大肆吸金!贝莱德旗下比特币现货ETF规模已超百亿,耗时不到两个月

金十Published on 2024-03-05Last updated on 2024-03-05

比特币现货ETF自上市以来大受欢迎,助长了一股市场狂热,并将这种加密货币的价格一度推近历史高点。

自1月11日推出以来,投资者以历史性的速度涌入这些基金,市场上10只美国比特币现货ETF的总资产规模膨胀至近500亿美元。

贝莱德旗下的iShares比特币信托上周四的资产规模超过100亿美元,是有史以来最快达到这一里程碑的新ETF。富达的基金目前拥有超过60亿美元的资产,已经是这家资产管理公司的第三大ETF,占今年ETF净流入的大部分。

VettaFi研究主管Todd Rosenbluth表示:

“这是一波持续的需求浪潮。这些产品一上市就很强劲,而且一直保持强劲。”

这些基金允许日常投资者通过他们直接投资数字资产,而不必去加密货币交易所或通过期货合约对比特币进行投资。

一些分析师预计,这些资金最初的巨大投入将随后放缓,但随着比特币价格接近创纪录水平,近几周资金流入的速度反而加快了。

周一下午,比特币交易价格超过6.7万美元,略低于2021年11月创下的68990.90美元的纪录。截至2023年,比特币才接近4万美元,一年前在2.3万美元左右徘徊。

许多分析师将比特币在去年下半年的上涨归因于对比特币现货ETF将获得批准的预期。他们说,现在投资者对基金的追捧除了创造新的需求外,还推动了更多的看涨情绪。Rosenbluth补充道,“这是基础资产价格与基金挂钩的罕见情况之一,比特币的表现很难量化,但它的表现与人们对其可用性提高的希望息息相关。这是一个循环的好处。”

市场需求还能增加?

贝莱德旗下的这只比特币现货ETF已超越了许多其他ETF,数据显示,在美国上市的3000多只ETF中,资产规模超过100亿美元的只有约4%。

今年1月,有9只比特币基金是新上市的,而灰度的比特币信托在其他基金推出的当天就转换成了一只拥有近300亿美元现有资产的ETF,即GBTC。

自那以来,投资者已从该基金撤资逾80亿美元,因其收取的费用远高于竞争对手。如果GBTC的平均资产保持在目前水平附近,1.5%的年费将为这家资产管理公司带来约4亿美元的年收入。

贝莱德在所谓的“促销期”结束后仅收取0.25%的费用,而大多数规模较小的资产管理公司收取的费用甚至更低。

当然,并非所有资产管理公司都认为这些产品适合个人投资者。先锋集团曾表示,不打算提供一个比特币ETF,不会在其经纪业务平台提供投资加密货币的渠道。这家资产管理巨头在最近的一篇博客文章中称比特币“更像是一种投机,而不是一种投资”。

注册投资顾问在引导资金流向ETF方面具有巨大影响力,但他们目前接触比特币现货ETF基金的机会有限。摩根士丹利、美银美林、瑞银和富国银行的财富管理平台以非请求方式提供比特币基金,即顾问不能主动向客户推销比特币基金,但可以为提出要求的客户购买比特币现货ETF。

如果这种情况发生变化,分析师预计会有更多资金流入比特币现货ETF。CFRA Research ETF数据和分析主管Aniket Ullal表示:

“顾问平台一直没有涉足这一资产类别,现在这种情况可能会改变,我们预计需求会增加。”

市场对比特币ETF的“适应程度”令人惊讶

在吸纳新资金方面,一些新的比特币基金正与其他资产类别的行业重量级基金展开正面交锋。贝莱德的比特币现货ETF 2月份在美国ETF“吸金榜”排名第三,以微弱优势超过标普500指数ETF。

富达的比特币现货ETF排名第八,2月份最受欢迎的基金是先锋集团旗下的标普500指数基金及其信息技术基金。

目前还缺乏有关谁在购买这些基金的数据。在大型投资者在季度披露中报告其基金持仓情况后,华尔街将了解更多情况。

不过,近期比特币现货ETF的交易活动最近有所加速。据外媒称,上周三约有80亿美元的交易量,是迄今为止成交量最大的一天。

投资者接受这些新基金的速度令人惊讶。这是一种非常不寻常的情况,”Ullal表示。他表示,ETF通常需要更长的时间来吸引资产,因为它们需要等待不同的顾问平台将它们上市。

Related Reads

Borrowed Faith: How Much of the Bitcoin ETF Flows Are Real Money

"Rented Faith: How Much of Bitcoin ETF Flows Are Real Money?" Bitcoin ETF inflows are often seen as a barometer of institutional conviction. However, week-to-week analysis reveals they are primarily driven by a hidden arbitrage trade rather than directional bullishness. This is the cash-and-carry trade: buying the ETF while simultaneously shorting Bitcoin futures on the CME to lock in the price difference (basis). This delta-neutral activity registers as ETF inflows but reflects a rate-seeking, not price-betting, strategy. Data shows weekly ETF flow volatility is closely tied to hedge fund ("leveraged funds") short positions on CME futures, with a correlation of 0.70. About half of weekly flow variation can be explained by this single factor. In contrast, Bitcoin's weekly price changes have no statistically significant power to predict flows. Crucially, while this arbitrage trade dominates weekly *fluctuations*, it is not the main component of the cumulative *stock*. Of the ~$55 billion total net inflow, the estimated net arbitrage position is only about $1 billion. The vast majority is steady, directional buying averaging ~$400 million per week. Thus, ETF flows overstate the *volatility* of belief, not its *level*. The "rented" arbitrage capital churns, while "owned" directional capital forms the bedrock. This arbitrage trade has been unwinding for two years, with hedge fund shorts peaking at ~$14 billion in late 2024 and falling to ~$4.5 billion. Recent outflows align with basis compression, signaling the trade's exit, not a loss of faith. For Ethereum ETFs, the same dynamic is weaker due to negative carry from forgone staking yield. The key takeaway: To interpret ETF flows, watch the basis vs. Treasury yields and CME hedge fund net shorts. They reveal how much of the weekly "demand" headline is driven by rented, rate-seeking capital versus real conviction.

链捕手3m ago

Borrowed Faith: How Much of the Bitcoin ETF Flows Are Real Money

链捕手3m ago

Two Giants' Credit Expansion: Loan Balances of $9.9 Billion vs. $14.6 Billion, Brazil Emerges as the Main Battlefield

Title: Two Giants "Credit" Surge: Loan Balances of 99 Billion vs. 146 Billion USD, Brazil Emerges as Main Battlefield Summary: The article compares the rapid expansion of credit businesses by two major e-commerce and fintech players, Sea (via Monee) and Mercado Libre (via Mercado Pago), in overseas markets like Southeast Asia and Latin America, contrasting with a slowing domestic Chinese credit market. Using Q1 2026 financial data, it highlights their significant growth. Sea's Monee reached a loan balance of $99 billion, up 71% year-over-year (YoY), contributing 17.5% to Sea's total revenue. Mercado Pago's loan balance hit $146 billion, up 87% YoY, contributing 45% to its parent company's revenue. Both maintained stable risk metrics (e.g., Monee's 90+ day NPL at 1.1%) despite rapid scaling. Brazil is identified as a key and accelerating growth market for both. Sea's Brazilian operations saw loan volumes exceed $10 billion, growing 250% YoY, with SPayLater GMV penetration still low (~10%) indicating high potential. Sea also secured a key Brazilian financial credit license (SCFI). Mercado Libre's Brazil segment contributed over half (54%) of total group revenue, with its credit business there generating $11.24 billion in revenue, up 89% YoY and accounting for 12.7% of global revenue. Mercado Pago's credit portfolio, especially credit cards (46% of loans, +105% YoY), is a strategic focus, described as crucial as building logistics was a decade ago. Its net interest margin after loss (NIMAL) remains high at 17.8%. The article concludes that while Brazil presents immense opportunities, the success is largely driven by these integrated "e-commerce + fintech" giants with proprietary transaction data and ecosystems, making it challenging for standalone fintech players to compete effectively.

链捕手25m ago

Two Giants' Credit Expansion: Loan Balances of $9.9 Billion vs. $14.6 Billion, Brazil Emerges as the Main Battlefield

链捕手25m ago

Research Report Analysis: Is Intel Making a Comeback with Apple? Bernstein's Calculations Show the Right Direction, but the Price Is Already Overvalued

Bernstein analyst Stacy A. Rasgon published a report on June 18 regarding Intel, assessing the potential impact of recent political support for a US-based PC chip design and manufacturing collaboration between Apple and Intel. The report views this as a significant signal for the foundry landscape shift but concludes the initial financial contribution would be minimal. Key conclusions: 1) An Apple deal is seen as a small-scale "proof of concept." Even if Intel wins 40% of Apple's premium notebook chip orders (~5 million units/year), Bernstein estimates it would generate only about $500M in annual revenue and ~$0.03 EPS, negligible against Intel's ~$55B revenue. 2) Political encouragement is not equivalent to enforceable mandates. Winning orders ultimately depends on Intel demonstrating competitive technology (like its 18A node), cost, and reliable supply. 3) The path from validation to large-scale production involves significant challenges, capital investment, and time. Due to these uncertainties, Bernstein maintains a Market-Perform (Hold) rating with a $100 price target, implying potential downside from the ~$121.10 price at the report date. The analysis highlights the tension between near-term validation value—serving as a crucial trust signal for Intel's foundry ambitions and US supply chain resilience—and the long-term opportunity to attract larger cloud and AI chip customers. The investment thesis hinges on successful 18A execution and sustained policy support, not on immediate financial gains from Apple.

marsbit49m ago

Research Report Analysis: Is Intel Making a Comeback with Apple? Bernstein's Calculations Show the Right Direction, but the Price Is Already Overvalued

marsbit49m ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片