2025-12-31 02:24:59

Recently, news has emerged that a leading crypto asset management firm has submitted 11 ETF product applications to U.S. regulators. These applications cover strategy-based products for several popular cryptocurrencies such as AAVE, UNI, ZEC, and others, with details like codes and management fees yet to be officially announced.

The product design approach is worth noting. According to the plan, each fund will allocate 60% of its capital directly to the corresponding crypto assets, while the remaining 40% will be invested in ETP products holding those assets. Interestingly, these products may also use derivatives to adjust exposure—meaning investors can achieve more flexible risk-return profiles.

From a broader trend perspective, such multi-strategy, multi-asset products are becoming the standard entry point for institutional investors. A single fund standardizes the selection of cryptocurrencies, allocation ratios, and hedging tools, thereby lowering the barrier to participation.

AAVE-3,52%

UNI-4,63%

ZEC-4,67%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

10 Likes

Reward
10
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

Ser_APY_2000

· 16h ago

It's the same trick again, 60 to 40 allocation. It sounds professional, but it's actually just to trap retail investors.

View OriginalReply0

AirdropJunkie

· 16h ago

Another one of these clone products... Can the 60 to 40 design really avoid pitfalls? I haven't even dared to mention the management fee, but I already know it won't be cheap. UNI and AAVE ETFs? Might as well just HODL the coins directly, haha. With so many derivative tools bundled together, can ordinary retail investors really understand where the risks are? Institutional "standard configurations" are often just retail "tricks"... 11 applications submitted at once, a bit rushed?

View OriginalReply0

WalletsWatcher

· 16h ago

60% direct allocation, 40% ETP, this combination really has some substance Institutions are really playing seriously, standardized processes are just for bloodsucking Can UNI and AAVE pass the review, with such strict regulation? It's another derivative adjustment of exposure, essentially a variation of leverage I'll wait until the management fee is out to see, otherwise it's all empty talk

View OriginalReply0

AltcoinTherapist

· 16h ago

Another new scheme, this 60/40 allocation looks a bit familiar Institutions just like this kind of "risk controllable" pretense, but in reality, it's still gambling on coins 11 parts at the same time? A bit crazy, but also quite reasonable If this passes, retail investors' entry threshold really drops, but the fees will be much more painful Derivatives adjusting exposure sounds great, but when liquidation happens, it's just as cold Standardization is a double-edged sword, improving liquidity but also making it easier to be cut What's the catch? Both UNI and AAVE are involved, and we still have to wait for official announcements Feels like packaging and selling to institutions, retail investors still have to do it themselves This gameplay has a low entry barrier, but risks are also spread out. If you ask me, everyone has their own way of doing things

View OriginalReply0

AirdropCollector

· 16h ago

60% direct allocation, 40% ETP, another set of standardized "doll" sets? This is how institutions do their work. Derivatives exposure sounds exciting, but it's basically leverage with a different skin, hiding risks even deeper. Lowering the threshold makes it even more dangerous; retail investors are about to be harvested again. Waiting for the official announcement of management fees, I bet they will be ridiculously expensive. Should AAVE and UNI really surge this time? Or are they just going to cut new retail investors again? It's normal that none of these 11 applications get approved, Americans wouldn't be so straightforward. Why split into two layers of allocation? Can't we just go all-in with a single asset? Why make it so complicated?

View OriginalReply0