Bitcoin was once conceived as a way to escape the financial system. Increasingly, some of its biggest holders are choosing to move deeper inside it.
Wall Street is making it cheaper and easier for investors to swap large crypto holdings for shares in exchange-traded funds, allowing them to retain exposure to Bitcoin while moving their wealth from private wallets and crypto platforms into the machinery of mainstream finance.
What began as a bespoke service for the very wealthy is becoming more routine. BlackRock Inc. cut the minimum size for such transactions to $1 million in July from $25 million when the process first became available. Since U.S. regulators last summer permitted in-kind creations, which allow investors to swap crypto for ETF shares, more digital assets have been moving into funds this way and the market infrastructure has steadily expanded.
That pitch has acquired an extra edge amid a spate of kidnappings, hacks and custody failures involving crypto wealth. Investors can simplify how they hold the asset, shedding the burden of private keys, digital wallets and self-custody while gaining some of the protections of a conventional financial product. And because the Bitcoin is exchanged rather than first sold for cash, that shift can be accomplished without necessarily triggering an immediate capital-gains tax bill, depending on the investor’s circumstances.
“It’s going to keep growing because we keep expanding the access,” said Robbie Mitchnick, head of digital assets at BlackRock. “People see things happen in the outside world—whether it’s kidnappings, ransom, custody failures—that motivate them to make this switch for all or some of their holdings.”
Bitcoin surged over the past week to briefly top $80,000, as improving market conditions and returning investor demand accelerated a rally that had begun with a squeeze on bearish positions.
The transactions use the same in-kind creation process that underpins much of the ETF industry. Investors contribute Bitcoin or other digital assets to a fund holding the same asset and receive ETF shares in return, with an authorized participant or market maker handling the transfer.
The scale is already material at BlackRock. Its IBIT fund, the largest of the U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs, has facilitated more than $5 billion of such conversions, according to Mitchnick, up from more than $3 billion when Bloomberg reported on the trend last October.
The process, per Mitchnick, can take more than a week, and inquiries are coming from both U.S. and international clients.
The first time Bitwise handled such an in-kind transaction, the deal had to be worth at least $100 million to secure the required support from authorized participants. The threshold later fell to $50 million. It is now $3 million.
“The whole process is still bespoke, from introducing a client to a market maker to working with the adviser, but it’s becoming more standardized,” said Matt Hougan, chief investment officer of Bitwise.
The process was once slow, Hougan said. “Now it is more like a conveyor belt, and, in the future, it will be more like a push button. It’s part and parcel of this becoming an institutionalized asset.”
Signs of broader adoption are showing up across the industry. At Morgan Stanley, in-kind conversions account for about 5% to 7% of overall holdings in its roughly $560 million spot Bitcoin ETF, MSBT, according to Ally Wallace, global head of ETFs at Morgan Stanley Investment Management.
“We have had some trades like this come to fruition but there is a lengthy education process related to this type of transaction which takes time and results in a longer lead time,” she said.
At 21shares, completed in-kind transactions over the past three months have averaged about $5 million in size, according to Alistair Perry, head of capital markets.
The mechanism is also spreading beyond Bitcoin. Grayscale Investments LLC and VanEck use in-kind transactions for Ether products, while Bitwise also carries them out for Ether and Solana.
At Grayscale, the shift has been rapid. In March, 28% of gross Bitcoin creations and 57% of gross Ether creations were processed in-kind. By June, those shares had climbed to 62% and 63%, respectively, according to Krista Lynch, the firm’s head of trading and capital markets.
The remaining constraint is the plumbing. Transactions must pass through an authorized participant or market maker willing to handle the crypto, adding costs that help explain why the service began with very large holders and why minimums remain high.
Still, minimums could fall further as more intermediaries build the capacity to handle crypto or find creative ways to bundle up client orders, potentially opening the service beyond whales.
“Today, this crypto-native use case is in full effect,” Lynch said. “We also increasingly see ETF market makers embracing the in-kind feature as they gravitate back to the original, and often more efficient, way in which ETPs are classically operated.”
—With assistance from Denitsa Tsekova, Sam Potter, Justina Lee, and Suvashree Ghosh
This article was provided by Bloomberg News.
Facts Only
* Bitcoin holders are moving wealth into mainstream finance via swaps for exchange-traded funds (ETFs).
* Wall Street is making it easier to swap large crypto holdings for ETF shares.
* BlackRock Inc. reduced the minimum size for such transactions from $25 million to $1 million in July.
* U.S. regulators permitted in-kind creations, allowing swaps of crypto for ETF shares.
* Investors can shed the burden of private keys and digital wallets by moving assets into financial products.
* The exchange mechanism allows Bitcoin to be exchanged rather than sold for cash, potentially avoiding immediate capital gains tax.
* BlackRock's IBIT fund facilitated over $5 billion in conversions, up from $3 billion in October.
* In-kind transactions can take more than a week to complete.
* The minimum transaction threshold has decreased from $100 million to $50 million, and is now $3 million.
* Morgan Stanley's MSBT ETF holds 5% to 7% in-kind conversions of holdings.
* Grayscale Investments LLC and VanEck use in-kind transactions for Ether products.
Executive Summary
Full Take
The narrative centers on the institutionalization and mainstreaming of decentralized asset ownership through a financial overlay, which functions as both a security mechanism and a risk mitigation strategy. The shift described is not merely a technical facilitation but a structural redirection of trust: from self-custody to intermediated custody. This transition exposes a tension between the decentralized ethos of crypto and the centralized efficiency of traditional finance.
The pattern observed is one of friction being resolved through integration. The initial resistance stems from the perceived loss of control inherent in relinquishing private keys, but this friction is being systematically lowered by making the process standardized ("conveyor belt" evolving to "push button"). The key implication for cognitive sovereignty lies in understanding who benefits from this standardization: those with the infrastructure (market makers, large fund managers) and those motivated by systemic risk concerns (kidnappings, custody failures).
The move toward institutionalization suggests a convergence where asset management is defined less by cryptographic purity and more by regulatory compliance and transactional efficiency. The ongoing challenge is ensuring that this 'convenience' does not simply mask an increased concentration of wealth within established financial gatekeepers. If the minimums continue to fall, the effect shifts from accommodating "whales" to creating a standardized mechanism that applies to broader investor classes, demanding scrutiny over whether this innovation serves genuine liberation or merely optimizes existing power structures.
Bridge Questions: If the process becomes fully automated, what new points of failure emerge for retail investors regarding custody and asset ownership? How can regulatory frameworks adapt to govern an asset class where the primary locus of control shifts from the private key to the authorized participant in a transfer? What are the long-term societal consequences of outsourcing asset security from decentralized networks to centralized financial machinery?
