US-listed spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds attracted $382 million in net inflows across Monday and Tuesday, extending a two-day recovery in demand even as reports of an alleged Coldcard hardware wallet compromise renewed attention on how Bitcoin is stored.
Data from ETF tracker SoSoValue showed the funds received $170 million on Monday and $211.5 million on Tuesday. The inflows arrived with Bitcoin trading near $64,113, down about 0.8% over the previous seven days, according to CoinGecko. Bitcoin had briefly fallen below $62,500 during the week, leaving ETF buyers to absorb exposure during a period of uneven price action rather than a clear market breakout.
BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust accounted for most of the new money, adding $111 million on Monday and $170 million on Tuesday, according to Farside Investors. Fidelity’s Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund brought in about $33 million on Monday and another $20 million on Tuesday.
BlackRock leads the two-day ETF intake
The concentration of flows in BlackRock’s fund suggests that the largest and most liquid products remain the main destination for traders seeking Bitcoin exposure through brokerage accounts. IBIT drew roughly 73% of the $382 million recorded across the two sessions, based on the SoSoValue total and Farside’s daily fund data.
Fidelity’s fund was the second-largest recipient among the products identified in the flow data, though its intake was far below BlackRock’s. The gap reflects the increasingly concentrated structure of the US spot Bitcoin ETF market, where a small number of funds account for much of daily activity.
Invesco Galaxy Bitcoin ETF also registered a modest but notable turnaround. The fund took in $6.7 million on Monday, its first positive-flow session since July 1, according to Farside. While small compared with BlackRock’s daily tally, the inflow equaled about 3.9% of Invesco Galaxy’s cumulative net inflows of $172 million.
That figure shows how a relatively limited daily allocation can still matter for smaller Bitcoin ETF issuers. Funds with lower trading volumes and smaller asset bases can see their flow trends change quickly when a single institutional or advisory allocation enters or exits.
Custody concerns return to the market discussion
The ETF inflows coincided with fresh scrutiny of self-custody following reports of an attack involving Coldcard hardware wallet users. Galaxy Research estimated that as many as 7,300 Bitcoin addresses may have been affected, with suspected losses of roughly $130 million. Thorn and a research team monitoring the incident have published updates tracking addresses believed to be connected to the alleged thefts and the potential value of missing Bitcoin.
The estimates remain tied to blockchain analysis of affected addresses and suspected transfers. An additional reported wave of attacks had not been confirmed in the supplied information, though online discussion focused on whether the missing total could rise further.
Hardware wallets are designed to keep private keys away from internet-connected devices, but their security still depends on the software users install, the authenticity of the device and its supply chain, and the handling of recovery phrases. A compromise affecting a hardware-wallet environment can therefore create risks that differ sharply from a conventional exchange breach, where a company controls the central custody system.
The episode has added weight to a longstanding divide in the Bitcoin market: direct ownership gives users control over their coins, while ETF ownership places custody with regulated financial institutions and their appointed service providers. Neither route removes risk. They distribute responsibility differently, with self-custody requiring users to manage operational security and ETFs introducing reliance on fund structures, custodians and market intermediaries.
Bloomberg Intelligence ETF analyst Eric Balchunas linked the Coldcard debate to the appeal of regulated ETF custody, arguing that the security concerns could steer some market participants toward products held through traditional financial channels. The two days of inflows do not establish that the wallet incident directly caused ETF demand, but the timing places custody at the center of the conversation around Bitcoin access.
Fund structure changes add to ETF scrutiny
The custody discussion arrived alongside separate changes in the ETF market. Balchunas also pointed to the closure of Hashdex’s spot Bitcoin ETF and BlackRock’s planned reverse split for its Ethereum ETF.
Fund closures and share splits are operational events rather than direct measures of Bitcoin demand, but they can affect how traders assess product liquidity, trading spreads and the durability of smaller funds. A fund closure can require shareholders to sell or receive cash from liquidation, while a reverse split reduces the number of shares outstanding and raises the per-share price without changing the underlying value of the fund’s holdings.
These developments reinforce the advantage held by the largest issuers. BlackRock and Fidelity continued collecting net inflows while a smaller competitor sought to reverse a prolonged run of outflows and another fund headed toward closure. The ETF market has given traders multiple ways to obtain Bitcoin exposure, but activity has increasingly clustered around the products with the deepest liquidity and the strongest distribution networks.
Bitcoin supply and public blockchain monitoring
Separately, the supplied material said Strategy completed a sale of 1,638 BTC, adding another potential source of supply to market commentary. Large Bitcoin transfers often draw immediate attention because the network’s public ledger allows researchers to trace movements between known or suspected wallet clusters.
A visible transfer does not by itself prove that coins were sold on the open market or that a transaction changed the near-term supply-demand balance. Yet large movements can influence trader expectations when they occur alongside ETF flow data, price weakness or reports of stolen funds moving through identifiable addresses.
Bitcoin’s move below $62,500 during the week showed that ETF inflows have not eliminated short-term volatility. The $382 million intake nevertheless indicates that regulated Bitcoin funds continued to attract net demand while the market weighed price pressure, custody concerns and changes among competing ETF products.
Curious how ETFs shape crypto markets? Explore what ETFs are and how they work in today’s digital asset landscape.
Disclaimer: The content on this page is provided for general informational purposes only and does not represent the views or financial advice of Toobit. We make no guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of this information and shall not be held liable for any errors, omissions, or outcomes resulting from its use. Investing in digital assets involves risk; users should independently evaluate their financial situation and the risks involved. For further details, please consult our Terms of Service and Risk Disclosure.
