Exciting news: after four years of prohibition, UK retail investors will again be able to buy exchange-traded notes (ETNs) linked to cryptocurrencies.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) lifts its ban on 8 October. Compliant products will likely hit mainstream brokers shortly thereafter.
According to the FCA, 12% of UK adults own crypto assets (around seven million people) and 26% of non-crypto asset owners say, “they would be more likely to buy crypto assets if the market and activities were regulated.”
In other words, crypto is gaining acceptance as a part of many people’s investment portfolios. (At least until the next crypto winter.)
What we want to know is:
- What type of crypto products has the FCA approved?
- How do they work?
- Do they actually track their associated cryptocurrencies?
- What are the risks?
- How are you protected if it all goes horribly wrong?
- What about tax?
That will do for starters.
The big win
Exchange-traded products of all types (ETFs, ETNs, and ETCs) enable more everyday people to invest in an asset class without getting embroiled in all the hassle that direct ownership usually brings with it.
- Don’t want to research the ‘best dynamite-proof safes’ to house your gold bar collection? Buy a gold ETC
- Don’t want a herd of cows turning up on your doorstep? Buy a commodities ETF
- Don’t want the next Sam Bankman-Fried to nick all your crypto? Buy a crypto ETN
You get the idea. With exchange-traded products, you can outsource the grief of asset ownership to trusted providers for a reasonable fee.
However that doesn’t mean all exchange-traded products are the same.
If you buy an MSCI World ETF then you can be pretty sure you are getting well regulated exposure to over a thousand leading stock market-listed companies.
But ETNs are not ETFs. And crypto ownership entails different risks to share ownership.
Importantly, you don’t actually own any crypto when you invest in this type of product. But the ETN issuer may well do. That exposes it and you to a steaming jungle of risks that I’ll touch upon below.
Meanwhile the rest of this article will help you go into all this with your eyes wide open.
What are crypto ETNs?
The FCA has only green-lit the sale of crypto ETNs (not ETFs) to retail investors in the UK.1
The UK-approved crypto ETN headlines are:
- Bitcoin or Ether are the only cryptocurrencies that can be linked to via an ETN for now
- The ETN must track the market price of its cryptocurrency – often via a third-party index
- It should be physically backed by a non-leveraged asset. That underlying asset can be Bitcoin or Ether, but it doesn’t have to be
- ETNs aren’t protected by the FSCS compensation scheme. (Neither are ETFs for that matter, though hopefully you’ve chosen a broker who is)
- Crypto ETNs are tradeable on the London Stock Exchange
- ETNs can be bought in your ISA or SIPP, so long as the issuer has ticked the necessary boxes
- ETNs are not governed by the warm and cuddly UCITS regulations
- Total Expense Ratios (TERs) are likely to range from 0.15% to 2%
ETNs aren’t new. They’ve been used to track certain assets (like old-school currencies) long before crypto.
Indeed crypto ETNs aren’t new either. They were offered to the UK public up until they were restricted in January 2021. And they’ve gathered billions in assets from UK professional investors and European retail investors since then.
These existing products are obviously the ones most likely to come on-stream for retail investors after 8 October. Which is handy for us, because it means we can size them up beforehand.
Notable names
Crypto ETNs are issued by both traditional investment asset managers and crypto-native outfits.
Familiar names that already offer ETNs in the UK and Europe include WisdomTree, Invesco, Fidelity, VanEck, and BlackRock.
Crypto-focussed brands include 21Shares, Bitwise, Coinbase, and Valour.
Crypto ETNs: the dark and dingy details
ETNs are debt securities rather than investment funds. In exchange for your cash, you get a promise that the issuer will pay you a return in the future.
What happens if the ETN’s issuer defaults? In that case you may be paid less than you are owed – or not at all.
In debt parlance, you’ll ‘take a haircut’. Probably one that feels more like the medieval lock-chopping practised by religious maniacs than a nice tint and blow-dry down your local salon.
But what might prevent you from getting entirely mullet-ed in such a scenario is collateral.
A ‘collateralised’ ETN protects the value of your investment with a big stash of assets lodged with an (ideally) independent and reputable custodian.
Should your issuer be unable to pay, this collateral can be sold to honour the debt.
You might ask does your issuer stow away enough collateral to cover the value of its obligations? Is the collateral good quality? Will it fetch enough on the market to pay back investors during a crisis?
All good questions, which you’ll have to answer on a case-by-case basis (and by delving into the details provided by your ETN on its website).
The dating game
ETNs can be dated or undated debt instruments.
- Dated means the ETN has a fixed maturity date. Just like a bond does.
- Undated means the security is theoretically perpetual – like a share (or an old-fashioned ‘consol’ if you’re a bond aficionado or a Jane Austen fan).
You’d expect crypto ETNs to be undated – that is, for the security to be available so long as there’s a market for it and nothing blows up.
But an ETN can be called. This means the issuer can redeem it at any time – paying back investors with the cash in the collateral kitty.
It’s worth reading the ETN’s prospectus to understand what happens in the event your chosen product is redeemed early. Especially the sections on how the claims of other parties will be paid before the investors.
You’ll likely come across choice phrases such as:
…following satisfaction of all priority claims, such Security holders [that’s us!] may not receive payment of the Early Redemption Amount in full and may receive substantially less and may potentially receive nothing.
There’s lovely.
There’ll also be an early redemption fee to boot.
So choose an ETN that’s stocked with plenty of collateral. The issuer is under no obligation to make any other assets available in the event of a shortfall.
Let’s get physical
ETNs can be synthetic as opposed to physically backed.
A synthetic ETN employs a swap-based derivative to deliver the performance of the underlying asset. This introduces another layer of counterparty risk, because the company providing the swap could fail.
This may be moot for now, since it looks like only physically-backed crypto ETNs will be admitted to the London Stock Exchange. But it’s still worth checking if you’re compiling a shortlist of candidates.
Do crypto ETNs actually track their crypto’s spot price?
Here’s a quick USD comparison of the Bitwise Physical Bitcoin ETP (BTCE) versus Bitcoin’s market price.

Source: Google Finance (26 Sep 2020 to 22 September 2025).
BTCE

Source: justETF (26 Sep 2020 to 19 September 2025).
JustETF and Google Finance can’t quite agree on what five years is, so up next is the result I got when I matched the dates for a comparable long-term view:
Asset | 5-yr cumulative return (%) | 5-yr annualised return (%) |
BTCE | 878 | 56 |
Bitcoin | 990 | 61 |
Dates: 26 Sep 2020 to 19 September 2025. (BTCE inception date: 9 Jun 2020, TER: 2%.)
That’s an astounding return from Bitcoin either way – assuming you held on during the 77% death slide from November 2021 through November 2022.
But still, BTCE gave up 5% a year in comparison to Bitcoin – a tracking difference that isn’t entirely accounted for by the ETN’s eye-watering 2% TER.
Tracks of my tears
Transaction costs, taxation, blockchain network fees, collateral overheads, brokerage charges, and various other operational frictions can all eat into your return without necessarily being captured by the TER.
You’re also likely to see a clause like this nestled in a crypto ETN’s prospectus:
The market value and price of the ETP securities does not exclusively depend on the prevailing price of bitcoin and changes in the prevailing price of bitcoin may not necessarily result in a comparable change in the market value of the ETP securities.
Other ETNs may track their linked cryptocurrency more faithfully than BTCE. I haven’t checked other products or timeframes.
But the point here is I’ve never seen such a large tracking difference gap when investigating vanilla ETFs tethered to mainstream asset classes.
On that basis, I recommend checking the tracking difference performance of all your prospective ETN candidates versus their linked cryptocurrencies. It looks like being an important factor.
Watch out for wide spreads, too. This is another cost of business that may vary widely, depending on the ETN’s liquidity and, at times, shifting perceptions of the creditworthiness of the issuer and any associated service providers.
Crypto ETNs: the risks
Reading the risk section of a crypto ETN’s prospectus is like visiting a chamber of horrors. Every grisly fate and sticky end your ETN could meet is listed.
Or at least I hope it’s listed.
Either way it’s an educational read and, if you’re on the fence about crypto investing, it could send you running in the opposite direction of the alluring 900% return graph I showed above.
To give you a flavour, let’s pick out a few highlights from the risk section of the iShares Bitcoin ETP (IB1T) prospectus. (To be clear this is just illustrative: I have no reason to believe that IB1T is a particularly risky crypto ETN.)
What follows is a sample of the higher-dimensional risk space you enter when crypto is involved. It’s got more dimensions than string theory…
Theft of crypto
…the Issuer’s bitcoin may be subject to theft, loss, destruction or other attack, which may result in the value of the Securities being reduced, potentially to zero.
Irrecoverable losses
A breach of the Issuer’s account at the Custodian or the Prime Execution Agent could result in the partial or total loss of the Issuer’s assets, which is likely to result in a partial or full loss in the value of the Securities.
If any relevant Cryptoassets are lost, stolen, damaged or otherwise compromised in circumstances in which the Custodian, the Prime Execution Agent, another service provider to the Issuer or any other party is liable to the Issuer for such loss, theft, damage or compromise, the Custodian, the Prime Execution Agent or other responsible party may not have sufficient resources to fully compensate the Issuer.
Security risks including the efficacy of cold storage
The security procedures in place for the Issuer’s bitcoin may include offline ‘cold’ storage, the use of multiple encrypted private key ‘shards’, and other measures designed to reduce the risk of the loss or theft of the Issuer’s bitcoin. However, these cannot guarantee the prevention of any loss due to a security breach, software defect or force majeure event that may be experienced by the Issuer or the Custodian…
Cryptoexchange risk
Crypto asset platforms are often unregulated in nature and may be vulnerable to manipulative trading activity, business failure, fraud and security breaches. In addition, if a crypto asset platform which a Series of Securities utilises for storage, trading and/or settlement becomes insolvent this may lead to a loss of the Issuer’s underlying assets and therefore a loss for the relevant Security holders.
Concentration of Bitcoin ownership
Crypto assets may be subject to attacks by malicious actors or groups of actors. If a malicious actor or botnet obtains control of more than 50% of the processing power dedicated to mining on the Bitcoin network, it may be able to alter the Bitcoin blockchain on which transactions in bitcoin rely by constructing fraudulent blocks or preventing certain transactions from completing in a timely manner or at all (a ‘51% attack’).
To the extent that such malicious actor or botnet did not yield its control of the processing power on the Bitcoin network, or the Bitcoin community did not reject the fraudulent blocks as malicious, reversing any changes made to the Bitcoin blockchain may not be possible. There have been a number of examples of 51% attacks on cryptocurrencies.
Devaluation risk
…there is no guarantee that the current 21 million supply cap for outstanding Bitcoin, which is estimated to be reached by approximately the year 2140, will not be changed. If a hard fork changing the 21 million supply cap is widely adopted, the limit on the supply of Bitcoin could be lifted, which could have an adverse impact on the value of bitcoin and the value of the Securities.
Cryptography risk
The cryptography underlying bitcoin could prove to be flawed or ineffective, or developments in mathematics and/or technology, including advances in digital computing, algebraic geometry and quantum computing, could result in such cryptography becoming ineffective.
Any resulting reduction in the integrity of, or confidence in, the source code or cryptography underlying crypto assets generally could negatively affect the demand for crypto assets and therefore may adversely affect the value of Bitcoin and consequently the value of the Securities.
Developer risk
Some developers may also be funded by entities whose interests are at odds with the interests of other participants in the Bitcoin network or with the interests of investors in bitcoin. A bad actor could also seek to interfere with the operation of the Bitcoin network by attempting to exercise a malign influence over a core developer.
Taxation risk
There is currently no tax certainty regarding the treatment of investments in crypto assets across various jurisdictions due to the novelty of the asset class. Accordingly, the taxation of the crypto assets and associated investments can vary significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and may be subject to change, potentially also with retroactive effect. Any change in the tax treatment of the crypto assets could result in the Issuer incurring additional taxes…
…and there’s plenty more where that came from. I’m not even getting into the regulatory risk, or the uncertainty over whether the issuer could legally enforce its claim to the ETN’s crypto collateral held with third-parties.
Really, you could replace all 23,867 words in the prospectus’ risk section with the legend: AAAAARGH!
Or as the issuer succinctly puts it:
Don’t invest unless you’re prepared to lose all the money you invest.
Crypto ETN tax
Okay, let’s turn now to something more relaxing. Tax.
A crypto ETN does not pay an income. Thus the only tax to worry about is capital gains – payable if you hold the product outside of your tax shelters.
Also, if the ETN is domiciled outside of the UK then check it has reporting fund status. If not then capital gains will be taxed at income tax rates when you sell. That could hurt!
Note that this reporting fund stuff doesn’t apply if you’ve safely stashed your ETN in an ISA or SIPP.
Crypto ETN checklist
When comparing crypto ETNs, look for:
Cost of ownership – What’s the TER, bid-offer spreads, tracking difference?
Collateral – What assets are held as collateral, how much is held versus the value of the product, are there daily disclosures, is the collateral insured and independently audited?
The custodian – Is the keeper of the collateral independent and reputable?
Securities lending policy – Can the collateral be lent out? That would invite yet more counterparty risk.
Asset protection – Is the crypto mostly held offline in cold storage? Are the ETN’s assets segregated from other parties?
Product structure – Is the ETN backed by physical cryptocurrency or another asset, or does it use synthetic replication (that is, swap-based derivatives)? Physical is usually safer.
Price index – Google it. Is this index reputable? Does it definitely track the crypto’s spot price?
ETN leverage – Look for a 1:1 ratio to ensure you’re getting a non-leveraged product. (Unless you actually want leverage, you complete and utter nutter.)
Tax – Can I hold the product in my ISA or SIPP? If not, does it have reporting fund status?
Early redemption, default, and failure – What does the prospectus say about these scenarios?
Best of luck!
Obviously none of this is investing advice. We’re just running through things to think about should you decide you want to research these new offerings for yourself.
Personally, I can’t say I’m about to sink my life savings into crypto. But I will follow along with interest. I think crypto is an astounding phenomenon but I have grave doubts about its worth as an asset class in a wider portfolio.
Of course, my views are neither here nor there. And even the FCA has caved to the inevitable, because swathes of Brits were opting to take their chances in unregulated offshore exchanges. Not to mention the various other crypto-powered vehicles that had crept onto the market.
Is this progress? I don’t know. But I am fascinated.
Take it steady,
The Accumulator
- The ‘retail investors’ category refers to ordinary punters like you and me who invest their own money in their own accounts. As opposed to professional investors who trade for a living, or ‘sophisticated’ investors who can typically afford to lose a lot of money if they spunk their cash away on a scam. [↩]
Thanks very much for the detailed breakdown TA, I will stay away from crypto myself for many reasons but good luck to those who jump on board .
TFJ
@TA – thanks for this.
Might be worth 1 or 2% of my SIPP, carved out of the gold allocation…
Maybe.
Blimey. I thought crypto was bad enough as it is before you stir in all this obfuscation into the pot.
You can buy crypto on the open market. You can store it in a cold wallet, which you can back up the bejesus out of it.
I hold gold via ETCs. The downsides to holding physical gold are obvious. And they just don’t apply to crypto. Buy your crypto and transfer to a cold wallet. Back up enough times as gives you peace of mind, sort of like the first pics of your newborn. Some in cloud, some printed.
Now you have a bearer store of value – the greatest value of crypto is that you can run with it.
I find no temptation to hold crypto with an ETN – it’s all added counterparty risk. I have to admit I don’t hold mine in a cold wallet yet, but that is because I am building up a position and it’s only £3k now, so I am good with coinbase and accept the risk.
> And even the FCA has caved to the inevitable, because swathes of Brits were opting to take their chances in unregulated offshore exchanges.
I’m not sure this is any sort of an improvement. It’s like a flawed sword that fails you in your hour of need. Buy it on the open market and you know you are in a nest of vipers, spivs and dodgy geezers, and it’s up to you to take life-changing amounts offline and keep them offline. What exactly is the FCA protecting you from that you couldn’t do yourself, we know here be dragons, adding a load more indirection and ways to crap out that they won’t protect you from strikes me as bonkers. There’s a delightful honesty to
> Don’t invest unless you’re prepared to lose all the money you invest.
and the FCA hasn’t helped you with that one iota by adding even more ways to screw up and more counterparties to make off with the loot. Buying bitcoin needn’t be so damn complicated. It is inherently dodgy, because of all the risks to the underlying system which is not 100% understood, for all I know the ghost of Satoshi’s wallet may one day hold the entire edifice to ransom, and advances in computing could blow the whole thing up. Adding even more dodginess to the existing dodginess and calling is FCA approved dodginess + is bonkers. For the love of God, why?
So maybe the small Alternatives section of the portfolio will now be:
– SGLN
– CMFP
– IBIT or BTIP?
Who knew!?
We once held consoles so don’t be so mean. Think we sold at £30…..great investment we inherited there.
Excellent piece. Thank you @TA.
It had to happen. Usually, a thematic ETF launch is a sign of a big top, and an attempt to create exit liquidity for early investors. But here, with crypto, it’s our flat footed FCA who are to finger for the timing.
At the time of the FCA ban on 6 October 2020 the price of Bitcoin was about £8,200. Today it is ~£84,000. Half a hand clap there for protecting consumers!
What really caught my eye though is how this regulatory shift opens doors to hybrids like the 21Shares Bitcoin and Gold ETP (ticker BOLD, currently Zurich listed).
While you rightly compare pure crypto ETNs to a wild ride, echoing your “AAAAARGH!” on the prospectus risks, BOLD feels like a more tempered option for diversification hungry passives like me.
It’s physically backed, blending Bitcoin’s growth potential with gold’s potential inflation hedging stability via monthly inverse volatility rebalancing (around 60/40 split lately).
It’s a nod to Ray Dalio’s all-weather portfolio ethos, where gold acts as a ballast against Bitcoin’s volatility swings.
It’s not FSCS protected, and those operational risks and frictions (Blockchain fees, custody issues) all apply in spades, but the 0.65% TER is ‘competitive”in this space, and its performance since 2022 (over 130% cumulative) shows some resilience in choppy markets.
For fellow passives, BOLD could possibly be a part of that 5-10% satellite allocation to less / negatively / uncorrelated assets; enhancing diversification without upending a core equity index tracking approach.
I’m not all in with it, or crypto more generally, though, and your skepticism here resonates. But in a world of persistent inflation, deficits and fiat doubts, maybe it’s worth a look.
I do have to say though that, IMO, there’s a massively underated (and under thought through) growing risk in relation to Blockchains like Bitcoin’s from quantum computing advances.
I’ve commented on this before on Monevator, but here’s a recent YouTube piece covering this ground:
https://youtu.be/HKcVpZIsP6k?feature=shared
The TL:DR (with timestamps) is that quantum computers could deduce private keys from public keys, allowing attackers to steal funds from existing wallets [36:57]. Older, dormant wallets, including the legendary stash of Satoshi, are particularly vulnerable because their public keys are already exposed on the Blockchain [37:06]. Upgrading a decentralized network like Bitcoin requires global consensus, which is a slow and challenging process given the networks decentralisation and diversity [58:22] necessitating a “hard fork,” that could divide the community and prevent a timely enough decision [01:23:57]. Millions of existing wallets, especially older ones whose public keys are already exposed, cannot be retroactively updated, remaining permanently vulnerable [00:39:50] Transitioning the entire digital infrastructure of BTC is akin to replacing the nervous system of civilization mid-flight [01:25:03]. Despite repeated warnings, the crypto ecosystem still lacks any sense of urgency, viewing the threat as distant or inconvenient. Yet the consensus from experts (Gartner analysts estimate a 50% chance of disruption by 2037 [49:59]) and major financial institutions like BlackRock (who are massively involved in crypto ETPs) is that the quantum computing threat to Blockchain is real, and increasingly near term [01:09:06].
Thanks for the thorough breakdown; it’s armed me to tread (exceeding) carefully after 8th October!
Here be dragons … and their treasure (maybe).
@DeltaHedge #6
> BOLD – 50:50 gold:BTC, 0.65% OCF
Oy vey, truly we are in the End Times. For starters, why 50:50? Secondly go git yourself the gold ETC from any of the ones listed here at 0.12% and match with your preferred ration of BTC bought straight off, and save yourself 0.55% fees. Job done.
I share the BTC computing advance worry. As the man said
> Don’t invest unless you’re prepared to lose all the money you invest.
IMO you only need some BTC to leaven the mix, 50:50 is way too much BTC IMO. But I suppose if you are a GenZ moonshotter, well, the sky’s the limit
@ermine #8: yep, it ain’t cheap, but you can’t really fairly compare it to a plain vanilla gold or even to a Bitcoin ETP. Allocation is fully dynamic on this one – rebalances monthly using an inverse volatility weighting mechanism to equal risk exposure (i.e., higher volatility assets like Bitcoin get a lower weight, but this adapts as the relative share of volatility between gold and Bitcoin changes). As of 22nd September, allocation was approx 62% Bitcoin and 38% gold (this fluctuates; earlier reports, from when Bitcoin was relatively more volatile, sometimes reference 25% Bitcoin / 75% gold split, but it’s not fixed). Your nearest fee comparator is perhaps an active fund (get out the garlic and the silver crosses on that one!) or something quanty.
Fascinating (worrying?) how something ostensibly so easy in which to dabble can have such complex issues. I think my attraction to diversification is overtaken by simply not understanding this well enough, even with this excellent piece, thanks @TA.
Maybe no current need for impenetrably complex asset classes for a GenZ moonshot – even in its pre-retirement de-risked state, portfolio is zooming! A bit frothy perhaps, but at least a risk I can get my head round.
As I mentioned on a previous post – this is the FCA doing what they do – ineptly making sure retail don’t have the opportunity to make money.
Crypto bad at $12000 per BTC. We protect you from this volatile instrument
Crypto fine at $120000 per BTC. Fill your boots.
I’ve held the Ethereum ETN since 2017 in my sipp. The last ban coincided with the very start of the pandemic bull run. I had wanted to buy the BTC one. But no. HL even slapped it with an immediate ban on purchase in Oct 2020 prior to the fca actually stopping it. “The FCA have said it’s unsafe”. You what?! I screamed at them down the phone for doing so but was too lazy to move my sipp.
They did the same with Rhodium under the guise of not having a KID for the deutschebank etf, coincidentally just before the 2018 bull run. Fortunately I’d bought some prior.
Jokers. It bears saying again. They are perfectly fine with people buying stocks that can go to zero. I’ve bought plenty over the years. No protection – and neither did I want any. Let us make our own choices.
Excellent – thank you. Crypto not really my thing, but as you say interesting to follow, and anyway this is not really about Crypto, but about ETNs – makes sense but had no idea the tracking was so bad! Hadn’t seen this elsewhere so really great to have all this info laid out.
Thanks for the article. I enjoy reading about crypto and at the same time I have no desire to touch it with my own money,
The FT has an interesting article about companies pivoting to holding crypto and buying back their own shares https://www.ft.com/content/573be235-56a6-4556-90af-a8eac887dbf9
It’ll all end in tears, it’s just the next dodgy financial product waiting to reel in unsuspecting investors before it goes bust.
> The cryptography underlying bitcoin could prove to be flawed or ineffective, or developments in mathematics and/or technology, including advances in digital computing, algebraic geometry and quantum computing, could result in such cryptography becoming ineffective.
> Any resulting reduction in the integrity of, or confidence in, the source code or cryptography underlying crypto assets generally could negatively affect the demand for crypto assets and therefore may adversely affect the value of Bitcoin and consequently the value of the Securities.
I agree with Delta Hedge with regards to the vulnerability of Bitcoin to quantum computing attacks, and appreciate The Accumulator bringing it up in the article. Also smart for iShares to enumerate it, though wording it as “could become ineffective” rather than “will soon become ineffective” strikes me as undeservedly optimistic.
Right now, bitcoin is like a company with ~30% free floating shares. When quantum computing attacks release assets from all the wallets whose owners have lost the keys, the float will go up, depressing prices. When some of the actively held wallets get drained, there will be less demand for buying leaky buckets and it will be a fun show to watch. On the other hand, quantum bitcoin miners could reduce the energy footprint
Etherium has previously had a hard fork to reverse a hack – they might have more direction with the creator (Vitalik Butlerin) still involved in attempting to transition to Post-Quantum Cryptograpthy, but I don’t envy their chances
@ermine (or anyone else who has experience of buying bitcoin!).
Could I perhaps ask you a question as you seem to have a handle on bitcoin. I purchased a small chunk many years ago. It has been on my to do list to look at buying more as a diversifier. I hold with blockchain.
When I look to purchase via blockchain a £100 purchase has fees (and perhaps a spread) of £2.99 (2.9%). A purchase of £1200 would have fees of £41.88 (£3.39%).
Similar quotes on my coinbase app (which I have not purchased through yet) are £100 @ £3.89 and £1200 @ £46.00.
Is this typical of the level of fees I would have to incur to buy bitcoin direct? Or am I missing something….
This is great @TA – the list of risks is an actually a good route in to better understanding of crypto generally. EG 51% attack!
@ermine your comments make sense to me too. And thanks to @delta hedge for excellent further elaboration.
Thanks again for covering this topic
@Pikolo — Hi! You write:
I suppose this is because iShares have lawyers drafting legal documents, rather than the rather lower bar of us anonymous commenters on the Internet… 😉
From what I’ve read the consensus of quantum computing really threatening cryptography ranges from 15 years away to ‘never’ which would seem to give plenty of time for Bitcoin to transition to a post-quantum cryptography world *if* required.
There should be plenty of signposts along the way, too, given the apparent challenges of scaling quantum computers. Moore’s Law doesn’t seem to apply, at least pending some kind of novel breakthrough.
Of course ‘will’ might still arguably apply in my more optimistic scenario, but then there’s a lot of ‘wills’ that we don’t write into legal documents. My house will eventually crumble, and the Earth will be consumed by the sun. Not for me to worry about though. 😉
Also, we have to understand that a quantum computing world with genuinely useful compute-at-scale would be upending cryptography (and much else besides) all over the place, IMHO. It wouldn’t be a niche sideshow for crypto blogs and social media timelines like today.
TLDR: I think Bitcoin has time to adapt, and I don’t see why 51% of those who control the network wouldn’t move to do so if required.
@Ian #16
I took a look at my last Coinbase (advanced platform) transaction for BTC in GBP, placed at 9/19/25 21:59, filled at 06:59 the next day
0.00133763 BTC for £84,798.17
subtotal £113.43
fee 0.40 (I am post only, I do not allow taker)
total £114.83
> Similar quotes on my coinbase app (which I have not purchased through yet) are £100 @ £3.89
I am an old git and I don’t use apps, and very definitely not for finance, I use the web interface. But this looks very high for coinbase. Have you switched to CB pro on the app – Coinbase regular does have high fees, I didn’t realise they are that high
Now this is Bitcoin, so there are many areas where spivs can take you for a ride. Coinbase may be offering a poorer rate than other exchanges at any instant in time and finessing fees there. It’s hard to determine, given the shocking volatility. Cryptoradar shows the best exchange for any asset.
I do not want a relationship with more than one exchange, the more people have your details the more chance of spivs hacking them. If/when I have a worrying amount on an excahnge I will bump the BTC into a cold wallet. IMO crypto is definitely something that should be held at the very end of your bargepole, and I only do BTC and ETH, mainly BTC. And I am mustelid, not whale, in the size of the holding, because in gold I trust. I have direct wallet experience in another cryptoasset, and the feeling I get there is that fees are higher for small transactions
I did find the BOLD concept interesting, that’s BTC and gold. I can’t find the reference now, but basically BTC is a risk-on asset and gold isrisk-off fear, all other things being equal, which they aren’t at the moment. A small amount of BTC (~5-10% max) as a proportion of a gold + BTC has some merit, particularly if you rebalance it every so often – monthly seemed the target. I am not sure I CBA with that, but I have a paltry BTC holding, probably much less than yours as I am Johnny-come-lately, I was in then out, and more recently in with the BOLD idea.
I am not the typical Monevator reader though, because I have reached where I want to be and have flicked the engines to cruise. Nobody who is trying to make their fortune should hold large amounts of non-productive stores of value. I hold about half in equities which is probably low round here. I absolutely respect TI/TAs right to kick this comment very far into touch as it’s dangerously active in a pretty dangerous asset class.
Perhaps this was in the post and I overlooked it, but can anyone tell me why an ETN – which seems a rather complicated financial instrument – allowed but a straightforward ETF equivalent to SGLN is not? EDIT: I’ve just spotted that SGLN is an ETC not an ETF, so perhaps that’s also complicated and I just didn’t know!
Not my area of expertise by any means (!), but is there any risk that Crypto ETNs, being debt securities, are treated by HMRC as deeply discounted securities for UK tax purposes, such that the entirety of any net return is taxed as income (and not as capital gains) outside a tax free wrapper? Probably nonsense but grateful for any thoughts.
@Steve Lemon #20 I’ve held SGLN in the past and HL tells you that you can hold it in an ISA, SIPP or LISA. As you say it is an ETC, but a refreshing simplicity compared to this ETN.
@TI #18: That’s a thoughtful and well-articulated argument for optimism, but….
What about harvest now, decrypt later? Even if the breakthrough is 15 years away, encrypted data (including Bitcoin public keys from older wallets) can be collected today and stored. Once a powerful quantum computer is operational, those keys can be cracked retroactively, immediately emptying millions of coins, including Satoshi’s. This vulnerability can’t be patched.
The assumption that the Bitcoin community will quickly agree to a hard fork for survival may be optimistic given past difficulties.
The transition to a post-quantum algorithm would require a complex, consensus driven network (10,000+ nodes) upgrade. The debate to implement Segregated Witness (SegWit), which involved a much less radical change than a fundamental crypto-system swap (and was part of a compromise solution to double the effective block size from 1MB to ~2MB), took over three years of intense, acrimonious public debate before it achieved its lock in signal in mid-2017.
There’s no small well coordinated aligned group with 51% of the hashing power who can push this through.
This is maybe more akin to the situation with CDOs and RMBS in the run up to the GFC, where the banks failed to act in their own (and their own shareholders’ and senior employees’) self interests, despite a fair few voices pointing out well in advance (although admittedly, and ironically, a bit too early as it turns out) that the whole house of cards would topple.
While the consensus on quantum computing timelines is indeed wide, the defense must be 100% successful and proactive. The attacker only needs one successful, secret breakthrough to compromise the system before the slow, global consensus process completes. This is an existential threat, not merely one of many. The current security of a multi trillion dollar asset cannot rely on the hope that a catastrophic breakthrough adheres to a predictable signpost schedule giving the many disparate parties involved time to agree all aspects of the fundamental changes to Bitcoin’s core protocol. In contrast, the board of a centralised commercial institution like a bank or a fund platform could move PDQ if required to implement post quantum cryptography.
FWIW, my guess is that someone like North Korea’s now infamous Lazarus Group would, in the future, try and execute a heist / disruption Op like this, possibly with either active PRC assistance or their wilful blindness (Lazarus have been behind some of the very biggest and most challenging recent crypto hacks/thefts – they’re a front for the Reconnaissance General Bureau of the General Staff Department of the Korean Peoples’ Army and, it’s fair to say, are pretty hardcore and deep under the radar when it comes to these sorts of mischief).
@TI “.. I think Bitcoin has time to adapt..”.
The great thing about gold is that it doesn’t need to adapt. It’s elemental.
Bitcoin, crypto.., is just a mathematical construct that will need lots of shape-shifting over time.
Every time I think of bitcoin, the tech bros, and agent orange…,
a huge “Uh.., no thanks..”, appears in my mind.
“Meanwhile the rest of this article will help you go into all this with your eyes wide open.” Oh no it won’t.
I remember the old Canadian joke: “A gold mine is a hole in the ground with a liar standing next to it”.
Softly softly flee from monkey.
on a tangent, but similar in the entertainment level for
people who enjoy watching crazy geopolitical gambling in etf price form:
https://www.hl.co.uk/shares/shares-search-results/j/jpmorgan-emerging-europe,-middle-east-and-afr
(this is JEMA, the EM tracker that was about 80% Russia before 2022, note the premium/discount situation, and its correlation to Trump activity)
@DH – thanks for the heads up on BOLD. Looks interesting.
BTW, I think you got the allocations the wrong way round. Just checked and last update was 69% Gold, 31% BTC.
Opps. Yep typo. My bad.
Thanks @Algernond #27 for spotting.
BTC seems to be going through an uncharacteristic low vol spell.
This is usually either very good or very bad in terms of price action (what a tradable signal that one is ehh 😉 ). So I’d expect Gold to be a higher percentage of the BOLD ETN mix normally.
Having said that, BTC *should* become less volatile as its returns diminish over time (even if it continues up on price).
Reading the techno mumbo jumbo behind Bitcoin that 99.9999% of us don’t understand is reminiscent of the medieval Catholic church explaining the immaculate conception. Religion proved to be a profitable investment.
Stripped to its bare bones, it’s a game of bingo, with a lot of computing power trying to come up with the house numbers. I do wonder how we will look back on it all.
@PC – “Thanks for the article. I enjoy reading about crypto and at the same time I have no desire to touch it with my own money”
Yes, that sums it up for me. I would love a piece of 900% returns and the rest but am really not prepared to take the risk with a substantial amount of my hard gotten gains.
@Steve Lemon – I think your instinct is likely correct: that if we scratched under the surface of what’s possible within an ETC, it might not look so straightforward.
I’d guess the idea of tracking the gold price with a heap of gold in a vault seems intuitively simple to most of us.
Whereas buying a financial derivative, backing that with completely unrelated securities, and calling it – say – an Energy ETC does not.
So perhaps the sense of complexity emerges from the interaction of the underlying security and the vehicle?
AFAIK, UCITS ETFs are specifically meant to be mainstream investor friendly. An important aspect being that they’re diversified across a reasonable number of securities.
Hence gold, single commodities, IRL currencies, and crypto can’t be wrapped in ETF form.
It’s probably right that crypto isn’t parcelled up in a familiar format. The conversation here only confirms to me that crypto shouldn’t be a no-brainer investment.
Yet I’m constantly being bombarded by adverts for crypto platforms telling me I can be: “On-ramp in seconds! Just a coupla clicks! Invest your way!”
FFS.
Re: “doubts about its worth as an asset class in a wider portfolio” (from the piece): DE Shaw recently lay out the theoretical case for owning unproductive assets in a portfolio (they focus upon Gold, but what they say is, I think, also true for Bitcoin):
https://www.deshaw.com/library/worth-its-weight
But maybe not as true 😉
Gold’s been tested over 5,000 years, and deregulated for some 50 years.
In comparison, Bitcoin’s been around for less than 17 years, and deregulated in the US only since after the current incumbent’s inauguration on 20 January (and in the UK only as of the 8th next month).
And my guess is that it’s harder to crack an underground bullion vault – a la Die Hard With A Vengeance – than it would be to engineer a successful hack of a Bitcoin wallet, or indeed perhaps eventually of the Blockchain.
YMMV though.
@TA #30
Per others, it’s not for me but thank you for grappling with the subject matter. Reminds me, I’m looking forward to the forthcoming quarterly S&S Portfolio update. Much more my territory. 🙂