Bloomberg senior ETF analyst Eric Balchunas tempered excitement over spot ETH ETFs, stating that the investment they attract might only be a fraction of that for BTC ETFs.

On May 20, reports indicated that the likelihood of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approving an ETH ETF was as high as 75%, a stark contrast to the previous pessimism surrounding the financial instrument.

According to CryptoSlate, this news spurred a price increase of over 20% for ETH, pushing it above $3,700.

Additionally, blockchain analytics platform IntoTheBlock noted that this price surge led to 90% of ETH holders turning a profit.

This bullish trend has led some market analysts to predict that ETH ETFs will attract significant capital inflows, similar to the BTC ETFs launched in January.

According to Farside Investors, since the launch of spot BTC ETFs in the U.S., these funds have accumulated approximately $13 billion in assets under management.

However, Balchunas remains skeptical, estimating that ETH ETFs might only garner "10%-15% of BTC ETF assets."

Bloomberg Analyst: ETH ETF Can Only Reach 15% of BTC ETF Assets image 0

Balchunas stated, "I think comparing the launch of spot ETH ETFs following BTC ETFs to a Sister Hazel concert following Nirvana might be why some people are attacking me."

"It's okay, though it’s harsh, I still believe ETH ETF assets will only be 10%-15% of BTC ETFs."

Meanwhile, Fidelity submitted an updated S-1 registration statement for its proposed ETH ETF to the SEC ahead of a key deadline.

The revised document has removed all references to staking or staking rewards. Previously, the prospectus indicated that the fund would stake some assets with providers to earn rewards.

Analysts believe this change is due to SEC scrutiny of crypto asset staking.

Currently, the SEC has sued major exchanges like Kraken and Coinbase, alleging that their staking products violate federal securities laws.

Balchunas added, "Has the public received a definitive answer on whether the SEC will allow staking? Clearly not. This is just the first revised document following SEC Rule 180."