According to @glassnode, the 30-day simple moving average of net flows into both Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs turned negative in early November and has remained below zero, indicating muted participation and partial disengagement from institutional allocators (Source: Glassnode, Dec 23, 2025, glassno.de/4qipTdW). For traders, this sustained negative flow trend reinforces a broader liquidity contraction across the crypto market, highlighting weaker ETF demand as reported by Glassnode (Source: Glassnode, Dec 23, 2025, glassno.de/4qipTdW).

According to @camillionaire_m, Ethereum DATs operate like growth companies that compound ETH via staking, restaking, and DeFi to increase ether-generation-per-share, whereas ETH ETFs are passive wrappers designed to track spot or futures price without compounding. Source: @camillionaire_m on X, Sep 26, 2025. @camillionaire_m states that DATs can fully stake their ETH if they choose, while ETFs cannot stake or participate in DeFi at present; even if permitted later, ETFs will remain unable to fully stake due to redemption liquidity requirements. Source: @camillionaire_m on X, Sep 26, 2025. @camillionaire_m adds that DATs can raise and deploy capital more flexibly—issuing equity or convertibles and deploying proceeds onchain—while ETFs only issue units to meet demand and cannot direct strategy due to fund structure and custody constraints. Source: @camillionaire_m on X, Sep 26, 2025. For institutional allocators and traders, @camillionaire_m emphasizes that the choice between DATs and ETFs determines exposure type: compounding ETH yield versus regulated price beta, with materially different performance and risk profiles for ETH strategies. Source: @camillionaire_m on X, Sep 26, 2025.