Bitcoin ETFs log inflows as cold wallet hack reignites custody debate

cointelegraphPublished on 2026-08-05Last updated on 2026-08-05

Abstract

U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded significant net inflows of approximately $381.5 million over two days. This uptick coincided with heightened focus on digital asset security following a major hack of Coldcard hardware wallets, estimated to have affected 7,300 addresses and caused roughly $130 million in suspected Bitcoin losses. The incident has reignited debate about institutional custody versus self-custody, with analysts suggesting it may drive more investors toward ETFs, which rely on regulated financial institutions to safeguard assets. Bitcoin's price remained relatively stable around $64,113 as the market assessed these custody concerns alongside other selling pressures.

US-listed spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) are attracting fresh capital as a high-profile cryptocurrency custody incident puts renewed focus on digital asset security.

Spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded $211.5 million in net inflows on Tuesday, adding to Monday’s $170 million, according to data from SoSoValue.

The inflows came as the ongoing Coldcard hack drew attention from analysts, with Galaxy Research estimating that the attack may have affected as many as 7,300 addresses and resulted in about $130 million in suspected Bitcoin (BTC) losses from users of the hardware wallet.

The developments have renewed a long-running debate in crypto over whether institutional custody solutions offered through regulated financial products could become more attractive as investors weigh the risks and responsibilities of self-custody.

Galaxy ETF returns to inflows as Bitcoin funds rebound

BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) led the ETF recovery, recording $111 million in inflows on Monday and $170 million on Tuesday, according to Farside Investors data. Fidelity’s Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund (FBTC) followed, adding about $33 million and roughly $20 million on the respective days.

Invesco Galaxy Bitcoin ETF (BTCO) recorded $6.7 million in inflows on Monday, marking its first positive daily flow since July 1. The inflow represented about 3.9% of BTCO’s cumulative net inflows of $172 million, according to Farside.

Source: Galaxy Research

Galaxy Research, the research arm of crypto investment company Galaxy Digital, has emerged as one of the most prominent sources tracking the Coldcard incident. Alex Thorn, Galaxy Digital’s head of firmwide research, and his team have regularly published estimates on affected addresses and potential losses linked to the incident.

Coldcard hack gives new weight to Bitcoin ETF custody argument

Eric Balchunas, senior ETF analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence, said the Coldcard hack could encourage greater migration toward Bitcoin ETFs, as investors reconsider the role of institutional custody.

In a post on Tuesday, Balchunas said ETFs’ reliance on traditional financial institutions to safeguard assets could increasingly be seen as an advantage. He wrote that what was once considered a “bug” by some crypto users may “all the sudden seem like a feature” as investors compare institutional custodians with smaller crypto companies.

Related: Boltz pauses service after wave of AI-assisted hacking attempts

Separately, Balchunas also pointed to broader changes in the ETF market, including the closure of Hashdex’s spot Bitcoin ETF and BlackRock’s planned reverse split for its Ethereum ETF.

BTC steady as traders weigh custody concerns

Bitcoin remained relatively stable as traders assessed the Coldcard incident and other sources of selling pressure, including the latest 1,638 BTC sale by Michael Saylor’s Strategy.

At publishing time, BTC traded at $64,113, down around 0.8% over the past seven days, according to CoinGecko. The asset’s lowest price during that period fell below $62,500.

Source: Bitcoin Munger

Some observers argued that those behind the Coldcard incident may face challenges moving or converting the affected funds because Bitcoin transactions can be publicly tracked. Crypto commentator Shagun wrote in an X post on Sunday that large fund movements would likely attract scrutiny from blockchain researchers, exchanges and other market participants.

Magazine: Sorry everyone, Bitcoin is headed down to $43,500: Michael Terpin

Trending Cryptos

Related Questions

QWhat was the net inflow amount for US-listed spot Bitcoin ETFs on Tuesday according to SoSoValue?

AUS-listed spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded a net inflow of $211.5 million on Tuesday.

QHow much in suspected Bitcoin losses did Galaxy Research estimate from the Coldcard hardware wallet hack?

AGalaxy Research estimated that the Coldcard hack resulted in about $130 million in suspected Bitcoin (BTC) losses.

QWhich Bitcoin ETF, led by which firm, recorded the largest inflows on Monday and Tuesday?

ABlackRock's iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) led the ETF recovery, recording $111 million in inflows on Monday and $170 million on Tuesday.

QAccording to Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Eric Balchunas, how might the Coldcard hack affect investor behavior towards Bitcoin ETFs?

AEric Balchunas suggested the Coldcard hack could encourage greater migration toward Bitcoin ETFs, as investors reconsider the advantages of institutional custody offered by traditional financial institutions.

QAt the time of publishing, what was Bitcoin's (BTC) price and its approximate weekly change?

AAt publishing time, Bitcoin (BTC) traded at $64,113, down around 0.8% over the past seven days.

Related Reads

Playing the "Decoupling" Card Again? Domestic Optical Modules Face a Stress Test

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is reportedly drafting a ban on importing new models of Chinese-made optical transceiver modules, with a potential implementation target of 2026. This "decoupling" move comes as Chinese firms, led by industry leaders like Zhongji Innolight and Eoptolink, dominate the global optical module market with over 60% share, and hold an even larger position in the high-speed 800G and 1.6T segments critical for AI data centers. Market reactions were mixed: U.S. optical module stocks initially rose, while Chinese A-shares opened lower but largely recovered by the close. Analysis suggests a complete U.S. decoupling from Chinese modules faces significant hurdles. North American cloud giants (Meta, Google, Microsoft, Amazon) and NVIDIA have massive demand for high-speed modules, estimated at around 40 million units in 2026. U.S. manufacturers' combined monthly production capacity for these modules is less than one-fifth that of a single major Chinese player like Zhongji Innolight, which reported production of 23.76 million units in 2025. Chinese companies are heavily reliant on the U.S. market, with over 90% of revenue for top firms coming from overseas, primarily the U.S. However, they have begun mitigating risks by establishing assembly plants in Southeast Asia and Mexico. Industry observers note the final impact depends on whether any potential U.S. restrictions target specific companies or products based on origin. Past U.S. sanctions on Chinese tech firms have often spurred increased domestic R&D and market diversification. Despite initial stock volatility, shares of major Chinese optical module companies pared losses, indicating market belief in the sector's resilience and the practical difficulties of abruptly replacing Chinese supply.

marsbit11m ago

Playing the "Decoupling" Card Again? Domestic Optical Modules Face a Stress Test

marsbit11m ago

When the Competition in Chip Manufacturing Equipment Stops Being Just About Who Is More Advanced

The competition in chip manufacturing equipment is no longer solely about who has the most advanced technology. While performance, yield, and cost remain key, U.S. export controls are adding a critical new dimension: long-term supply chain reliability. Major chipmakers like Samsung and SK Hynix, despite having mature supply chains with leading American and European vendors, are reportedly evaluating etching equipment from China's AMEC for their Chinese factories. This move is not primarily about immediate replacement or AMEC's current capabilities. Instead, it's a risk mitigation strategy. Companies are concerned that future U.S. policies could disrupt their access to spare parts, software updates, and maintenance for existing equipment over its decade-long lifespan. For chipmakers investing billions in fabs with long planning cycles, this policy-induced uncertainty is a significant new risk. The U.S., through its controls, is inadvertently eroding the very reliability and certainty that were foundational strengths of its equipment suppliers. This creates a pivotal shift for Chinese semiconductor equipment. Previously seen largely as a "domestic replacement" option when foreign gear was unavailable, they are now being assessed as potential "contingency suppliers" by global players—even before a supply disruption occurs. This provides a crucial entry point for validation in real production lines, which is essential for iterative improvement. Chinese equipment, particularly in areas like etching, has progressed from prototypes to participating in mass production within China, gaining valuable experience. However, this does not signify full global competitiveness. Gaps remain in advanced lithography, metrology, and other key tools. The current evaluations are largely confined to foreign firms' China-based fabs, not their global procurement networks. The core change is in the decision-making framework. Efficiency-driven globalization favored single, optimal suppliers. An era of heightened geopolitical risk is forcing companies to value "replaceability." While technical prowess remains paramount, supply chain certainty is now being factored into a device's competitive equation. Ultimately, U.S. policies have not made Chinese equipment more advanced, but they have given global customers a compelling reason to start testing it. The competition has expanded: it's no longer just about who is more advanced, but also about who can be relied upon to stay.

marsbit12m ago

When the Competition in Chip Manufacturing Equipment Stops Being Just About Who Is More Advanced

marsbit12m ago

Trading Volume Increased by 2.5x, Why Did Circle's Revenue Only Grow by 7%?

Circle's Q2 performance presents a seemingly contradictory picture: the transaction volume of its stablecoin USDC surged 151% year-over-year to $14.8 trillion, while its "Total Revenue & Reserve Revenue" grew by only 7% to $701 million. This discrepancy highlights the core of Circle's business model. Revenue is primarily driven not by transaction volume, but by the average amount of USDC in circulation and the yield generated from its reserves. Key points: 1. **Revenue Drivers:** Over 90% of revenue comes from "reserve income," which is a function of average USDC circulation (up 25% YoY) and the reserve yield (which fell by 66 basis points). The net effect was a mere ~5% increase in reserve income. 2. **Transaction vs. Revenue:** High transaction volume indicates robust usage of USDC for payments and settlements, but does not translate directly to revenue. It must first convert into a sustained, average circulating balance. 3. **Cost Structure:** After accounting for distribution and other costs, the metric "Revenue Less Direct Costs" (RLDC) grew faster than total revenue, with its margin improving. However, rising operating expenses (up 23% YoY) meant that Adjusted EBITDA growth was limited to 8%. 4. **New Initiatives:** Circle reported progress on new networks like the Circle Payments Network and upcoming products (Arc, Agent Stack), but these are currently measured by adoption metrics (e.g., transaction run-rate, number of services) rather than material revenue contribution this quarter. In summary, the financial results are determined by the interplay of USDC circulation, reserve yields, and cost structures, while high transaction volume signals underlying network strength that has not yet fully flowed through to the income statement.

marsbit29m ago

Trading Volume Increased by 2.5x, Why Did Circle's Revenue Only Grow by 7%?

marsbit29m ago

Samsung China, Another Step Back

Samsung China Takes Another Step Back Samsung Electronics is further retreating from the Chinese consumer market. Following the exit of its home appliance business in May, its mobile phone division is now reportedly scaling down. Stores with monthly sales below 300,000 RMB are being closed in several cities. Data shows Samsung's smartphone market share in China has plummeted to 0.1% in Q2 2026, a stark contrast to its 22% global leadership. The decline is attributed to intense competition from domestic brands offering better value, higher specs (like faster charging), and superior localization in software and services. Samsung's premium pricing and less adapted One UI system have struggled against rivals like Huawei, Xiaomi, and Honor. This consumer electronics retreat coincides with Samsung's record-breaking semiconductor profits, driven by the AI boom. In Q2 2026, the chip division contributed nearly all operating profit, while the mobile and home appliance unit posted its first-ever operating loss. Internal dynamics, like the chip division charging market prices to the mobile unit, have increased cost pressures. Samsung's strategy now appears to be a focused retreat towards the ultra-premium segment in China, similar to its global push in high-end foldables like the Galaxy Z Fold8. The company is likely to retain only key stores in major cities to serve a niche, high-end clientele. While its deep semiconductor reserves offer a cushion, this shift away from mass-market consumer electronics reduces business diversification. The move is pragmatic but signifies a fundamental transformation; Samsung is ceding mass-market influence and betting heavily on its semiconductor strength and a narrowed premium product focus.

marsbit33m ago

Samsung China, Another Step Back

marsbit33m ago

Trading

Spot

Hot Articles

What is $BITCOIN

DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN): A Comprehensive Analysis Introduction to DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) is a blockchain-based project operating on the Solana network, which aims to combine the characteristics of traditional precious metals with the innovation of decentralized technologies. While it shares a name with Bitcoin, often referred to as “digital gold” due to its perception as a store of value, DIGITAL GOLD is a separate token designed to create a unique ecosystem within the Web3 landscape. Its goal is to position itself as a viable alternative digital asset, although specifics regarding its applications and functionalities are still developing. What is DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN)? DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) is a cryptocurrency token explicitly designed for use on the Solana blockchain. In contrast to Bitcoin, which provides a widely recognized value storage role, this token appears to focus on broader applications and characteristics. Notable aspects include: Blockchain Infrastructure: The token is built on the Solana blockchain, known for its capacity to handle high-speed and low-cost transactions. Supply Dynamics: DIGITAL GOLD has a maximum supply capped at 100 quadrillion tokens (100P $BITCOIN), although details regarding its circulating supply are currently undisclosed. Utility: While precise functionalities are not explicitly outlined, there are indications that the token could be utilized for various applications, potentially involving decentralized applications (dApps) or asset tokenization strategies. Who is the Creator of DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN)? At present, the identity of the creators and development team behind DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) remains unknown. This situation is typical among many innovative projects within the blockchain space, particularly those aligning with decentralized finance and meme coin phenomena. While such anonymity may foster a community-driven culture, it intensifies concerns about governance and accountability. Who are the Investors of DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN)? The available information indicates that DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) does not have any known institutional backers or prominent venture capital investments. The project seems to operate on a peer-to-peer model focused on community support and adoption rather than traditional funding routes. Its activity and liquidity are primarily situated on decentralized exchanges (DEXs), such as PumpSwap, rather than established centralized trading platforms, further highlighting its grassroots approach. How DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) Works The operational mechanics of DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) can be elaborated on based on its blockchain design and network attributes: Consensus Mechanism: By leveraging Solana’s unique proof-of-history (PoH) combined with a proof-of-stake (PoS) model, the project ensures efficient transaction validation contributing to the network's high performance. Tokenomics: While specific deflationary mechanisms have not been extensively detailed, the vast maximum token supply implies that it may cater to microtransactions or niche use cases that are still to be defined. Interoperability: There exists the potential for integration with Solana’s broader ecosystem, including various decentralized finance (DeFi) platforms. However, the details regarding specific integrations remain unspecified. Timeline of Key Events Here is a timeline that highlights significant milestones concerning DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN): 2023: The initial deployment of the token occurs on the Solana blockchain, marked by its contract address. 2024: DIGITAL GOLD gains visibility as it becomes available for trading on decentralized exchanges like PumpSwap, allowing users to trade it against SOL. 2025: The project witnesses sporadic trading activity and potential interest in community-led engagements, although no noteworthy partnerships or technical advancements have been documented as of yet. Critical Analysis Strengths Scalability: The underlying Solana infrastructure supports high transaction volumes, which could enhance the utility of $BITCOIN in various transaction scenarios. Accessibility: The potential low trading price per token could attract retail investors, facilitating wider participation due to fractional ownership opportunities. Risks Lack of Transparency: The absence of publicly known backers, developers, or an audit process may yield skepticism regarding the project's sustainability and trustworthiness. Market Volatility: The trading activity is heavily reliant on speculative behavior, which can result in significant price volatility and uncertainty for investors. Conclusion DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) emerges as an intriguing yet ambiguous project within the rapidly evolving Solana ecosystem. While it attempts to leverage the “digital gold” narrative, its departure from Bitcoin's established role as a store of value underscores the need for a clearer differentiation of its intended utility and governance structure. Future acceptance and adoption will likely depend on addressing the current opacity and defining its operational and economic strategies more explicitly. Note: This report encompasses synthesised information available as of October 2023, and developments may have transpired beyond the research period.

1.5k Total ViewsPublished 2025.05.13Updated 2025.05.13

What is $BITCOIN

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of BTC (BTC) are presented below.

活动图片