Connect with us
DAPA Banner

Crypto World

Digital assets exchange-traded product landscape: past, present and future

Published

on

Chart: Crypto ETPs: Total asset under management by issuers

In today’s newsletter, Joshua De Vos, head of research at CoinDesk, summarizes their latest crypto ETF report covering U.S. adoption, the speed at which it’s happening and asset concentration.

In Keep Reading, we link to the U.S. and Global ETF reports for those who want to do a deeper dive.

Sarah Morton


Digital assets exchange-traded product landscape: past, present and future

Crypto for Advisors – February – Digital Asset ETPs

Advertisement

Digital asset Exchange-Traded Products (ETPs) are now one of the clearest signals of how quickly crypto is being integrated into traditional portfolio infrastructure. As presented in CoinDesk’s latest research report, the market has moved beyond the early phase of fragmented access and into a period where regulated wrappers and exchange-traded fund (ETF) distribution are materially shaping how capital enters the asset class.

The state of crypto ETP adoption

As of the end of 2025, crypto ETP assets under management (AUM) reached $184 billion. The United States remains the center of gravity, accounting for approximately $145 billion, or close to 80% of global assets AUM. ETFs dominate the product landscape, representing 84.6% of crypto structured products by assets. The market is also heavily skewed toward simple exposure. Around 94.1% of crypto ETPs employ a delta-one strategy, and 96.1% are passively managed.

The growth in AUM has been driven primarily by the launch of U.S. spot bitcoin ETFs in January 2024. The step-change was immediate. The launch cycle pushed crypto ETP assets sharply higher and created a product category that now sits inside the same ETF allocation frameworks used across equities, fixed income and commodities.

Advertisement
Chart: Crypto ETPs: Total asset under management by issuers

The pace of adoption has also been unusually fast when compared to earlier ETF cycles. U.S. bitcoin ETFs reached $100 billion in assets in just 11 months, while U.S. gold ETFs took nearly 16 years to surpass the same milestone. By early 2025, bitcoin ETFs had matched 91% of the top 10 U.S. gold ETFs by AUM, before gold’s subsequent rally widened the gap. This is less a statement about relative value and more a statement about how quickly bitcoin has been absorbed into institutional distribution channels once the wrapper became available.

Chart: Bitcoin ETFs vs Gold ETFs? Top 10 ETFs by AUM in United States

Scale and concentration

Within the crypto ETP market, exposure remains heavily concentrated. Bitcoin-based products account for $144 billion in AUM, representing 78.2% of total AUM. Ether-based products have reached $26.5 billion, indicating that institutional demand is gradually broadening beyond bitcoin. Outside of those two assets, exposure remains limited. Solana- and XRP-linked products manage $3.8 billion and $3.0 billion respectively, while multi-cryptocurrency ETPs represent 0.62% of total AUM, or $2.16 billion.

Chart: Crypto ETPs: Assets under management by asset

The pipeline broadens

This hierarchy is consistent with how ETF markets typically develop. Institutions tend to begin with the most liquid assets, in the most established structures, before expanding into broader exposure as markets deepen and benchmarks standardise. That dynamic is now beginning to appear in the crypto ETP pipeline. As of end-2025, more than 125 digital asset ETP filings were pending, with bitcoin continuing to lead the filing landscape, followed by XRP and Solana as the most active single-asset categories.

The other notable development is the growing momentum behind basket products. Multi-cryptocurrency ETPs remain a small segment by AUM, but they represent the second most active category by number of pending filings. This matters because basket products tend to become more relevant as markets mature, correlations evolve and concentration risk becomes more apparent. Indices such as the CoinDesk 5 and CoinDesk 20 are increasingly being used as reference points for ETPs, structured notes and derivatives, reflecting the market’s gradual shift toward diversified exposure.

Advisor access

Advertisement

The expansion of crypto ETPs has also occurred before broad adoption across major advisory platforms. Many large advisors remain in evaluation or early allocation phases, suggesting current AUM reflects initial positioning rather than full participation. That is beginning to change, with firms such as Vanguard only recently expanding client access to crypto ETFs.

Looking ahead, the scale of the global ETF market provides context for how large the category could become. Global ETF and ETP assets are projected to grow to roughly $30 trillion by 2030. Within that framework, even modest allocation decisions have the potential to translate into a materially larger crypto ETP market over time.

This summary was created based on CoinDesk Research’s latest report; Digital Assets ETP Landscape: Past, Present and Future.

Joshua De Vos, research team lead, CoinDesk

Advertisement

Keep Reading

Read the full global and U.S. ETF reports here:

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Crypto World

Token Voting Is Crypto’s Broken Incentive System

Published

on

Token Voting Is Crypto’s Broken Incentive System

Opinion by: Francesco Mosterts, co-founder of Umia.

Crypto prides itself on being a market-driven system. Prices, incentives, and capital flows determine everything from token valuations to lending rates and blockspace demand. Markets are the industry’s primary coordination mechanism. Yet, when it comes to governance, crypto suddenly abandons markets altogether.

Recent governance disputes at major protocols have once again exposed the tensions inside DAO decision-making. Participation remains extremely low and influence is highly concentrated. A study of 50 DAOs found “a discernible pattern of low token holder engagement,” showing that a single large voter could sway 35% of outcomes and that four voters or fewer influence two-thirds of governance decisions.

This is not the decentralized future crypto originally set out to build. The early vision of the industry was to remove concentrated power and replace it with systems that distributed influence more fairly. Instead, DAO governance often leaves most tokenholders passive while a small group determines the protocol’s direction.

Advertisement

Token voting was crypto’s first attempt at decentralized governance. It is a broken incentive system, and it needs to change.

The promise of token governance

The original “DAO” launched in 2016 as a decentralized venture fund where token holders would vote on which projects to finance. The earliest DAOs were inspired by the idea that organizations could run purely through code. 

At crypto’s conception, token voting felt intuitive. It borrowed from familiar concepts like shareholder voting, yet DAOs promised a new form of management called “decentralized governance.” Tokens would represent both ownership and decision rights, meaning anyone who held them could participate in shaping the direction of a protocol.

Related: ‘Raider’ investors are looting DAOs

Advertisement

Token voting was supposed to solve problems seen across many industries, including centralized control, opaque decision-making, and misalignment between teams and users. It offered a simple promise: if the community owned the token, the community would run the project. In practice, however, this miraculous solution hasn’t delivered on its promise.

The reality of why token voting fails

Token voting comes with three core problems: participation, whales, and incentives. 

Participation is self-explanatory: most token holders don’t vote. With lots of material to review, particularly when many governance decisions need to be made, governance fatigue is a real problem. The result of this, which we now see every day in crypto, is that most token holders are ultimately passive and a small minority decides the outcomes. 

When it comes to whales, it is obvious that large holders are dominating. It’s demoralizing for ordinary voters who feel like their opinions don’t matter, even though the original promise of DAOs was that they would have a real voice. What is the point of voting if whales have the final say?

Advertisement

Finally, there’s an incentive problem. Voting has no economic signal. Votes hold the same weight whether you’re informed or not. There’s no cost to being wrong and no incentive for being right. There’s nothing motivating participants to research and vote according to their beliefs.

Realistically, in current governance, voting simply expresses opinions. It does not express conviction. 

The missing piece lies in pricing decisions

Crypto is fundamentally market-driven, and it works remarkably well. Markets aggregate information, price risk, and reveal conviction in ways few other systems can. The industry has built markets for practically everything, including tokens, derivatives, blockspace, and lending rates. They sit at the core of how crypto coordinates economic activity. Yet when it comes to governance, the system suddenly abandons markets entirely.

Decision markets introduce pricing into governance. Instead of merely voting on proposals, participants trade outcomes, pricing the possible decisions and backing their views with capital. This transforms governance from a system of expressed preferences into one of measurable conviction.

Advertisement

By tying decisions to economic incentives, participants are encouraged to research proposals and think carefully about outcomes. The result is a governance process that reflects informed expectations rather than passive opinion.

This matters now

Crypto is reaching a turning point in how it coordinates decisions. Governance conflicts, treasury disputes, and stalled proposals have exposed the limits of token voting. Even major protocols struggle to translate tokenholder input into clear, effective action. This has left governance slow, contentious, and dominated by a small group of participants.

At the same time, interest in market-based coordination is resurging across the ecosystem. Prediction markets have demonstrated how effectively markets can aggregate information, while broader discussions around mechanisms like futarchy are returning to the forefront. These systems highlight markets as powerful tools for revealing conviction and aligning incentives.

If crypto believes in markets as coordination engines, the next step is applying that same logic to governance. The next phase of crypto coordination will move beyond simply trading assets and toward pricing and executing decisions themselves.

Advertisement

Token voting was crypto’s first attempt at decentralized governance, and it was an important experiment. It gave tokenholders a voice, but it didn’t solve the deeper incentive problem.

Markets already power nearly every part of the crypto ecosystem. They aggregate information, reveal conviction, and align incentives at scale. Extending that same mechanism to decisions is the natural next step.

Decision markets also extend beyond governance votes into capital allocation itself. If markets can price decisions about a protocol’s direction, they can also price decisions about what to build and fund. This opens the door to a new generation of ventures built directly on crypto rails, where projects can raise capital and allocate resources through transparent, incentive-aligned mechanisms from day one. Instead of relying on passive token voting, markets can actively guide how onchain organizations form and grow.

Governance without pricing is incomplete. If crypto truly believes in markets as coordination engines, the future of onchain organizations cannot be decided by votes alone, but by markets.

Advertisement

Opinion by: Francesco Mosterts, co-founder of Umia.