Crypto ETF Fund Outflows: Is BlackRock and Other Issuers Still Making Money?
Original Article Title: When Wrappers Run Red
Original Article Author: Prathik Desai, Token Dispatch
Original Article Translation: Luffy, Foresight News
During the first two weeks of October 2025, Bitcoin spot ETFs saw inflows of $32 billion and $27 billion, setting records for the highest and fifth-highest weekly net inflows in 2025.
Prior to this, Bitcoin ETFs were on track to achieve a "no consecutive outflow week" milestone in the second half of 2025.
However, the most severe cryptocurrency liquidation event in history occurred unexpectedly. This event, which resulted in the evaporation of assets worth $190 billion, continues to haunt the crypto market.

Net Fund Flows and Asset Net Value of Bitcoin Spot ETFs in October and November

Net Fund Flows and Asset Net Value of Ethereum Spot ETFs in October and November
However, in the seven weeks following the liquidation event, Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs experienced outflows in five weeks, totaling over $50 billion and $20 billion, respectively.
By the week ending November 21, the Net Asset Value (NAV) managed by the Bitcoin ETF issuer had shrunk from approximately $1.645 trillion to $1.101 trillion, while the Ethereum ETF's asset net value was nearly halved, dropping from $306 billion to $169 billion. This decline was partly due to the price decline of Bitcoin and Ethereum themselves, as well as some tokens being redeemed. In less than two months, the combined net asset value of Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs evaporated by about one-third.
The retreat in fund flows reflects not only investor sentiment but also directly impacts the fee income of ETF issuers.
Bitcoin and Ethereum spot ETFs are the "money printers" of institutions like BlackRock, Fidelity, Grayscale, Bitwise, etc. Each fund charges fees based on the assets under management, typically expressed as an annual fee rate but actually accrued based on daily net asset value.
Every day, the trust funds holding Bitcoin or Ethereum shares will sell a portion of their holdings to cover transaction fees and other operational expenses. For the issuer, this means that their annual revenue is approximately equal to the Assets Under Management (AUM) multiplied by the fee rate; for the holders, this results in a gradual dilution of the amount of tokens held over time.
The fee rate range for ETF issuers is between 0.15% and 2.50%.
Redemption or outflows of funds themselves do not directly result in profit or loss for the issuer, but outflows cause a reduction in the issuer's ultimately managed asset size, thereby decreasing the asset base on which fees can be collected.
On October 3, the total assets under management by Bitcoin and Ethereum ETF issuers reached $195 billion, considering the aforementioned fee levels, their fee pool size was considerable. However, by November 21, the remaining asset size of these products was only about $127 billion.

If we calculate the annualized fee income based on the weekend's assets under management, over the past two months, the potential revenue for Bitcoin ETFs has declined by over 25%; Ethereum ETF issuers have been more significantly affected, with a 35% decline in annualized revenue over the past nine weeks.

The Larger the Issuance Scale, the Harder the Fall
From the perspective of a single issuer, there are three slightly different trends behind the flow of funds.
For BlackRock, its business characteristics involve a combination of "economies of scale" and "cyclical fluctuations." Its IBIT and ETHA have become the default choices for mainstream investors to allocate Bitcoin and Ethereum through an ETF channel. This has allowed the world's largest asset management institution to charge a 0.25% fee based on its large asset base, especially when the asset size hit a record in early October, the gains were substantial. However, this also means that when large holders decided to reduce risk in November, IBIT and ETHA became the most direct selling targets.
The data is sufficient to support this: BlackRock's Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs saw annualized fee income declines of 28% and 38%, exceeding the industry average declines of 25% and 35%.
Vanguard's situation is similar to that of BlackRock, but on a relatively smaller scale. Its FBTC and FETH funds also followed the rhythm of "inflow first, outflow later," where the market enthusiasm in October was eventually replaced by outflows in November.
Grayscale's story is more about "historical legacy issues." Once upon a time, GBTC and ETHE were the only scaled channels for numerous U.S. investors to allocate Bitcoin and Ethereum through brokerage accounts. However, with institutions like BlackRock and Vanguard leading the market, Grayscale's monopoly position no longer exists. To make matters worse, the high fee structure of its early products has led to continued outflow pressure over the past two years.
The market performance in October and November also confirmed this investor tendency: when the market is bullish, funds will shift to lower-fee products; when the market weakens, positions will be significantly reduced.
The early Grayscale cryptocurrency products had a fee rate 6-10 times lower than low-cost ETFs. Although a high fee rate can boost revenue figures, the elevated cost will continuously drive investors away, diminishing the asset under management that generates fee income. The retained funds are often constrained by frictional costs such as taxation, investment mandates, operational processes, rather than stemming from active investor choices; and each outflow reminds the market: once a superior option arises, more holders will abandon high-fee products.
These ETF data unveil several key features of the current cryptocurrency institutionalization process.
The spot ETF market in October and November demonstrates that the cryptocurrency ETF management business is as cyclical as the underlying asset market. When asset prices rise and market sentiment is positive, inflows will drive up fee revenue; however, once the macro environment changes, funds will swiftly exit.
Although large issuance institutions have established efficient "fee channels" on Bitcoin and Ethereum assets, the volatility in October and November proves that these channels are also susceptible to market cycle impacts. For issuers, the core issue is how to retain assets in the face of a new market shock, avoiding significant fluctuations in fee revenue following macro trend changes.
While issuers cannot prevent investors from redeeming shares in a sell-off, income-generating products can to some extent mitigate downside risks.
Covered call option ETFs can provide investors with premium income (Note: A covered call option is an options trading strategy where an investor holds the underlying asset while simultaneously selling an equal number of call option contracts. Through collecting the premium, this strategy aims to enhance portfolio returns or hedge some risks.), offsetting some of the underlying asset price declines; collateralized products are also a viable direction. However, such products need to undergo regulatory review before being formally introduced to the market.
You may also like

Wall Street Shorts ETH: Vitalik is aware and has front-run, while Tom Lee remains oblivious

Social Capital CEO: How Equity Tokenization is Reshaping Capital Markets from US Stocks to SpaceX?

CoinGecko Report: Surge of 346% vs Dip of 20.8%, The Wild Rise of DEX

a16z: The Real Opportunity of Stablecoins Lies Not in Disruption but in Filling Gaps

Mining Exodus: Someone Holds $12.8 Billion AI Order

March 6 Market Key Intelligence, How Much Did You Miss?

a16z: The True Opportunity of Stablecoins is in Complementing, Not Disrupting
Predict LALIGA Matches, Shoot Daily & Win BTC, USDT and WXT on WEEX
The WEEX × LALIGA campaign brought together football excitement and crypto participation through a dynamic interactive experience. During the event, users predicted matches, completed trading tasks, and took daily shots to compete for rewards including BTC, USDT, WXT, and exclusive prizes.

Ray Dalio Dialogue: Why I'm Betting on Gold and Not Bitcoin

Who Took the Money in the AI Era? A Must-See Investment Checklist for HALO Asset Trading

Wall Street Bears Target Ethereum: Vitalik In the Know Takes Flight, Tom Lee Remains Bullish

Pump.fun Hacker Steals $2 Million, Receives 6-Year Prison Sentence, Opts for 'Self-Detonation'

6% Annual Percentage Yield as Musk Declares War on Traditional Banks

36 years, 4 wars, 1 script: How does capital price the world in conflict?

Mining Companies' Great Migration: Some Have Already Secured $12.8 Billion in AI Orders

What Is Vibe Coding? How AI Is Changing Web3 & Crypto Development
What is vibe coding? Learn how AI coding tools are lowering the barrier to Web3 development and enabling anyone to build crypto applications.

The parent company of the New York Stock Exchange strategically invests in OKX: The intentions behind the $25 billion valuation

WEEX P2P update: Country/region restrictions for ad posting
To improve ad security and matching accuracy, WEEX P2P now allows advertisers to restrict who can trade with their ads based on country or region. Advertisers can select preferred counterparty locations for a safer, smoother trading experience.
I. Overview
When publishing P2P ads, advertisers can now set the following:
Allow only counterparties from selected countries or regions to trade with your ads.
With this feature, you can:
Target specific user groups more precisely.Reduce cross-region trading risks.Improve order matching quality.
II. Applicable scenarios
The following are some common scenarios:
Restrict payment methods: Limit orders to users in your country using supported local banks or wallets.Risk control: Avoid trading with users from high-risk regions.Operational strategy: Tailor ads to specific markets.
III. How to get started
On the ad posting page, find "Trading requirements":
Select "Trade with users from selected countries or regions only".Then select the countries or regions to add to the allowlist.Use the search box to quickly find a country or region.Once your settings are complete, submit the ad to apply the restrictions.
When an advertiser enables the "Country/Region Restriction" feature, users who do not meet the criteria will be blocked when placing an order and will see the following prompt:
If you encounter this issue when placing an order as a regular user, try the following solutions.
Choose another ad: Select ads that do not restrict your country/region, or ads that allow users from your location.Show local ads only: Prioritize ads available in the same country as your identity verification.
IV. Benefits
Compared with ads without country/region restrictions, this feature provides the following improvements.
Aspect
Improvement
Trading security
Reduces abnormal orders and fraud risk
Conversion efficiency
Matches ads with more relevant users
Order completion rate
Reduces failures caused by incompatible payment methods
V. FAQ
Q1: Why are some users not able to place orders on my ad?
A1: Their country or region may not be included in your allowlist.
Q2: Can I select multiple countries or regions when setting the restriction?
A2: Yes, multiple selections are supported.
Q3: Can I edit my published ads?
A3: Yes. You can edit your ad in the "My Ads" list. Changes will take effect immediately after saving.