A fierce competition is unfolding among the world’s largest asset managers as they position themselves for what many expect to be the imminent approval of the first spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds in the United States. With 12 issuers vying for SEC approval and a critical deadline approaching on January 10, the battle over fees, authorized participants, and redemption models is revealing just how high the stakes have become for mainstream Bitcoin adoption.
TL;DR
- 12 asset managers competing for spot Bitcoin ETF approval, including BlackRock, Fidelity, and Grayscale
- Fidelity sets its ETF fee at 0.39%, among the most competitive in the field
- Galaxy/Invesco offers fee waiver for first six months and first $5 billion in assets
- Jane Street, JPMorgan, and Virtu named as authorized participants across multiple filings
- SEC deadline for ARK/21Shares application falls on January 10, 2024
The Fee Competition Heats Up
In late December 2023, two of the major issuers released details on the fees they plan to charge investors, marking the beginning of what promises to be an intense price war for Bitcoin ETF market share. Fidelity announced its fee would be 0.39%, positioning itself as one of the most cost-effective options in the crowded field. Galaxy/Invesco took an even more aggressive approach, announcing it would waive fees entirely for the first six months of operation and for the first $5 billion in assets held, followed by a 0.59% fee thereafter.
These fee disclosures are critical because they will play a decisive role in determining which ETFs attract the most assets in what is expected to be a highly competitive market. Eric Balchunas, a senior ETF analyst for Bloomberg, has been closely tracking the fee structures, and the competitive pricing suggests issuers are willing to sacrifice short-term revenue to establish market dominance early.
Authorized Participants: Who Will Make the Market
Beyond fees, the selection of authorized participants — the institutional investors who create and redeem ETF shares to keep the fund price aligned with the underlying asset — has emerged as another key battleground. In updated filings from December 29, major issuers named their chosen partners.
Fidelity and WisdomTree both named Jane Street Capital, the secretive trading firm that previously employed FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried, as an authorized participant. BlackRock and Galaxy/Invesco both selected JPMorgan and Virtu, a prominent market-making firm. Valkyrie named Jane Street and Cantor Fitzgerald as its authorized participants.
The caliber of these authorized participants signals that traditional Wall Street is genuinely preparing to participate in the Bitcoin ETF market, a remarkable shift from just a few years ago when major banks avoided any association with cryptocurrency.
Cash vs. In-Kind: The Redemption Model Debate
One of the most significant regulatory developments in the ETF application process has been the SEC’s insistence on a cash redemption model rather than the in-kind model that most traditional ETFs use. In a standard in-kind model, authorized participants can create or redeem shares by exchanging the underlying asset directly with the fund. However, the SEC has pushed Bitcoin ETF issuers toward a cash model, which places the onus of buying and selling Bitcoin on the issuer itself.
This decision reflects the SEC’s lingering concerns about allowing broker-dealers to handle Bitcoin directly. While the cash model may introduce some operational inefficiencies, issuers have largely complied with the requirement in their bid to secure the first-ever spot Bitcoin ETF approvals.
The Road to Approval: A Decade in the Making
The journey toward a spot Bitcoin ETF has been long and contentious. Since the Winklevoss twins first filed for approval in 2013, the SEC has consistently rejected applications, citing concerns about market maturity and the potential for price manipulation. The turning point came in August 2023, when crypto asset manager Grayscale won a critical court case against the SEC, forcing the agency to reconsider its approach.
Following the Grayscale ruling, the SEC signaled its intention to open the floodgates. Reuters reported that the agency asked issuers to file their last revisions to applications by the end of 2023, ahead of a potential launch date as soon as January 10 — the deadline for the SEC to approve or reject the first issuer in line, ARK/21Shares.
Matrixport Predicts $50,000 Bitcoin by End of Week
The anticipation surrounding ETF approvals has already had a dramatic effect on Bitcoin’s price. Crypto investment firm Matrixport, founded by Bitmain co-founder Wu Jihan, released a report predicting that Bitcoin could reach $50,000 by the end of the first week of January. The firm cited a confluence of factors including post-December consolidation, expected ETF approval announcement, and institutional FOMO.
Matrixport emphasized that institutional investors are acutely aware of the potential upside in 2024, noting that many cannot afford to miss out on a potential rally after sitting on the sidelines during previous bull runs. The firm also pointed to historical patterns showing that Bitcoin tends to enjoy parabolic rallies during halving cycles coinciding with U.S. election years, with average returns of +190% during the 2012, 2016, and 2020 election cycles.
Why This Matters
The Bitcoin ETF fee war matters because it will determine how efficiently mainstream investors can access Bitcoin exposure through traditional brokerage accounts. Lower fees mean better returns for investors and greater competitive pressure across the ETF industry. The selection of blue-chip authorized participants like JPMorgan and Jane Street signals that Wall Street is treating Bitcoin ETFs as a serious, permanent addition to the financial landscape — not a speculative experiment.
From a regulatory perspective, the imminent approval of spot Bitcoin ETFs represents the culmination of a decade-long struggle between the crypto industry and the SEC. The Grayscale court victory in August 2023 was the pivotal moment that shifted the regulatory calculus, and the subsequent flood of updated filings from the world’s largest asset managers confirms that traditional finance is ready to embrace Bitcoin in a regulated framework.
For investors, the competition among issuers is overwhelmingly positive. Multiple low-cost options from reputable firms like BlackRock, Fidelity, and Galaxy/Invesco will provide choice, competitive pricing, and the institutional infrastructure needed to support billions of dollars in potential inflows. The January 10 deadline for the ARK/21Shares decision could mark the beginning of a new era in cryptocurrency investing.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Cryptocurrency investments carry significant risk, and past performance is not indicative of future results. Always conduct your own research before making investment decisions.
fidelity at 0.39% was aggressive. galaxy going fee-free for the first 6 months was straight up desperation to grab early aum
and now most of those issuers are racing fees to zero. was inevitable once blackrock entered the ring
ark_deadline the ARK/21Shares application had the January 10 deadline which was the earliest filing date. Grayscale winning their court case in August 2023 is what forced the SEC’s hand though, without that ruling none of these ETFs exist
ArkFan88 the jan 10 deadline for ARK was the forcing function but Grayscales court win in aug 2023 was what actually broke the SECs blocking strategy. without that ruling Gensler would have stalled indefinitely
expense_ratio_og fidelity at 0.39% looked aggressive until BlackRock came in lower. race to the bottom was inevitable
galaxy going fee-free wasnt desperation, it was land grab strategy. first mover in AUM wins the passive inflows forever
first $5B in assets fee-free was brilliant. passive money flows to the cheapest option and Galaxy knew BlackRock would squeeze everyone on fees anyway
Rina T. Galaxy timed the fee waiver perfectly. first $5B in assets then fees kick in. by then the passive inflows are locked in and inertia keeps the money there
galaxy waving fees for 6 months on the first 5 bil then slamming 0.59% is basically a bait and switch lol
jane street and jpmorgan as authorized participants. wall street was all in before the starting gun even fired
cash redemption model forcing issuers to hold BTC directly is actually bullish for scarcity. every ETF needs coins on hand for redemptions which means less float on exchanges
0xMantissa cash redemption forcing issuers to hold BTC is also why GBTC discount collapsed. once the conversion happened the arbitrage closed the gap within weeks
BlackRock entering with a low fee basically forced everyone else to cut. IBIT captured most of the AUM and the rest are fighting for scraps
12 issuers competing for one approval and jane street + jpmorgan as APs. wall street was never going to let crypto-native firms own this market
Hana Y. 12 issuers and they all knew only 3-4 would survive long term. the fee war was about not being the one left out
Hana Y. wall street let crypto-native firms build the market then walked in with AP infrastructure and took it. classic parasitic entry strategy
fee_decay_ calling it parasitic is fair. Winklevoss twins filed in 2013 and got rejected for a decade, then BlackRock walks in with JPMorgan and Jane Street as APs and gets the green light. The system was always going to work this way.
the Winklevoss twins filing in 2013 and getting rejected for a decade while BlackRock waltzes in with the right APs is peak Wall Street privilege. SEC never cared about retail protection
Hana Y. 12 issuers competing and wall street took it from day one. Jane Street was literally SBF’s old firm and now they’re an authorized participant. The irony writes itself.
cash redemption model instead of in-kind means the issuers have to buy and sell btc themselves. more friction, more spread cost, passed straight to the retail holder
Galaxy’s 0.59% after the fee waiver period is actually higher than Fidelity’s 0.39%. The first $5B AUM lock-in was the play, because by the time fees normalize, passive inflows are sticky. Most retail won’t bother switching out.
Anna-Maria R. sticky passive inflows is the right framing. once the fee war shakes out the top 3 funds will hold 80 percent of AUM and nobody switches providers over 2 bps
Rhee Joon-ho the sticky inflows argument is exactly right. once IBIT hit 50B in AUM the fee war was academic. blackrock won on distribution not price
Galaxy offering 0 percent for 6 months on the first 5B then jumping to 0.59 percent is textbook loss leader pricing. Fidelity at 0.39 with no tricks is the better long term deal
Dimitri P. Fidelity at 39bps with no waiver tricks is still the cleanest offer. Galaxy waiving for 6 months then jumping to 59bps is a loss leader hoping for inertia