Approaching the two-year mark of the first U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs seems like a reasonable juncture to review the current state of live crypto ETF filings for the last time in 2025.
Here’s the best-known list, as shared by Bloomberg’s James Seyffart and Eric Balchunas:
That said -- we expect liquidations to pick up too. Not sure the liquidation numbers can stay this low for US ETPs as launches explode
— James Seyffart (@JSeyff) December 11, 2025
If you're a Bloomberg terminal client and interested in seeing these charts and more, the report can be found here: https://t.co/ELvRQ1lTtS pic.twitter.com/drrGxC4BjI
The backdrop is overshadowed by the market’s anchoring asset Bitcoin floundering ~0.9 of a standard deviation off its ~$126k record. (NYU’s GARCH model. Note: ~1𝛔/1-year BTC drawdowns are historically normative for BTC.)
The market might look different by the time the SEC works through this wall of filings. At least for now though, this is the climate into which issuers are intent on pumping more inventory.
That adds backing to a first high-probability assumption on the trend of listed crypto products in 2026, as noted by the Bloomberg analysts: liquidations are likely to increase.
With moderate U.S. crypto ETF attrition already emerging over the last several months, further ‘wastage’ would not be surprising.
It is the concentration of interest in specific assets, the overall tenor of the filings slate, plus the regulatory undercurrents facilitating this stepped-up wave of paperwork that are more interesting.
We’ll take a closer look at these points a little lower down.
It was the instigation of Generic Listing Standards (GLS) in September that formalized the more accommodative but still prudent regulatory pathways needed for the asset class to grow way beyond Bitcoin and Ether within exchange listed wrappers.
Click below to read a concise overview of Generic Listing Standards by CF Benchmarks Head of Research Gabe Selby, CFA
As the list we shared above shows, issuers are building a dense pipeline across dozens of tokens—anchored by persistent demand for BTC and ETH, and an ascendant second tier led by SOL and XRP.
This means the competitive edge is migrating away from “getting exposure” and toward how exposure is engineered: including eligibility signals, governance-grade benchmarks – like those published by CF Benchmarks, with demonstrably representative liquidity – increasingly all alongside staking and yield design.
Worth underlining: Bloomberg’s early-December tally was only a snapshot. At the time of writing at the end of December, the count has risen, if not materially.
With a broader palette of ETF-eligible crypto assets now fully telegraphed by the SEC, it’s helpful to take a closer look at the filings slate to get an idea of what applicants are doing with this broader permission—i.e., where issuer focus has been concentrating.
Issuer attention is now split between what we can describe as:
To facilitate absorption of of these clusters further, we’ve repackaged the filings slate into the ‘heat map’ below.

They're still worth noting.
It’s when we examine the ‘regulatory lanes’ where live filings are pooling that the most surprising and counter-intuitive concentration emerges.
With the snapshot showing 124 filings, split between 42 ’33 Act spot applications, and 82 proposed ’40 Act spot and/or derivatives-based funds, the bias is clear.
It’s important to outline why these new signs of ’40 Act prevalence go against the grain and the direction of travel for crypto ETPs.
First off, note that for traditional assets (stocks, bonds, etc.) – investors have historically favored ’40 Act ETPs over ’33 Act ETPs. Crudely speaking, investors have generally regarded investor safeguards as higher in the former vs. the latter.
One major observation from the relatively short history of crypto ETPs though, is that the trend and apparent market preference have generally been in the opposite direction.
The first crypto-related U.S. ETF, ProShares’ Bitcoin ETF (BITO) was a futures-based ’40 Act ‘strategy’ fund, followed by several others.
But with Bitcoin’s longstanding categorization by issuers as a commodity, and the widely held view that futures-based commodity exposure is essentially less efficient than spot, the bigger push in crypto has been to list spot-based crypto ETFs. The sense of achievement in the space when the first Bitcoin ETFs came to market in January 2024 underlines this inverted preference.
So, the apparent emergence of the opposite prevalence among live crypto fund filings – a move towards the ’40 Act structure – is a surprise; and worth watching.
The numerous ’40 Act crypto ETFs listed in 2025 could count toward this counter trend.
Note: many of these funds, reference our regulated benchmarks’ e.g., REX Osprey’s, ESK, SSK, DOJE and XRPR.
It’s notable that the REX funds stole a march on all ’33 Act filings by making their market debut earlier than rivals.
This was largely due to specific regulatory idiosyncrasies of the ’40 Act that can permit effectiveness to be triggered automatically after statutory windows have lapsed.
One tentative suggestion is that a structural rotation back towards the ’40 Act wrapper might be emerging. Key attractions would include:
This all suggests the enactment of Generic Listing Standards – in itself – did not enable the wider expansion of fund asset types and other desired facilities as quickly as expected.
Firms may be hoping that a combination of ’40 Act flexibility and GSL permissiveness could turn out to be the clincher.
Let’s now examine the raft of paperwork from the perspective that it should continue to signal where investor appetite is now, and where it’s seen heading.
In the table below, we’ve summarized assets per the number of filings, alongside our take on the narratives surrounding each protocol.
For additional clarity on the types of protocols garnering attention, we’ve also specified the CF DACS Category and Sub-Category of each token.

Click here to read more about the CF Digital Asset Classification Structure (CF DACS).
The easiest takeaway from this slice: through the lens of CF DACS – the most objective and trusted digital asset taxonomy – it is clear that attention remains tightly clustered within relatively contained themes.
To an extent, this is cogent as the product class enters only its third year of existence.
1. Eligibility is the real battleground: The active-filings split seems to reinforce this: when the market is uncertain about the shortest path to scalable distribution, sponsors increasingly default to structures that can iterate faster—while keeping spot filings alive where they believe eligibility is converging.
2. Staking normalization: With “carry” as the next clearest differentiator in focus as spot beta commoditizes, demand for yield-bearing structures should accelerate a broader adoption of solutions on reward treatment, slashing risk, counterparty exposure, potential conflicts, and similar issues, and how they’re reflected in NAV and disclosures.
3. Payoff engineering: The broader move towards ’40 Act/derivatives structures is consistent with sponsors prioritizing greater flexibility in how gross returns are structured: e.g., buffered, covered-call, and other risk/return mechanisms
4. Indices/baskets as Trojan horse for mainstreaming: The multi-asset format maps more naturally to investment committee logic, and to model portfolio implementation. “Basket” is the second-largest active category, characterized by a meaningful ’33 spot component but still majority ’40/derivatives. That’s consistent with the view that diversified crypto is becoming the default distribution format—especially as advisors and gatekeepers seek committee-defensible allocations.
This wall of filings can be read as a single message: the U.S. crypto ETF space has moved into a scaled product cycle, with issuers building inventory across a clear hierarchy of core exposures, second-tier candidates, and “optionality” tests, while increasingly differentiating through structure and distribution, as much as through the underlying asset. As 2026 approaches, the agenda is standardization—clearer eligibility pathways, more repeatable operational models (including staking and yield, where viable). Plus, greater use of basket/index formats that map cleanly to portfolio construction—placing the premium on institutional plumbing: benchmark integrity, representative liquidity inputs, and governance that can withstand scrutiny at scale.
The information contained within is for educational and informational purposes ONLY. It is not intended nor should it be considered an invitation or inducement to buy or sell any of the underlying instruments cited including but not limited to cryptoassets, financial instruments or any instruments that reference any index provided by CF Benchmarks Ltd. This communication is not intended to persuade or incite you to buy or sell security or securities noted within. Any commentary provided is the opinion of the author and should not be considered a personalised recommendation. Please contact your financial adviser or professional before making an investment decision.
Note: Some of the underlying instruments cited within this material may be restricted to certain customer categories in certain jurisdictions.
A massive build-up of crypto ETF filings suggests issuers are pivoting away from the '33 Act framework towards more flexible '40 Act structures. We explain why.

Ken Odeluga
Crypto markets are entering a transformative phase in 2026, where regulatory clarity and monetary easing outweigh macro uncertainty. We expect a dovish Fed pivot counter to consensus, fostering lower real yields. Meanwhile, the CLARITY Act and broader adoption should drive our secular themes.

Gabriel Selby
Crypto's year-end tape remained selective last week, with BTC up 0.9%, while other high-beta majors slipped. The Infrastructure Sub-Category was a major loser in our CF DACS taxonomy, -10.4%, while implied volatility firmed as realized cooled; and our USDT funding rate measure reset above 10%.

CF Benchmarks