On January 24, 2026, ARK Invest submitted applications for two crypto ETFs linked to the CoinDesk 20 Index to regulators, stepping into the spotlight of the market. The core design of this move is an ARK CoinDesk 20 Crypto ETF that includes Bitcoin, and an ARK CoinDesk 20 ex-Bitcoin Crypto ETF that explicitly excludes Bitcoin, creating distinctly different risk and exposure structures within the same index framework. This dual product offering is not only seen as a new attempt for traditional finance to deepen its entry into the world of crypto assets but is also interpreted as a landmark event marking the crypto market's entry into the "indexation gateway" phase. The real question worth asking is: as index-based tools built around mainstream crypto assets gradually become systematic, through what paths will institutions participate in this asset class, and to what extent will they reshape the pricing structure and participation rules of the crypto market?
ARK Launches Dual ETFs: Betting on the CoinDesk 20 Index Gateway
● Basic Framework and Differences: The ARK CoinDesk 20 Crypto ETF and the ARK CoinDesk 20 ex-Bitcoin Crypto ETF both anchor to the CoinDesk 20 Index but deliberately differentiate on whether to include Bitcoin. The former is a "full basket" version that includes Bitcoin, providing a one-stop access for funds that wish to gain direct exposure to the overall industry beta without excluding BTC; the latter, by excluding Bitcoin, offers a tool focused on "non-BTC mainstream assets" for those who believe BTC is already sufficiently covered by existing products or wish to finely split risks at the portfolio level.
● CoinDesk 20's "Blue Chip List" Positioning: Although the current brief does not provide specific components and weights of the CoinDesk 20, the industry generally views it as a representative index covering top assets by market capitalization and liquidity, akin to a "blue chip list" in the crypto world. For traditional financial institutions, such indices provide a benchmarkable, trackable, and quantifiable asset pool that allows compliant funds to build crypto exposure without needing to study the fundamentals of each individual coin.
● New Channels for Indexation and Non-Bitcoin Exposure: As Golden Finance commented, these two products are seen as "new channels for traditional funds to allocate around mainstream crypto asset indexation and non-Bitcoin exposure." The BTC-inclusive version corresponds to a basket allocation of "overall industry + core assets," while the BTC-excluded version structurally encourages funds to separate Bitcoin exposure from other mainstream assets, allowing for independent consideration of returns, volatility, and correlation at the portfolio level, thus forming a more refined risk management approach.
● Unknown Details and Information Boundaries: Currently, the application documents have not provided a timeline for regulatory approval, nor disclosed key operational details such as specific component weights and rebalancing mechanisms. This means the market can only make macro judgments based on the index framework itself and product structure, without being able to make detailed deductions on potential component adjustment paths or tracking error control methods. In the absence of this information, all quantitative speculations about when the products will be approved and how much capital will flow in are at most emotional interpretations rather than verifiable analyses.
From Bitcoin to Full Basket: Wall Street's Perspective Shift
● Old Pathways for Institutional Entry: In this round of institutionalization, the primary way traditional funds first engaged with crypto assets was through single asset ETFs and trust products, particularly those built around Bitcoin. From early over-the-counter trusts to subsequent spot or futures-linked ETFs, Bitcoin has long been viewed as synonymous with "crypto assets = BTC." The advantage of this pathway is its straightforward narrative and clear compliance framework, but it has also long locked institutional understanding of crypto into a single-coin betting perspective, making it difficult to reflect the opportunities and risks of the entire industry's structural evolution.
● Dual Versions Meet Layered Risk Preferences: ARK's simultaneous launch of the CoinDesk 20 ETF with and without Bitcoin essentially responds to the layered risk preferences of institutions. For funds that are newly entering crypto assets and prefer a "from large to small" allocation logic, the BTC-inclusive full basket version is closer to the path dependency of traditional index investing; whereas for institutions that already hold Bitcoin through other products or believe that BTC's volatility characteristics and regulatory sensitivity are too high, the ex-Bitcoin version provides a structured option to "participate in other mainstream asset cycles without increasing BTC exposure."
● Basket Risk Diversification and Industry Beta: The key selling point of index basket products is the combination of "diversifying individual risks" and "capturing overall industry beta" within the same tool. In the high-volatility, frequently changing narrative environment of the crypto market, configuring through an index covering 20 top assets can mitigate the impact of black swan events on a single token while maximizing alignment with the direction of overall industry market capitalization and liquidity expansion. This structure lowers the research threshold and provides a scalable vehicle for passive funds.
● From Single-Coin Speculation to Asset-Level Layout: The signal released by ARK's actions is that Wall Street's mainstream perspective is shifting from "whether to bet on a specific coin" to "how to layout the entire crypto asset hierarchy." Indexation tools re-embed tokens from isolated speculative targets into a layered logic of "asset class - sub-index - single asset," gradually aligning the crypto world with traditional asset allocation frameworks. The long-term impact of this shift may not lie in short-term price fluctuations, but in who defines "representative industry assets" and their positions on institutional balance sheets.
Crowded Track: Competing with the S&P Crypto Index
● Cyber Hornet's S&P Crypto 10 ETF Application: Around the same time ARK was positioning around the CoinDesk 20, Cyber Hornet also submitted an application for the S&P Crypto 10 ETF to regulators, directly binding the target index to one of the most brand-recognized index providers in traditional finance. The simultaneous emergence of both indicates that "crypto index + ETF" has moved from conceptual exploration to a crowded product track, with various institutions beginning to compete for the first impression and allocation habits of institutional funds around different index compilation agencies and component compositions.
● Differences and Audiences of CoinDesk 20 and S&P Crypto 10: As can be seen from the naming, CoinDesk 20 has a broader number of components, theoretically covering a wider range of mainstream assets and attempting to present a more complete industry cross-section; the S&P Crypto 10 continues S&P's consistent "streamlined top" approach, emphasizing brand endorsement and concentrated expression of the most influential assets. The former may attract institutions willing to accept a certain level of complexity and seeking broader industry exposure, while the latter is more suitable for traditional passive funds, viewing it as a natural extension of stock index strategies into the crypto space.
● Tokenized Gold Surpassing $5 Billion as a Side Signal: Meanwhile, the total market capitalization of tokenized gold has surpassed $5 billion, providing another coordinate system for this round of "Wall Street cryptoization": it is not only native crypto assets that are moving towards Wall Street, but traditional physical assets are also being "reverse absorbed" by crypto vehicles. The process of gold being split, tokenized, and circulated is logically highly similar to that of index-based crypto ETFs—both incorporate originally heterogeneous targets into a unified liquidity and pricing system through standardization and traceable financial shells.
● The Invisible Game Among the Same Batch of Compliant Funds: Crypto index ETFs and tokenized gold and other physical asset tokens are essentially competing for the same batch of compliant incremental funds seeking new types of alternative asset exposure. The former offers a "new asset class gateway" with high volatility and high growth stories, while the latter promotes a compromise solution of "traditional safe-haven assets + new infrastructure." For asset allocation teams, under limited risk budgets, whether to tilt weights towards crypto indices or allocate seemingly more familiar gold tokens is a long-term game about narrative, regulatory comfort, and liquidity expectations.
Vitalik's Warning: The Light and Shadow of Institutionalization
● Vitalik's Attitude: Supportive but Cautious: During the same phase of rising narratives around tokenization and ETFs, Vitalik Buterin has repeatedly discussed the relationship between institutions and the crypto ecosystem, with an attitude that can be summarized as "support participation, but remain highly vigilant." On one hand, he acknowledges that the influx of institutions and compliant funds helps enhance infrastructure security and market stability, promoting mainstream society's recognition of crypto technology; on the other hand, he warns the community to be cautious, as over-reliance on traditional financial intermediaries and compliant channels may inadvertently erode decentralized decision-making mechanisms and values.
● The Conflict Between Decentralized Ideals and Compliant Funds: The entry of traditional institutions like ARK symbolizes the direct collision between "demand for compliant funds" and "decentralized ideals." On one hand, traditional vehicles like ETFs are a necessary path for large-scale funds to enter crypto assets, relying on custodians, market makers, index providers, and other centralized nodes to provide legal and operational security; on the other hand, the crypto ecosystem originally aimed to reduce dependence on centralized financial intermediaries, and as more liquidity gets locked into off-chain financial tools, the relative importance of on-chain native interactions and governance risks being diluted.
● The Hidden Dangers of Indexation and "Passive Governance": Index products inherently carry a mechanism of "further concentration of top assets"—as long as the index selects components based on market capitalization and liquidity, capital inflows will accelerate the strong getting stronger. In the crypto context, this may mean that new narratives and small-cap projects find it harder to break through existing structures. At the same time, as more and more chips in the market are held by passive ETFs, governance voting rights either become dormant or concentrate in a few custodial institutions and agents, forming a "passive governance" similar to traditional capital markets, gradually diverging from the original intention of community autonomy and broad participation.
● The Question of On-Chain Users' Roles When ETFs Dominate Pricing: An unavoidable question is: as the main battlefield for price discovery gradually tilts towards off-chain tools like ETFs, how can on-chain native users maintain their voice and pricing influence? Is it through more active participation in governance and development, highlighting the core position of on-chain activities for network security and value support, or must new mechanisms be constructed to more closely link the returns and governance rights of ETF holdings with on-chain identities? This proposition has no ready answers but will determine whether the crypto ecosystem moves towards "off-chain financial shells as the dominant force" or forms a new balance of mutual checks between on-chain and off-chain.
Behind the Unknowns of Approval: The Long-Term Struggle for Distribution Rights of Crypto Assets
● Uncertainty in Regulatory Direction: Whether it is ARK's dual CoinDesk 20 ETFs or Cyber Hornet's S&P Crypto 10 ETF, both are currently in a stage of unknown approval timelines and high uncertainty regarding their final outcomes. In the absence of clear regulatory signals, any predictions about approval probabilities, potential capital inflow scales, or first-day trading enthusiasm are more emotional outbursts than rigorous judgments. The only thing that can be confirmed is that regulatory agencies still hold the final gate to whether the products can become "compliant gateways."
● The Puzzle of Wall Street's Cryptoization Landscape: From ARK's bet on the CoinDesk 20 index to the emergence of S&P's crypto ETFs, and the market capitalization of tokenized gold surpassing $5 billion, a clearer picture of Wall Street's cryptoization landscape is coming together: native crypto assets are being incorporated into traditional asset allocation frameworks through indices and ETFs; traditional commodities and precious metals are being accessed through tokenization into on-chain infrastructure; the two intersect at the funding level, gradually turning the "on-chain - off-chain" boundary into a traversable channel rather than a clear dividing line.
● Changes in Market Structure After the Formation of the Index System: Once the product system built around indices like CoinDesk 20 and S&P Crypto 10 is fully established, the path for institutions to allocate crypto will resemble that of traditional stocks and commodities: first deciding whether to allocate to this asset class, and then distributing weights among different indices and styles. For the market, this may bring two significant structural changes: first, capital flows will be more driven by passive rules and periodic rebalancing, intensifying the volatility around "event days" and rebalancing windows; second, index compilers and ETF issuers will, in an invisible way, gain the authority to define "what constitutes mainstream assets."
● A Calm Reminder for Investors: For individual investors, what truly deserves attention is not whether a particular ETF can trigger a flood of capital in a short time, but rather how the product is designed, how the index is compiled, and how regulations are implemented—these structural issues. Understanding the logic of index component selection, rebalancing rules, and custody arrangements is more meaningful in reality than chasing the short-term narrative of "soaring upon approval." In the era of indexation, the crypto market may experience more intense volatility and more complex narratives, and maintaining sensitivity to risk structures and institutional designs is the bottom line that participants need to uphold.
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。
