US Bitcoin ETFs Dominate Spot Volume with $10B Daily Trading – Is This Dangerous?

US Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) have captured a commanding share of spot trading volumes, regularly generating $5-10 billion in daily activity that rivals major crypto exchanges, according to CQ Julio, Head of Research at ￰0￱ surge comes as Ethereum ETFs experience massive momentum, with $4 billion in net inflows in ￰1￱ Still Leads, But ETFs Challenge Exchange Dominance Bitcoin ETFs now account for 13.1% of total spot trading volume since the US presidential election, making them the third-largest trading venue behind Binance’s dominant 29.1% and Crypto. com’s 13.5% shares.) — Matt Hougan (@Matt_Hougan) August 28, 2025 This $4.8 billion monthly differential favoring ETH particularly points to a decisive institutional preference ￰2￱ ETFs maintained steady but modest progress with $81 million in daily inflows on August 27.

BlackRock’s IBIT led with $50.9 million, supported by Fidelity’s FBTC at $14.6 ￰3￱ Bitcoin ETF assets reached $144.6 billion, representing 6.5% of Bitcoin’s market capitalization. Meanwhile, Ethereum ETFs hold $30.17 billion, equivalent to 5.4% of Ether’s market ￰4￱ treasury activity accelerated the institutional ￰5￱ Immersion Technologies acquired $2.2 billion worth of ETH in a single week , becoming the world’s largest corporate Ethereum holder with 1.7 million ETH valued at $8.82 ￰6￱ analysts note that declining Bitcoin dominance, below 58%, is attributed to over 45 altcoins outperforming BTC in the past 90 ￰7￱ Altseason Index surged to 61 after months below 55, with full-scale altseason typically beginning at ￰8￱ yesterday, Michaël van de Poppe also predicted altseason will commence within 4-6 weeks , potentially driving ETH to $5,200 and SOL to $250 in ￰9￱ Bitcoin Treasury Strategies Face Credit Cycle Risks Corporate Bitcoin holdings have exploded to $408 billion across 310 entities, but new research warns this “ dangerous game ” will likely see most participants fail during a full credit cycle.

Sentora’s analysis identifies critical flaws in strategies that involve “borrowing billions in fiat, issuing new equity, and restructuring entire balance sheets to acquire Bitcoin.” The research categorizes Bitcoin treasury strategies as “negative-carry trades” where companies borrow fiat to acquire non-yielding ￰10￱ traditional carry trades with positive yield cushions, Bitcoin strategies offer “no yield cushion, no neutral carry, and no risk-parity ballast.” MicroStrategy pioneered the model, utilizing $3.7 billion in ultra-low-coupon convertible bonds and $5.5 billion in perpetual preferred ￰11￱ research warns of structural risks when “interest payments become unserviceable, refinancing costs spike, equity issuance turns non-accretive, and boards question the Bitcoin strategy itself.” Rising interest rates amplify negative carry effects, while Bitcoin price stagnation over 2-3 years could erode conviction and make equity issuance ￰12￱ study notes “there is no lender of last resort, no circuit breaker, and no refinancing facility” when Bitcoin carry trades break, making risks “binary and reflexive.” The research concludes that for long-term success, “Bitcoin must evolve from digital property to digital capital” that generates yield without custodianship requirements.