100 New Crypto ETFs in 2026: The Custody Concentration Risk Threatening Market Stability

2025-12-18 22:29:06

Source: CryptoNewsNet Original Title: 100 new crypto ETFs in 2026 will share a terrifying “single point of failure” that could freeze 85% of global assets Original Link:

Market Expansion and Concentration Risk

The SEC’s approval of generic listing standards for crypto ETPs on Sept. 17 cut the launch timeline to 75 days and opened the door to plain-vanilla products.

Bitwise predicts more than 100 crypto-linked ETFs will launch in 2026. James Seyffart, senior ETF analyst at Bloomberg, backed the call but added a caveat:

“We’re going to see a lot of liquidations.”

That pairing of explosive growth and swift culling defines the next phase, as generic standards solve a timing problem rather than a liquidity problem. For Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana, the flood reinforces dominance. For everything else, it is a stress test.

The new rules mirror what the SEC did for equity and bond ETFs in 2019, when annual launches jumped from 117 to over 370. Fee compression followed immediately, with dozens of small funds closed within two years.

Structural Vulnerabilities in Crypto ETF Infrastructure

Crypto runs the same experiment with worse starting conditions. Custody is heavily concentrated: a leading custody provider holds assets for the vast majority of crypto ETFs, claiming an up to 85% share of global Bitcoin ETFs.

Additionally, APs and market makers depend on a handful of venues for pricing and borrowing, and many altcoins lack the derivatives depth to hedge creation/redemption flows without moving the market.

The SEC’s July 29 in-kind order allowed Bitcoin and Ethereum trusts to settle creations with actual coins rather than cash, tightening tracking but requiring APs to source, hold, and manage tax treatment for each basket. For BTC and ETH, that is manageable.

For thin underlyings, borrow might dry up entirely during volatility, forcing creation halts and leaving the ETF trading at a premium until supply returns.

Plumbing Under Load

APs and market makers can handle higher creation/redemption volume on liquid coins. Their constraint is short availability: when a new ETF launches on a token with thin borrow, APs either demand wider spreads or step back entirely, leaving the fund to trade on cash creations with higher tracking error.

Exchanges can halt trading if reference prices stop updating, a risk highlighted by regulatory analysis even under the faster approval pathway.

The custody concentration is now both a revenue engine and a target. Other institutions are reviving institutional crypto custody plans, while major financial firms are exploring crypto-ETF custody relationships.

Their pitch: do you want 85% of ETF flows dependent on a single counterparty? For dominant custodians, more ETFs mean more fees, more regulatory attention, and a higher risk that a single operational glitch spooks the entire category.

Index Provider Gatekeeping

Index providers hold quiet power. Generic standards tie eligibility to surveillance agreements and reference indices that satisfy exchange criteria, gating who designs benchmarks. A handful of firms, such as CF Benchmarks, MVIS, and S&P, dominate traditional ETF indexing.

Crypto follows the same pattern of wealth platforms defaulting to indices they recognize, making it harder for new entrants to break through, even with superior methodology.

2026 Launch Landscape

Launch Bucket	Likely Underlyings	Custody Considerations	Index/Benchmark Notes	Creation/Redemption Dynamics	19b-4 Required?
Single-asset majors: BTC/ETH	More zero-fee or low-fee spot BTC/ETH ETFs from second-tier issuers; possible share-class and currency-hedged variants	Leading custody provider still dominates with 80%+ share; some banks re-entering but at smaller scale. Concentration risk stays high unless regulators push for diversification.	Mostly direct spot exposure; simple NAV calculation off single reference rate. Benchmarks used for NAV and marketing.	SEC allows in-kind creations/redemptions for crypto ETPs, so APs can deliver or receive native BTC/ETH instead of cash, tightening spreads. Plumbing largely solved; competition mainly on fees and marketing.	No, as long as products fit Generic Commodity-Based Trust Share standards
Single-asset altcoins	SOL, XRP, DOGE, LTC, LINK, AVAX, DOT, SHIB, XLM, HBAR, etc. with qualifying regulated futures or ETF exposure	Custody will be thinner and more concentrated; smaller custodians struggle to amortize security and insurance costs.	Some pure single-asset; others wrap futures-linked or blended index if spot markets fragmented. Index providers gain leverage as gatekeepers.	APs face real borrow and short constraints in thin markets. Spreads wider, creations more episodic. Expect frequent “no-arb” periods where tracking error blows out.	Often no, if underlying meets generic futures test
Long-tail and niche tokens	TRUMP, BONK, HYPE, gaming and DeFi tokens lacking deep regulated futures or institutional spot markets	Very few top-tier custodians will touch illiquid names; may rely on smaller or offshore custodians. Concentrates operational and cyber risk.	Pricing leans on composite indexes from handful of centralized exchanges. Manipulation directly contaminates NAV; index methodology becomes systemic risk variable.	APs often issuers’ affiliates or tiny circle of trading firms. Creations may be cash-only despite in-kind permission. Chronic wide spreads, persistent NAV discounts/premiums, frequent creation halts.	Yes in most cases, without qualifying futures
Broad large-cap indexes	GLDC-style large-cap baskets (BTC, ETH, XRP, SOL, ADA), “Top 5/10 by market cap,” or blends	Custody consolidated with single provider across constituents, amplifying single-point-of-failure risk if provider experiences outage.	Indices decide inclusion rules, weights, rebalancing. Every component must meet surveillance/futures test, constraining index design.	More creation/redemption line items, but APs can net flows and use in-kind baskets to reduce slippage. Main risk is rebalance days with thin alts.	No for plain vanilla index trusts
Thematic/sector indexes	“L1/L2 smart-contract,” “DeFi blue chips,” “tokenization plays,” “meme basket,” mixing qualified and non-qualified names	Multi-provider custody if certain tokens only supported by niche custodians, complicating collateral management and increasing reconciliation risk.	Indexers choose between thematic purity and generic regime. Many publish both broad research index and narrower investable version.	Creations fragile because APs source several illiquid names at once. One broken component halts creations for entire ETP.	Often yes, once index holds asset failing generic test
Options-overlay on BTC/ETH	Buy-write BTC or ETH ETFs, buffered-loss strategies, collar products holding spot or futures and selling options	Same custodians as plain products, but adds derivatives plumbing. Collateralization and margin become key operational risks.	Some track buy-write indices; others actively managed. No longer simple commodity trust structures.	APs manage both spot and options liquidity. During volatility spikes, creations pause, causing large NAV deviations.	Yes in most cases; actively managed products fall outside Generic Standards
Options-overlay on multi-asset indexes	“Crypto income” funds writing calls on baskets (BTC+ETH+SOL), volatility-targeting or risk-parity crypto ETPs	Multi-asset custody plus derivatives infrastructure. Failures at any layer can force trading halts.	Custom indices and proprietary overlays increase differentiation but reduce comparability and platform adoption.	APs face thin alts, limited options markets, complex hedging models, implying high costs and wide spreads.	Yes; these sit outside generic template

Key Takeaway

The explosion of new crypto ETF launches in 2026 will test whether the infrastructure built for Bitcoin and Ethereum can scale to support dozens of new products without breaking. The concentration of custody, index design authority, and market-making capacity creates multiple single points of failure that regulators and market participants should monitor closely.

IN-2,28%

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.