#机构投资者采用 When I saw this set of data, the first thought that flashed through my mind was—this time, the logic behind institutional entry is completely different from 2020.

Back then, we were tracking institutional allocations and still debating whether Bitcoin was an asset allocation option. Now, a $32 billion annual net inflow has become a matter of course, and even market declines can't stop it. What does this indicate? Institutions made up their minds long ago; the current question is no longer whether to allocate, but how much and what to allocate.

The most interesting part is the $24.7 billion inflow into BlackRock's IBIT—that volume has already surpassed the total of the nine Bitcoin ETFs that followed. This reminds me of the institutional wave at the end of 2013. It was the same then—once a compliant channel was established, large funds would flood into the safest and most backed product. The outflow of $3.9 billion from Grayscale GBTC is essentially just traditional institutions discovering a better allocation option.

The Ethereum ETF also has some highlights. The first full trading year reached a scale of $9.6 billion, which is already quite impressive compared to the growth expected in 2024. However, there have been no new inflows for several consecutive days recently, which makes me a bit cautious. This pulse-like capital entry often indicates saturation at a certain stage.

Next year, over 100 new ETFs may be launched, which again reminds me of certain moments in history—whenever products become extremely abundant, it’s often a period of accelerated screening and淘汰. By the end of 2026, I estimate many "flash-in-the-pan" products will exit the market. This is not a bad thing; rather, it reflects market maturity.

The key is to see clearly: institutional participation itself is long-term, but their choice of products and timing will become increasingly precise. The wild growth period of the past is over.