMB1.85 billion; UP Fintech's filing (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1756699/000119312526235622/tigr-ex99.htm) disclosed penalties and confiscation across subsidiaries — The dated regulatory disclosures that moved the stocks and options
June 29 — The case was filed in the Southern District of New York, docketed as 1:26-cv-05474 (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nysdce/1%3A2026cv05474/667213) — A real court proceeding with temporary-restraint and discovery activity
July 15 — The X post discussed newly named parties and alleged relationships — A public report that still requires documentary and legal verification
The complaint alleged that traders bought more than 50,000 FUTU put contracts and 150,000 TIGR put contracts, with heavy concentration on May 21. It also alleged roughly $12 million of option spending and profits exceeding $100 million after the May 22 announcements. Those are allegations from a pleading. This TradingFlow review does not independently reconcile the complaint's account-level cost, profit, brokerage, or ownership claims.
The strongest pre-news print we found
We opened the authenticated TradingFlow test app and searched Historical Option Trades (https://app.tradingflow.com/app/option-trades/historical) for FUTU puts before the public disclosures.
The May 20 filter returned one standout row:
Field — TradingFlow observation
Time — May 20, 12:40:03 New York time
Contract — FUTU Jun. 18, 2026 $124 put
Spot / moneyness — $126.03 / out of the money
Execution — Mid-market at $8.70
Size / premium — 1,000 contracts / $870K
OI / Vol-OI — 2 / 500x
[Image: Annotated TradingFlow Historical Option Trades screenshot showing the May 20 FUTU session, $870K put flow, and a 1,000-contract row against OI of 2]
Browser-chrome-free evidence from the authenticated TradingFlow test app, captured August 1, 2026. Callout 1 fixes the pre-news date; callout 2 shows the session's $870K put flow; callout 3 isolates size 1,000, OI 2, and Vol/OI 500x. Public reproduction starts at Historical Option Trades (https://app.tradingflow.com/app/option-trades/historical).
This is genuinely unusual option flow (https://www.tradingflow.com/glossary/option-flow/). A 1,000-contract print was enormous relative to the standing OI shown on the row. It is also directionally consistent with a downside thesis before bad news.
But two details stop us from calling it a confirmed put purchase:
- The execution side is Mid. A mid-market print does not identify the aggressor. It may be a buyer, a seller, a negotiated block, or one leg of a larger structure.
- The tape is anonymous. It cannot connect this print to any defendant, broker account, beneficial owner, or person named in the X post or complaint.
The trade is strong evidence of abnormal pre-news activity. It is not identity or intent evidence.
Was it an opening position? The OI test
This is the extra check every article about a supposed new position should make.
Open interest (https://www.tradingflow.com/learn/option-chain-and-oi/) normally reflects contracts still open after the prior clearing cycle. When a 1,000-lot trades against OI of 2, the row looks like a potential opening position because today's activity dwarfs the standing book. TradingFlow's star marker and Opening Position screen use that relationship as a discovery heuristic.
However, Size > OI and a huge Vol/OI ratio (https://www.tradingflow.com/glossary/vol-oi/) are not broker-supplied “buy to open” or “sell to open” instructions. The stronger test is the exact contract's next-session OI:
- If OI rose materially after clearing, that would support net contract creation across the market.
- If OI stayed flat or fell, the activity could reflect churn, closing, offsets, or reporting differences.
- Even a large OI increase would not reveal which participant opened, whether that participant bought or sold, or whether the trade was hedged elsewhere.
We attempted that comparison for FUTU260618P00124000. In the captured test-app session, the contract-level Positioning view did not return a usable T+1 OI series, and the May 21 exact-contract tape did not yield a readable next-session OI row. We therefore do not promote this trade from “opening-like” to “opening-confirmed.”
That limitation is part of the finding, not a footnote to hide. The Option Trades tutorial (https://www.tradingflow.com/learn/option-trades/) explains the flow columns; Option Chain & OI (https://www.tradingflow.com/learn/option-chain-and-oi/) explains why trade prints and settled positioning run on different clocks.
Why the May 21–22 totals are not pre-news proof
Next we widened the FUTU window to May 21–22. TradingFlow showed $78.72M of put flow across the two-day range, including a May 22 ask-side 0DTE row with $218K premium and OI of 7,703.
[Image: Annotated TradingFlow screenshot showing $78.72M of FUTU put flow across May 21 and May 22 and marking the visible row as post-news]
The two-day aggregate includes the announcement session. It demonstrates how violently the option tape expanded around the event, but it cannot be quoted as a pre-news-only total.
This distinction matters. The complaint's “subject trades” were alleged to have occurred through May 21. A May 22 option can be a reaction, hedge, exit, or fresh event trade after the disclosure. Mixing it into pre-news evidence would inflate the apparent corroboration.
TIGR shows the same event-window trap
The TIGR May 21–22 view surfaced two large May 22 0DTE rows:
- $6 put: 4,566 contracts, $681.9K premium, OI 23,994, printed at Bid.
- $5 put: 10,953 contracts, $536.7K premium, OI 20,555, printed at Bid.
[Image: Annotated TradingFlow screenshot showing the TIGR May 21–22 filter, unavailable aggregate metrics, and two large May 22 bid-side rows]
The aggregate metrics failed in this captured state, so we use only the visible rows. Both are event-day bid-side prints. They may reflect selling or exits and do not establish pre-news put buying.
This is useful negative evidence. A large put print is not automatically bearish put buying. Bid, ask, and mid (https://www.tradingflow.com/learn/options-and-flow-concepts/) change what can reasonably be inferred, and event-day flow must be separated from the pre-event tape.
Claim-by-claim verdict
Claim — Evidence found — Verdict
Large FUTU/TIGR put activity existed before the May 22 news — $870K FUTU May 20 print, size 1,000, OI 2, Vol/OI 500x — Corroborated in part
The May 20 FUTU row was definitely a put purchase — It printed at Mid — Not established
The trade opened a new position — Size and Vol/OI are opening-like; usable T+1 OI was unavailable — Not confirmed
May 21–22 aggregate put flow is all pre-news activity — The window includes May 22 event-day rows — False framing
Named defendants or related funds placed the observed prints — Public option tape is anonymous — Not verifiable from TradingFlow
Roughly $12M became more than $100M — Court-pleading allegation; no account-level reconciliation here — Not independently verified
Insider knowledge or liability is proved — Requires discovery, account records, and judicial findings — Not proved by market data
Reproduce the check in TradingFlow
Open TradingFlow Historical Option Trades (https://app.tradingflow.com/app/option-trades/historical) and start with:
1. Mode: Historical
2. Symbol: FUTU
3. Date: May 20, 2026
4. Type: PUT
5. Premium: at least 500,000
6. Time range: Full day
Read the result in this order: contract and expiration, side, strike and spot, premium, size, OI, then Vol/OI. To attempt the OI follow-up, isolate the Jun. 18 $124 put and compare the next settled session or open the exact contract's Positioning view when history is available.
Then run May 21 and May 22 as separate windows. Do not combine them until you have labeled which rows are pre-news and which are event-day reactions.
Bottom line
The most defensible conclusion is narrower—and more useful—than the viral version:
TradingFlow corroborates an abnormally large FUTU put print before the regulatory disclosures. The row is opening-like because 1,000 contracts traded against OI of 2, but T+1 OI confirmation was not available, and the mid-market execution does not identify a buyer. Nothing in the public tape proves who traded, what they knew, how much they ultimately made, or whether they violated the law.
That is what a market-data verification tool should do: make the observable part reproducible while preserving the boundary around everything the tape cannot know. Start at TradingFlow App Home (https://app.tradingflow.com/app/home), then use Historical Option Trades to test the next market headline against the actual tape.
Educational market-data analysis only. This article is not investment advice or a legal conclusion. Allegations in a complaint remain allegations unless established through evidence and adjudication.