In the past eighteen months, the main narrative of crypto assets has shifted from "market-driven" to "product-driven." A landmark event was the approval and stable operation of the U.S. spot Bitcoin ETF, followed by the official listing of the spot Ethereum ETF in July 2024, marking a transition from a "single leader" to "multi-asset exposure." This process effectively integrates mainstream crypto assets into a familiar asset management and trading ecosystem.

Improvements at the structural level are occurring, moving beyond the question of "can it be launched." In July 2025, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) allowed crypto ETPs to adopt an in-kind redemption model, bringing their operation closer to traditional commodity ETFs, which is expected to enhance trading efficiency and reduce costs, alleviating tracking and fee friction caused by cash redemptions. This is an important "infrastructure upgrade" for institutional market making, arbitrage, and risk management.

From a regional perspective, Hong Kong introduced spot Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs in April 2024, incorporating an in-kind redemption mechanism from the outset, providing regulated crypto indexing tools for the Asian time zone. Although initial trading was moderate, its institutional design and time zone advantages leave room for subsequent cross-border capital and regional institutional allocations.

From a cyclical perspective: ETFs transform "crypto-native risk" into "public fund holding risk." This means:

• Pricing power and volatility structures are more easily influenced by capital flows and rebalancing rhythms (quarterly, monthly, passive index weight changes), rather than just on-chain narratives;
• The improvement of compliant custody and market-making networks has lowered the costs of institutional entry and exit, making the positive feedback loop of "incremental capital—price—media attention—further increment" easier to occur;
• When macro policies face uncertainty or expectations of nominal interest rate declines arise, ETFs become a more executable "crypto exposure" vehicle within traditional portfolios, amplifying the transmission efficiency of hedging and allocation demands. The aforementioned relaxation of redemption arrangements in the U.S. is a key link in this transmission chain.

In terms of category extension, market focus is shifting from the "BTC-ETH dual core" to "what's next." On one hand, the launch of the spot Ethereum ETF has completed the institutional coverage of "functional public chain assets"; on the other hand, several institutions have submitted or revised applications for a spot Solana ETF to the SEC. Historical experience shows that regulation often advances along the path of "first having a regulated futures market, then reassessing spot ETFs"—the CME's announcement of plans to launch Solana futures has been interpreted by some institutions as one of the necessary conditions to "pave the way for subsequent ETFs," but whether it can proceed still depends on regulatory assessments of market integrity.

Regulatory orientation remains a variable determining the speed of extension. In July 2025, the SEC provided further operational guidance on crypto ETFs, seen as an early step towards a clearer regulatory framework; this not only responds to compliance needs following rapid product expansion but also leaves a policy observation window for subsequent new categories (including whether to introduce more on-chain yield factors). For issuers and institutional investors, the predictability of compliance is more important than short-term "thematic imagination."

Three impacts on investment and the industry:

• The "slow variable" of capital structure: As 401(k)s, pensions, and wealth management channels gradually assess crypto ETFs, the marginal increment may be more stable and longer in duration, meaning that upward trends will rely more on sustained capital supply rather than single-event stimuli.

• The "new order" of volatility: The after-hours and overnight gaps of ETFs, along with passive flows on rebalancing days, may amplify short-term volatility; however, the improvement of professional market making and futures hedging will lower structural volatility over longer cycles.

• The "re-decentralization" of narrative: ETFs refocus attention on the asset's "institutionally holdable" attributes: compliance, custody, liquidity, and derivative support, rather than relying solely on on-chain hotspots. After the Ethereum ETF, the "coupling quality" of the public chain ecosystem's fundamentals and off-chain compliance ecosystem will determine its relative performance.

Risks and constraints are equally clear:

• Compliance boundaries: If product design involves on-chain yield or staking attributes, it may easily touch regulatory red lines, and approval rhythms and disclosure requirements will be more cautious;

• Market integrity: Higher demands for the robust operation of market making, clearing, and custody mean that any single point of failure could amplify systemic volatility through the ETF channel;

• Authenticity of demand: Aside from Bitcoin, the demand for ETFs of other assets still needs time to be tested. If the fundamentals and ecological activity are insufficient, productization does not automatically equate to an upward shift in asset pricing.

In summary: The success of the first phase has transformed the question from "can it be launched" to "how to launch it better." The U.S. relaxation of in-kind redemptions, Hong Kong's pioneering mechanism, and potential Solana futures and ETF applications collectively constitute a "second leap" for crypto ETFs. In this process, investors need to pay more attention to product structure, compliance details, and capital rhythms, rather than relying solely on "new product launches" as trading signals. In the next cycle, ETFs may still ignite the market, but how far they can run depends on whether the micro-mechanisms can withstand the test of time and pressure.

Related: Solana developers charged $5,000 for a single query on Google Cloud BigQuery

Original article: “The Second Leap of Cryptocurrency ETFs: From Bitcoin (BTC) to Ethereum (ETH), and What Comes Next?”

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。