On January 15th, 8 AM UTC, market statistics showed that Solana's spot ETF recorded a net inflow of approximately $23.57 million to $23.60 million on January 14th, standing out among crypto assets on the same day. Among these, the Bitwise SOL ETF (BSOL) contributed about $20.86 million to $20.90 million in net inflow, while the Fidelity SOL ETF (FSOL) recorded about $1.70 million to $1.73 million in net inflow, with data sourced from SoSoValue and Farside Investors. This article will focus on three main lines regarding the concentrated inflow of funds on that single day: why institutions prefer products like BSOL with a high proportion of staking features; what the slight data discrepancies under different third-party statistical standards imply; and how this single-day fund flow reflects the changing position of Solana from an institutional perspective against the backdrop of capital migration and global product layout.

A Magnifying Glass on the $23.60 Million Fund Inflow

● Fund Breakdown and Data Range: According to statistics from SoSoValue and Farside Investors, the overall net inflow for Solana's spot ETF on January 14th was approximately $23.57 million to $23.60 million. Among these, BSOL had a net inflow of about $20.86 million to $20.90 million, and FSOL had a net inflow of about $1.70 million to $1.73 million. The two institutions showed slight discrepancies in specific values at the level of several hundred thousand dollars, but the direction and magnitude were highly consistent, indicating a clear tilt of funds towards the Solana ETF on that day.
● Dominant Product Landscape: In terms of contribution ratio, roughly estimating based on the above range, BSOL contributed about 90% of the net inflow to the Solana ETF on that day, while FSOL provided a single-digit percentage of incremental funds. Whether according to SoSoValue or Farside's metrics, BSOL was the absolute main driver of this single-day "capital absorption" data, while FSOL played the role of a stable follower, forming a "primary and secondary" funding structure.
● Relative Market Performance: In the broader market environment on the same trading day, the overall crypto market exhibited more structural differentiation, with funds flowing in and out of some mainstream assets remaining moderate, while the over $20 million net inflow recorded by the Solana ETF was quite striking among similar single-asset ETFs. This performance not only amplified Solana's presence in the secondary market narrative but also strengthened its weight in the institutional crypto allocation basket.
● Statistical Boundaries and Interpretation Reminder: It is important to emphasize that the above figures represent the single-day performance on January 14th, and the statistical metrics are based on third-party platform estimates of subscriptions and redemptions, not official real-time settlement data. Investors should interpret these as a high-frequency, short-term slice of funds rather than simply extrapolating them as a long-term trend line, and they should not equate the day's net inflow with structural or continuous allocation commitments.

Behind the Fluctuations in Farside's Data

The funding data from January 14th also made the statistical process of Farside Investors a part of market discussion. According to public information, Farside initially misreported BSOL's daily fund performance as "zero inflow" in an early update, which was later corrected in subsequent updates to align with SoSoValue's data direction. This sequence of events did not involve exaggerated numerical discrepancies but rather resembled a technical interlude in the rhythm of statistics and updates. Comparing the funding data for BSOL and FSOL on the same date, both institutions provided net inflow values within the narrow range of $20.86 million to $20.90 million and $1.70 million to $1.73 million, with differences concentrated at the level of several hundred thousand dollars, typical of slight deviations caused by estimation metrics and timing rather than stark contradictions or significant discrepancies. Possible sources of these differences include: different sampling points for subscription and redemption registration times; whether to include some post-market or delayed-clearing shares in the day's count; differences in update frequency and exchange rate conversion timing, etc. A long-term comparison between the two institutions reveals that such data fluctuations more reflect the statistical standards of crypto ETFs still being refined, rather than subjective manipulation or deliberate misguidance. This also raises a broader question: while crypto ETF funding data is closer to traditional finance than on-chain activities, it still faces significant challenges in transparency and traceability. For researchers and traders, relying on a single data source can amplify the impact of occasional deviations, making the use of multi-source data cross-validation, and paying attention to revision records and metric explanations, increasingly necessary operational norms when analyzing crypto ETF fund flows.

Institutional Preference for Solana's Product Logic

Behind the single-day net inflow event on January 14th, the prevailing market view is that BSOL and FSOL are the two main products driving recent fund inflows related to Solana, forming a clear tiered advantage in the Solana spot ETF space. The paths to their dominant positions are not entirely the same, with one of the most notable features of BSOL being its product design that incorporates a high proportion of Solana staking mechanisms. This means that part of the underlying holdings will participate in Solana network staking, thereby providing additional staking returns for ETF investors. Within the traditional institutional asset allocation framework, such "yield-bearing spot exposure" helps enhance overall return expectations without amplifying leverage, thus somewhat mitigating holding costs, making BSOL more appealing to institutions seeking risk asset return premiums in a still-constrained interest rate environment. In contrast, FSOL's product design is more conservative, with a structure closer to traditional spot ETFs, and its brand relies on Fidelity's long-standing reputation and custodial capabilities in the global asset management field. Although this results in FSOL lagging significantly behind BSOL in terms of scale and daily fund contribution, the brand endorsement and compliance framework itself naturally attract some cautious institutions, allowing it to still secure continuous incremental funds, playing the role of a "defensive allocation entry" in the entire Solana ETF ecosystem. Extending further into the ecological aspect, the tentative institutional allocation towards Solana reflects a long-term logical recognition of its status as a high-performance public chain. Whether driven by the DeFi activity resulting from high-frequency, low-cost trading characteristics, or ongoing experiments in NFTs and on-chain applications, Solana's network utilization provides substantial fundamental support for the spot ETF. For institutions pursuing "narrative-driven stories + quantifiable metrics," on-chain active users, trading volume, and protocol TVL performance are all important variables supporting ETF demand and reinforcing holding confidence, thereby tightly binding product characteristics with the growth path of the underlying public chain ecosystem.

Capital Migration from Mining to ETFs

If we view the $23.60 million net inflow of Solana's spot ETF on January 14th as a static frame, the dynamic background is the deep restructuring of the capital and mining revenue structure. According to research briefs, North American mining pools' global share has dropped from about 40% at the beginning of the year to about 35%, and this decline is not merely a result of competitive hashing power but reflects the ongoing squeeze on mining profitability under multiple pressures. Amid the resonance of electricity costs, regulatory environments, and cryptocurrency price cycles, traditional Bitcoin mining companies' cash flow safety nets have thinned, forcing them to reassess the efficiency of capital and hardware investments. Meanwhile, several mining companies in the U.S. are partially migrating their existing infrastructure and technical capabilities to the AI infrastructure sector, such as shifting power centers and cooling systems from serving PoW mining to serving AI training clusters, directly diminishing the attractiveness of Bitcoin mining as a primary destination for capital. Under this migration logic, part of the hashing power and capital is withdrawing from the "mining end," necessitating new, structurally more flexible crypto exposures to take over. Various crypto ETFs, including Solana, are gradually becoming alternative expression tools for this capital: they no longer rely on high-energy-consuming hardware investments but achieve indirect participation in public chain asset prices and ecological growth through financialized products. This shift of funds from mining to ETFs constitutes a medium to long-term background variable for the incremental funds received by Solana's spot ETF. Within this framework, the $23.60 million net inflow on January 14th is merely a small snapshot in this structural migration process, more like a coordinate point on a longer trajectory of capital migration rather than the entirety of the story itself.

Launch of Swedish ETP and Global Network Effects

Another clue that cannot be overlooked is the synergistic effect of the issuer's global layout of various Solana-related financial products. According to research briefs, Bitwise has launched a crypto ETP product containing Solana in Sweden, which synchronizes with its issuance of Solana's spot ETF in the U.S. For Bitwise, locking in institutionally and compliance-driven funds denominated in dollars through ETFs in the U.S. while serving local investors with ETPs in Europe allows it to build a dual moat of brand and liquidity network under different regulatory and investor structures. The same issuer launching Solana-related products in multiple regions creates synergies in sales, market-making, and research, enhancing the convenience of potential funds "rotating" across markets. For Solana assets themselves, the multi-region, multi-carrier product matrix significantly enhances their accessibility: investors in the dollar zone can participate through U.S. stock market ETFs, while European institutions and family offices can establish positions through ETPs on local exchanges, thereby further amplifying Solana's presence in the global institutional asset allocation basket. However, it is important to clarify that there are substantial differences between different jurisdictions in terms of regulatory rules, tax treatment, custodial arrangements, and product structure design; the U.S. spot ETF and the Swedish crypto ETP are not entirely homogeneous liquidity pools in terms of legal attributes and risk exposure. The two are more like "parallel reservoirs" distributed across different watersheds, which can influence each other in terms of sentiment and expectations, but still face multiple constraints in terms of direct fund interchange and cross-border arbitrage opportunities.

The Institutional Path of Solana After the Single-Day Surge

Returning to January 14th, several key facts can be clearly outlined: Solana's spot ETF recorded a net inflow of approximately $23.57 million to $23.60 million, with BSOL contributing about $20.86 million to $20.90 million and FSOL providing approximately $1.70 million to $1.73 million in incremental funds. Together, these two products formed the "explosion point" of funds for that day, during which SoSoValue and Farside Investors exhibited slight discrepancies in specific values, including a brief incident where Farside mistakenly reported BSOL as having zero inflow before correcting it. These statistical differences in data did not alter the overall funding inflow pattern but reminded the market of the importance of considering metrics and time dimensions when interpreting crypto ETFs. From a longer perspective, the institutional preference for BSOL's staking features, the simultaneous expansion of Solana-related products by issuers like Bitwise in the U.S. and Europe, and the capital migration from the decline of North American mining pool shares to mining companies shifting towards AI infrastructure collectively form the medium to long-term forces driving attention and funding towards Solana's spot ETF. However, there are still significant information blind spots surrounding the Solana ETF—key data such as overall AUM size and a complete historical cumulative net inflow path have not yet been fully transparent or confirmed. Investors relying solely on single-day net inflow data for aggressive allocations may easily be driven by short-term sentiment, overlooking the risks posed by potential volatility and changes in the ecological fundamentals. A more prudent judgment is that Solana is gradually gaining more tentative allocations from institutions, and related ETF products are continuously "breaking out" in terms of funding and product systems. However, whether this trend can evolve into sustained and large-scale incremental allocations depends on the continuity of subsequent fund flows, the genuine performance of Solana's ecological data, and the further shaping of the global regulatory environment for crypto financial products. For investors, tracking multi-source funding data and focusing on substantial ecological progress, rather than being overly reliant on short-term "capital absorption" figures, may be a more reliable way to understand Solana's institutional path.

Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh

OKX Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

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。