Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) have been successful in attracting capital in 2024, but traditional banks and institutional investors have yet to join in. Jan van Eck, the CEO of VanEck, stated in an interview with Cointelegraph at the Paris Blockchain Week that the majority of inflows into spot Bitcoin ETFs in the United States have come from the retail sector. Van Eck expressed surprise at the initial success of the ETFs, which have seen billions of dollars of inflows on some days since their launch, but he believes that these inflows have not come from significant investments from traditional finance players. He stated that 90% of the flows are still from retail investors, with only a few Bitcoin whales and institutions moving assets. Van Eck also mentioned that no U.S. banks have officially approved or allowed their financial advisers to recommend Bitcoin. However, he predicted that major institutional investments from banks and traditional firms could arrive in the next month, even though the Bitcoin ETF landscape is still in its early stages. When asked why investors would prefer to invest in a Bitcoin ETF rather than directly buying and managing BTC themselves, Van Eck highlighted convenience as a major reason. He explained that investors look to fund managers to handle their entire portfolios, and ETFs offer convenience, safety, and affordability with lower spreads and fees compared to centralized exchange platforms. VanEck, founded by John van Eck in 1955, takes a “big picture” approach to investing, driven by the understanding that political, economic, and technological trends will impact financial markets. Van Eck mentioned that his firm started looking at Bitcoin as an emerging asset that could serve as a store of value in investment portfolios. He believes that Bitcoin may be a better store of value than gold in contemporary times and that the U.S. needs to address its budget deficit problems. However, Van Eck cautioned that the impact of Bitcoin ETFs and the price appreciation of Bitcoin in 2024 may be overstated, pointing out that market movements during non-U.S. trading hours reflect the influence of Asian markets.

