$ETH The ETF outflow figure looks smaller, but I’m not interpreting that as a return of capital just yet. In the newly added October 8 row, ETHA and ETHB are still marked as missing. Until the key products are fully reported, the closer a partial total gets to zero, the more important it is to confirm the denominator before changing our view of the trend.
The previous note covered the full U.S. trading day on October 7, when net outflows were about $160.9 million. When I checked Farside’s original table again at 11:40 a.m. Beijing time today, partial data for October 8 had appeared, with the page showing a provisional total of −$1.4 million. This is an update to the reporting progress, not yet a result that can be directly compared with the previous day’s complete total. Missing data is not zero, and two blank entries do not mean there were no creations or redemptions.
Among the products with reported figures, FETH was at +$5.5 million and MSSE at +$1.3 million; ETHE was at −$6.1 million, while TETH and ETHV were at −$1.2 million and −$0.9 million, respectively. There are both inflows and outflows, which at least suggests that flows are diverging across products. But these figures don’t tell us how much ETHA and ETHB will ultimately contribute, and the state of the reporting does not prove that trading has turned around. This is about the funds’ net flows, not the buying and selling of all ETH holders.
Why am I particularly focused on the missing large products? On the previous full reporting day, ETHA alone had net outflows of about $116.1 million, significantly affecting the day’s total. With it missing today, the provisional total naturally cannot be used to prove that pressure of a similar scale has disappeared. This is not a prediction that ETHA will definitely continue to see outflows; if the final figure is positive, the complete total could improve, while a negative figure could widen the outflow. The answer depends on the actual disclosure, not on the optimistic impression created by a blank.
The issuer’s page has updated another type of evidence: iShares lists ETHA’s net asset value on October 8 as $55.56, down 4.24% for the day. The NAV can be updated while the flow table is still incomplete. The former describes the valuation of each share; the latter describes net creations and redemptions. We can’t use a decline in NAV to fill in the blank flow figures, nor can we claim that prices are no longer under pressure just because partial flows have narrowed.
We also need to account for timing differences. The issuer’s NAV is dated October 8, while the page’s trading volume and closing price are still dated October 7. We shouldn’t combine modules from different dates and treat them as one complete, up-to-date snapshot. ETF quotes and full-day trading volume are also not the same as a fund’s net creations and redemptions: investors trading shares on an exchange don’t necessarily cause the fund to create or redeem shares.
I’ll wait for the missing products to report, then recalculate the day’s total and the cumulative total across consecutive trading days, and see whether any improvement is supported by multiple products. If one product is merely offsetting outflows from others, the conclusion will be more limited. Only if complete, comparable data stays positive will there be reason to revise our view of demand. The new information at this point is the reporting progress and divergence across products—not confirmation that selling pressure has ended. The original table updates automatically, so any subsequent revisions will require recalculation. Sources: Farside’s original Ethereum ETF table and the iShares ETHA issuer page.
The previous note covered the full U.S. trading day on October 7, when net outflows were about $160.9 million. When I checked Farside’s original table again at 11:40 a.m. Beijing time today, partial data for October 8 had appeared, with the page showing a provisional total of −$1.4 million. This is an update to the reporting progress, not yet a result that can be directly compared with the previous day’s complete total. Missing data is not zero, and two blank entries do not mean there were no creations or redemptions.
Among the products with reported figures, FETH was at +$5.5 million and MSSE at +$1.3 million; ETHE was at −$6.1 million, while TETH and ETHV were at −$1.2 million and −$0.9 million, respectively. There are both inflows and outflows, which at least suggests that flows are diverging across products. But these figures don’t tell us how much ETHA and ETHB will ultimately contribute, and the state of the reporting does not prove that trading has turned around. This is about the funds’ net flows, not the buying and selling of all ETH holders.
Why am I particularly focused on the missing large products? On the previous full reporting day, ETHA alone had net outflows of about $116.1 million, significantly affecting the day’s total. With it missing today, the provisional total naturally cannot be used to prove that pressure of a similar scale has disappeared. This is not a prediction that ETHA will definitely continue to see outflows; if the final figure is positive, the complete total could improve, while a negative figure could widen the outflow. The answer depends on the actual disclosure, not on the optimistic impression created by a blank.
The issuer’s page has updated another type of evidence: iShares lists ETHA’s net asset value on October 8 as $55.56, down 4.24% for the day. The NAV can be updated while the flow table is still incomplete. The former describes the valuation of each share; the latter describes net creations and redemptions. We can’t use a decline in NAV to fill in the blank flow figures, nor can we claim that prices are no longer under pressure just because partial flows have narrowed.
We also need to account for timing differences. The issuer’s NAV is dated October 8, while the page’s trading volume and closing price are still dated October 7. We shouldn’t combine modules from different dates and treat them as one complete, up-to-date snapshot. ETF quotes and full-day trading volume are also not the same as a fund’s net creations and redemptions: investors trading shares on an exchange don’t necessarily cause the fund to create or redeem shares.
I’ll wait for the missing products to report, then recalculate the day’s total and the cumulative total across consecutive trading days, and see whether any improvement is supported by multiple products. If one product is merely offsetting outflows from others, the conclusion will be more limited. Only if complete, comparable data stays positive will there be reason to revise our view of demand. The new information at this point is the reporting progress and divergence across products—not confirmation that selling pressure has ended. The original table updates automatically, so any subsequent revisions will require recalculation. Sources: Farside’s original Ethereum ETF table and the iShares ETHA issuer page.